Old (Before 2.5?) Sample Pack For Registered Users

[bluszcz]

Hey,

where I can find old sample pack for Renoise (before version 2.5)?

I remember the ‘amen’ and ‘apache’ breaks there…

Plzzzz

[cocoa]

You could download and install version 2.5 from Renoise Backstage, then just grab the samples (confirmed this myself).

As dblue explains here, they took the amen and apache breaks out in 2.7 for legal (among other) reasons.

[vvoois (vV)]

The original amen brothers song is public domain. But imho about the amen sample:All possible sorts of combinations and effects have already been fired at it. I don’t understand why there are today still people who see any particular value in it. But if you really want it, there are plenty of places where you can download it.

[dblue]

@vV

The original amen brothers song is public domain.

Do you have a reliable source that says so?

I’ve often seen people say that the Amen break is in the “cultural public domain”, simply because so many damn people have used it freely for so long now, but if Wikipedia is to be believed then it’s definitely not in the actual public domain yet. It’s a copyrighted recording, and the copyright owner - Richard Lewis Spencer - is still very much alive as far as I know. Since copyright typically lasts anywhere from 50 to 100 years after the creator/owner’s death, the recording is unlikely to become true public domain for a long, long time.

The Amen break article on Wikipedia also says:

Neither the performer, drummer G.C. Coleman nor the copyright owner Richard L. Spencer has ever received any royalties or clearance fees for the use of the sample nor has either sought royalties. Spencer considers musical works based on the sample “plagiarism”.

Who knows why Spencer hasn’t tried to claim any royalties yet, when he clearly has a negative view of the sample being used in an unlicensed fashion. My guess is that he’s simply too old and tired by now, and probably doesn’t have the kind of money that would be required to essentially sue the entire music industry. It would be an interesting day if he ever did come into some money and found himself a really ruthless lawyer

People will of course continue to use the sample in their music. Hell, I’ve used it myself on a few occasions, although none of my music has ever been sold commercially. Nevertheless, it’s a copyrighted recording, so we’re all taking some risk each time we use it. The herd mentality that “everyone else uses it, so why shouldn’t I?” is not really the point here, in my opinion, and sets a bit of a bad example in general. But bad habits are hard to break I suppose.

[vvoois (vV)]

@dblue

Do you have a reliable source that says so?

I’ve often seen people say that the Amen break is in the “cultural public domain”, simply because so many damn people have used it freely for so long now, but if Wikipedia is to be believed then it’s definitely not in the actual public domain yet. It’s a copyrighted recording, and the copyright owner - Richard Lewis Spencer - is still very much alive as far as I know. Since copyright typically lasts anywhere from 50 to 100 years after the creator/owner’s death, the recording is unlikely to become true public domain for a long, long time.

So as it seems…

Here is another article with a critical note:
http://www.alcs.co.uk/news/archives/11_spring/amen_break.html

For Spencer and Coleman, who died in 2006, the sheer volume of theft made it impossible for them to pursue payment from those who misappropriated their work. If anything, the lesson of ‘the Amen Break’ is not how it encourages innovation, but a stark vision of how individual creators will be unable to maintain control over their work in a digital world.

@dblue

The Amen break article on Wikipedia also says:

Who knows why Spencer hasn’t tried to claim any royalties yet, when he clearly has a negative view of the sample being used in an unlicensed fashion. My guess is that he’s simply too old and tired by now, and probably doesn’t have the kind of money that would be required to essentially sue the entire music industry.

From the same piece that i linked above:

Open rights activists counter that we have copyright law on our side, and are in a position to protect our Intellectual Property. But that is based on an assumption that we are able to enforce the law. Most are not. The British Association of Journalists (BAJ) in its submission to Hargreaves sums up the dilemma faced by ripped off writers: the mechanism for enforcing IP rights is cumbersome and expensive for individuals. Instead of a relaxation of the law, what we need are better mechanisms for enforcing it.