Since stem splitting became so easy (e.g. Logic’s stem splitter is now, frankly, incredible), I’ve noticed more and more accounts on Bandcamp offering, for sale, remixes, re-edits and reworks (whatever they are) of major artists and major hits from the past.
The quality varies, of course, and some of the accounts are linked to producers who have a recognised history in their genres:
I’m wondering how this works in legal terms? It’s not like they are offering these for free, they are making money from them - although who knows how much. Don’t Bandcamp have policies about copyright in situations like this? Some of the originals are on major labels and I wonder how they feel about it? Or am I overthinking it and I should just sit back and enjoy the Random House Project rework of Talk Talk, which is a bonafide banger?
would be cool if a music producer on here could explain how it all works these days. Have never been too clear about the ownership side. eg when ‘Mindless Boogie’ used to pump out edits/remixes, would the original artist/estate have cleared it or got a % - or was it borderline piracy?
Can’t believe it can possibly be kosher without clearance as it’s basically one big sample.
If they aren’t selling it and just using it in their sets then can’t see the harm really.
Even distributing it for £0 could be problematic.
Had a very interesting chat the other day with an IP lawyer, he basically gets stuff taken down from YT etc, mainly to protect IP rather than getting any compensation, mostly far eastern companies bootlegging soundtracks.
Definitely not legal and its covered under Bandcamp’s terms. You can face a takedown or ban
As to why they dont seem to properly police it, I suspect the vast majority of these bootleg creators are considered small fry and in most cases the orignal music is less popular / obscure and so maybe considered not worth the hassle or cost of pursuing? Or they might rely on the publishers or rights owners of the music to flag it.
Setting the cost at 0.00 might be another factor, I dont know. All a bit murky for sure, but if you thew up a a mash up of something like Taylor Swift for example, I think there’s strong chance you’d get collared
I’ve seen some of these edit merchants put up tracks for £3.00 with little more than a kick drum added to the original. Absolute liberty
I think we just need to accept that they are part of ‘the scene.’
Realistically they have been happening since day one and I’d be surprised if anyone on here hasn’t purchased at least a few of them. My biggest problem with them is that so many of them are garbage.
As with when it was on white labels, if its small numbers on a low level you can usually get away with it. Some artists and labels are a bit particular about it and will get anything taken down though.
A mate of mine does reworks of early 90s rave + piano house stuff and hasn’t had any problems but he also knows not to touch material on certain labels. Bit of unspoken/iykyk thing in those circles apparently.
I did a brief run of old school hip hop themed mash ups with him over 15 years ago and they’re all still available on Juno Download now (+ occasionally still selling!)
Yea, as someone who’s both sides of this conversation I do find it odd on Bandcamp and other platforms. I’ve made some (hopefully) tasteful edits/remixes and now mainly work in versions/covers that’s still a grey area but less so. Have also cleared a sample or two. Always rename things as a nod to the original, still hold guilt about the process - although it’s definitely a big part of the scene and half my records have uncleared samples on them.
Then I will be buying music via Bandcamp myself and see so so many ‘remixes’ for sale with just a kick drum behind the track and full artist and track name, and of mainstream artists too not lesser known disco tracks, always confused/surprised by the brashness of it. There maybe more since stem splitting, but there has always been a lot. Maybe the bad ones will be better now? ha. As others have said I think it’s considered small fry, if it’s even noticed at all, but is very visible to those in the scene.
In similar territory, with grey area copyright but noticeable from producers and DJs hopefully -
There was a release of mine that sold well, then I noticed someone else with a lot more following than me (MVP ) doing a basic-kick-drum-behind-track remix of the same track 6 months later, didn’t think much of it as it’s it’s edit, and I don’t have rights over it so up to them, saw it being repressed for them and selling lots.
Then I saw posts from another producer who does edits, saying the guy had done the same thing with a well selling one of his - and hadn’t used the original - had used his edit record (recognisable from a mistake in the edit) and just put a kick behind it - then his kickdrum version was in top 10 forthcoming on Juno.
Kinda frustrating and on respect levels, but that’s all part of the game/scene I guess
there’s just a lot of lazy chancers around with no real passion for music. The only effective filter is sticking to names you know and trust (and their recommendations)
And these vinyl only edits from the past are, in theory, now not available for trading on Discogs too - I assume because they are unlicensed. Although that seems to be applied inconsistently too.
I think it’s basically on the label/artist to go complain and get things taken down. Bandcamp doesn’t seem to have an “auto takedown” feature like YouTube, probably because it costs too much money for them to keep it up. So the labels/artists are the ones who have to go doing all the work, and qho has the time/resources?
Discogs “unofficial release” thing is an absolute mess. Songs with uncleared samples lumped in with bootlegs of new releases and 30 year old bootleg pressings of tracks that havent been avaliable for 40 years.
There was a rumour back in the day when they really started cracking down on unofficial releases that Discogs was preparing a sale to Amazon and so had to fix some of these indiscretions. No idea if true and in the end it didn’t happen. Or hasn’t yet.
I remember that. As that doesnt seem to have materialised, and taking into account everything they have done before and since, its just standard Discogs incompetence.
) doing a basic-kick-drum-behind-track remix of the same track 6 months later, didn’t think much of it as it’s it’s edit, and I don’t have rights over it so up to them, saw it being repressed for them and selling lots.