Freesound Forums

dobroide wrote:
But why would someone upload stolen sounds to a CC sound repository in the first place? Plain idiocy? An expression of hostility? To hurt the site reputation? What do you people think?

D

It can be any of the reasons aforementioned. But, I think in this case it's pure plagiarism; someone passing off a sound as their own to gain kudos from the community and a sense of self worth from the downloads that ensue. We know this because the user has lied about the methods of creating the sound in question, particularly the house loop that is a rip from a song.

Thanks Dheming for posting this.

Luckily I have not downloaded this sounds.

I'm wondering what would happen if someone used these sounds "accidently" in a commercial production?
Do companies like Sound Ideas listen to productions and then file a lawsuites? I know something like this sorta happens with unlicensed images but that's much easiert to track via algorithms.

And: How about a messaging system that informs people of removed samples? So they can check if they downloaded them.

Seems unlikely they would go after producers in a case like this. It would be hard to prove that a specific sample was acquired illegally I think. More likely they focus on shutting down illegal distribution, issuing DMCA take down notices and the like.

dobroide wrote:
(...) that would prove that (1) some people manage to inject stolen sounds into FS;(2) these can remain +one year (after being marked as stolen by someone who obviously knows what he's talking about); and indirectly suggests (3) samples here are to some extent unsupervised/the moderation phase has serious drawbacks. I don't like any of the three conclusions above, find it quite dissapointing and make me uneasy as well.

Hi dobroide

The sound in question has now been removed.
The fact that some illegal samples pass throught the moderation process is something that, of course, leaves me uneasy.
Of course, the Moderation process is essentially a check by humans and, as such, is falible. Still better than any computer program that could be conceived in a a reasonable amount of time with the resources available to Freesound... I guess...
The moderation process is about helping users to comply with copyright and also with description and tagging good practice. "Helping" as in "assisting someone to do something they already want to do."
If the user is intended in defrauding the system and uploading illegal contents, the moderatoin problem becomes a lot more difficult. - Moderators, of course, do not know every piece of music ever written or every synth patch and loop ever made...
Currently Freesound has over 330,000 sounds. Despite our goodwill, a small portion of those could contain copyright infringements.

dobroide wrote:
But why would someone upload stolen sounds to a CC sound repository in the first place? Plain idiocy? An expression of hostility? To hurt the site reputation? What do you people think?

AlienXXX wrote:
There is actually a law of physics that says that if something is not absolutely forbiden by the laws of physics, it will surely happen (eventually).

Sorry if I'm going a bit off topic here.

Maybe you're thinking of Murphy's Law. It's not actually a law of physics though, it's an Epigram.

Or

There are a few laws stated within in the Improbability Principle, which is more mathematics than physics:

Most notably the Law of Inevitability and Law of Truly Large Numbers

ImprobabilityPrinciple.com

I'm just saying this because I find the subject highly interesting. One of my favourite books is The Improbability Principle

Hi Headphaze

I saw that statment somewhere in a Physics book.
Yes, in rigor it is probabilities (Statistics) applied to Physics: basically something very unlikely is sure to happen if you can wait an enourmous amount of time. The only events that will not happen are the ones with probability =0, which means they violate the laws of Physics...
So, something that is not prohibited by the laws of Physics is sure to happen (sometime, somewhere...), even if it looks very unlikely.

So Maths, Physics.... The line is very blurry anyway...

AlienXXX wrote:
Hi Headphaze

I saw that statment somewhere in a Physics book.
Yes, in rigor it is probabilities (Statistics) applied to Physics: basically something very unlikely is sure to happen if you can wait an enourmous amount of time. The only events that will not happen are the ones with probability =0, which means they violate the laws of Physics...
So, something that is not prohibited by the laws of Physics is sure to happen (sometime, somewhere...), even if it looks very unlikely.

So Maths, Physics.... The line is very blurry anyway...

This adage springs to mind:

If you give a monkey a typewriter and an infinite amount of time randomly typing out characters, eventually it will type out the entire works of Shakespeare. Or words to that effect.

p.s. Maths is the language of science anyway

modularsamples wrote:
Seems unlikely they would go after producers in a case like this. It would be hard to prove that a specific sample was acquired illegally I think. More likely they focus on shutting down illegal distribution, issuing DMCA take down notices and the like.

They don't have to prove you downloaded the sample illegaly.

You have to prove that you downloaded the sample legally and have a license.

Krztok wrote:

They don't have to prove you downloaded the sample illegaly.

You have to prove that you downloaded the sample legally and have a license.

Well it's not black and white really is it. To resolve a copyright claim it depends on wether or not the accused is denying the accusation, in which case they would have to prove they did not plagiarise, whilst the accuser would need evidence for the claim also. It works both ways usually.

In reality this is how disputes are settled if one party accuses and the other party denies the accusation.

It is the accusers job though at first to provide evidence for the claim, then how it proceeds is a matter of disposition I suppose.