Whats your go to online music distribution service for STEMS?

The reason we won't see mainstream stems is because they couldn't give a **** about the DJ market. The revenues for stems would be next to nothing.

 

Yes, of course, and the tutorials. That's why I arrived at the conclusions I did.

 

Well that was my assumption also. If I sell stems, with my vocal soloable, I would hope people put their own music under my vocal. That would be the whole point... to make it easy to remix a song. My focus isn't live DJing, but studio production, and song composition, so of course, that's where my head is about this, and how I'm thinking what I do could be used.

 

So the answer to the post is going to be either Beatport, which seems to be moving stems ok, the other sites are pretty much the same as Beatport, I just don't bother unless I start seeing some different content since I have always used Beatport. I have bought a ton of music from them.
And I will probably buy some stem parts from Dubseed, right now I have only had some spare time to fiddle with the free content and the Stem creator tool. Which is a different type of site or store than Beatport, etc. Because the user has to finish the job of combining (actual) stem parts and also subject to content that could be better or worse as it is more open to the public for uploads.
As far as Stems and major labels go, there is stuff out there it just takes a lot of time to line it up properly in a DAW. And of course you better not sell it or really promote the mixes.
In general I am not surprised the content will exclude, for the most part, major artists works in a Stem format. But the hope is that this style of mixing takes off, then the content and movement towards a monetary value may happen more often. But yeah never will every artist make it all available not even for huge amounts of money. There is too much pride and work that goes into making music and the industry sell to the main buyer, which is never going to be a remixer, unless every one starts going home from the day at the office to mix music with the family.
I do agree I guess, even if the track is put into its parts it is not mine to give away free or make money from a (better than) bootleg mix.

I guess the main issue is from a legal perspective, a Stem format track is still a playable version that if disributed without consent is not lawful. But the point is also if sold as a Stem format track by an artist then the content is expected to be used as a tool and remixed. In a way it's like giving up the rights to the content by saying go ahead and change this as you wish.
I noticed that the legal stipulations on stems in a contest usually have disclaimers for only being submitted to the contest for mixing, not for redistribution as new versions.

 

The Stem format is a packaged file with the intent of being used right now only in Traktor to mix by isolating and manipulating the parts. Producing a new track in a DAW by extracting the parts is a bit more complex. But full of more possibilities.
I think the live and more accessible dj mixing in Traktor just means way more use and if more software starts using this quick format it means a giant amount of remixes available to buy or download for free since the artist has let the parts become a tool.
Which makes me also wonder if anyone is allowed to change the Stem with say a different vocal or add a few changes then resell it or distribute it freely?

 

They can if the seller is allowing it, either via creative commons, or with an end user agreement at time of sale.

 

I'm definitely not disagreeing with you, what you are saying makes sense.
But the confusion is in the idea that the Stem format is expected to be changed and used in any way a person who purchases it wants, otherwise why would someone make it so easy to do?
No matter how hard the work is to make all the parts and how attached I am to some track I may make, if I put the parts of it out there to be used, I can't really complain or take legal action to stop a what I made possible. If I belong to a label and the label decides that the content is copyrighted, then I can only guess it won't be made available as a format intended for remixing.

 

Nonsense. Acappellas, instrumentals and drum tracks have appeared on records since at least the early 80's. Stem's are DJ tools in the same way they are and subject to the same copyright laws.

As for the part in bold I've no idea how you came to that conclusion. The format is packaged, it's not the individual elements sold separate. It's a DJ tool that allows you to isolate sub sections of the track within the released arrangement of that track in compatible DJ software. That's it.

What you've basically said is if I don't lock my front door then you're welcome to come in and take what you like. Why would I have left it like that otherwise?

 

Ok I digress and instead leave this to somewhat define stem use.
http://djtechtools.com/2012/03/25/legal-concerns-for-digital-djs-should-i-worry-about-copyright/

The main part to look at is the "fair use" area.

Basically it comes down to intent and seems to be handled case by case. Stems mentioned in the article are not what we are discussing, but the use of distributed audio is.
The questions of intent do seem to ride on money and the actual music labels and not sampling of using just anyone's work.
So of course it can't be claimed as your own, but to distribute without intent of claiming ownership and fair use in clubs and remixes has no definite answer.

 

That's not the same as assuming permissions. Sampling, bootlegging etc have gone on long before the digital era and in truth the only time it is ever likely to get you in trouble is if you're making serious money. You might get served with a take down notice for stuff on youtube or Soundcloud but it generally won't land you in court.