I have a very basic question regarding all the sample licensing issues and some of the rights to use.
If you can\'t compose/arrange/orchestrate using samples you purchase, and then market the result as your own works (as in movie sound tracks).....what is the point of using samples? Is it just for your own amazement?
I think samples are like the sounds a specific guitar or flute or horn makes when you play them, and just one source of the raw material to create music with. Is this not so?
Yes, there is work involved in creating the sounds and articulations etc, but isn\'t this what you pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for? The \"manufacturer\'s\" efforts?
What is the logic of not permitting a sample to be used for a totally original work that is to be marketed? The sample is no more the \'creation\' than the \'sound\'of a guitar.
Pay for the work that was done to create it? YES. Pay just because the \'sounds\' used are the source of someone\'s original musical creation? NO
It\'s like saying.......here\'s a recording of the pledge of alliegence......You can buy it and recite it, but you can\'t use any of the words to make a new speech, and sell it, woutout paying me a license fee.