signal wrote:I use the trial version of this on XP
http://www.imtoo.com/dvd-audio-ripper.html
which works well for short samples.
I jot down timecodes for the bits I want and run this app after I'm finished watching the DVD to rip the audio. The trial has a 5 minute limitation on recording time, so you can convert about 1 chapter at a time to .wav in one go. I think it writes to other file formats as well.
hambone1 wrote:
The problem with sampling soundtracks from many current movies is copyright violation. If it's for your own personal bedroom hobby use, you're probably OK. A pro wouldn't touch it, though, without permission from the rightful owner.
You're right about copyright violation, of course, and blatant sampling of films and such is a bad idea in commercial settings. Clearly, people writing music for a certain type of consumption (film, advertising, sound design, mass radio play, etc) are going to steer clear altogether unless they have the budget to buy access. That said, I always cringe when I see this argument made because unauthorized sampling is so much a part of the music that a great many people, myself included, have responded to in a very real way over the past 20 years.
I think the definition of "professional" or "rightful owner" is a good thing to consider at this point. The extreme example here is John Oswald. He's made a career out of his sonic thievery and I don't think one could argue very successfully that the careers of Michael Jackson or Dolly Parton have been meaningfully diminished as a result of his highly calculated, over-the-top recombinations. Christian Marclay is another example of someone who has applied the idea of sampling and misuse across many different forms of media. These artists exist more in a conceptual sphere outside of the well-worn jingles-for-hire scenario, but are no less relevant and are only the tip of the iceberg.
This argument also assumes that the sampled material can even be identified out of context. Dialogue and scores are problematic, of course, and I definitely support the compensation of artists who have had their material sampled, but I fail to see the problem with it in most instances. Even outside of the bedroom or hobby scenario in arguably professional use.
At the end of the day, few people (read lawyers and accountants) are going to pay any attention unless significant revenue is being generated by the sampled sounds. My take on it is that, creatively, everyone should use exactly what they want in order to express themselves. If that includes chopping out blockbuster movie dialogue or the sound of Dick Cheney's shotgun going off, so be it. Just be prepared for the fallout on the chance that someone bothers to hassle you about it. Also, it is not unheard of for artists to welcome the sampling of their material. Not everyone carries that Draconian gene. It can be done in a respectful way that the sampled artists themselves can respond to and enjoy.
Back to the definition of professional. Take labels like Planet-Mu, Tigerbeat, and countless other small operations for instance. I find it difficult to believe that those guys clear every sample. Shitmat? I mean, come on. True, I’m not talking about the Danny Elfman’s and Ennio Morricone’s of the world. This is more guerilla art/commerce/entertainment. Sample it, twist it, and distribute it in a quick and dirty fashion. Frankly, it's giving the people what they want and the numbers are not big enough to draw fire in most cases. The result is that new and valid pieces of music are created and shared and a few folks even manage to support themselves in the process. More importantly, a public dialogue is created/continued and boundaries are pushed. The world of music would become a sad and desolate place if all appropriation were to suddenly stop.
This can be extended to the whole of dance and experimental music and their various step-children. How many 12 inches have been pressed over the years that are based around a large chunk of pilfered music? Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands and many of those artists/producers would consider themselves professionals. Additionally, I'm not convinced the world would be a better place if the multinational corporation who owns the rights to a recording gets paid every time someone samples a one bar bass line played by a long-deceased session musician.
This isn’t really a rant directed at Hambone because his comment is true and practical. That said, I think it’s important to remember that culture moves forward only by feeding on itself. This invariably includes theft and misappropriation. This is not always a bad thing. The ongoing legislative push to extend copyright durations out into infinity is a bad thing. Absurdly long copyright terms are only nominally about protecting the interests of artists. The primary thrust of these laws is to feed the coffers of corporations well beyond reason and effectively help to limit the options available to creative people everywhere.
So, yeah. Use that DVD audio ripper thing.