Print

[wvl]

Link to module:

https://modarchive.org/module.php?183142

Link to compilation which features the original track:

https://youtu.be/cDsrAapzZ1s

Link to ripper's account:

https://modarchive.org/member.php?86572

As stated in my comment, this module is a rip of Run CMD by Hoffman, which is used in the module compilation i linked. All the original patterns have been removed from the module sequence, a few samples have been changed as well, and it has been changed from a .MOD to an .IT file. Since the original module isn't on TMA, it probably got past the duplicate module filter.

[Saga Musix]

Okay, I think you're taking my recent rant about plagiarism a little bit too literal.
Building on top of other people's samples has long been a tradition in the tracking scene. Yes, there is a handful of samples which can be tracked back to h0ffman's track (together with other samples coming from GM.DLS), but it doesn't even remotely have anything to do with the original track, musically speaking.
If we were going after people using other people's samples, you could instantly delete 90% of the Mod Archive. Using a recognizable drumline sample may not prove a high degree of originality by the author, but it also is not a crime.

I removed your unfair rating full of profanity from the module's comment page since it was completely inappropriate.

[wvl]

I totally get what you mean with taking other people's samples. I do that myself too, i use a lot of samples from classic modules, and i've made a few tracks only using the sampleset of another module as a challenge. But that's only talking about the samples.

The reason why i think this is plagiarism is that Jazz didn't only take the samples, he took an entire module and wrote a new song over it without giving credit. The patterns from the original song are still in the file. I'm not talking about Jazz just re-using the drumloop from the original - i'm talking about the fact that he took Hoffman's original module including the module name, pattern data, etc, and he altered it without permission. Pretty much, there's content in Jazz' module that he didn't create himself nor did he give credit or get permission to use it.

It seems to me that you're overlooking that, as you're only mentioning the sample usage.

[Saga Musix]

Okay, so we can clearly see that the original patterns and all the pattern data is still preserved in the module. But if you were going to play those patterns one after another, you will quickly notice that they will sound completely butchered and it actually requires a lot of work (and knowing what the original module sounded like) to get these to sound "as intended" again. Please don't assume malice here but rather assume that the artist was too lazy (or unknowledgeable) to clean up the module and remove all the original unused data. There are dozens of similar tunes on ModArchive (both recent and ancient) where people forget to remove unused patterns and samples after they started off their tune by taking someone else's module and adding new patterns to it.

Whether this was done with or without permission you cannot really tell but knowing h0ffman personally, I'm pretty sure he would not mind at all about this module. Sure, his original patterns are still buried somewhere deep in there, but it requires a bit of knowledge to find them, and I think that if you have this knowledge, you are also one of those persons who know that people often take other modules and start a new song from scratch "on top" of those modules, and that those butchered patterns are the result of it. Let's be honest, h0ffman's track is much higher quality than this module, and I think it would be easy to recognize for anyone finding those "hidden" patterns that they were made by a much more skilled person than those that are actually playing in the order list.

In addition, you will find that the artist did not add any personalized sample text at all - some of the samples even still refer to h0ffman's original sample texts. This would be an entirely different issue if the artist claimed in the sample text that all samples and patterns are their own - but they do not do that, which again I would classify as laziness rather than malice. I'm totally on your side that people should remove the original patterns and add proper credits to their module (I am sometimes this close to rejecting a module because it's ten times the requires size due to containing huge amounts of unused data); but I really don't think that we would get anywhere by driving people away for these mistakes and calling them out for plagiarism. A more positive and an encouraging comment to leave on this module would be something like "Next time, please remove all unused samples and patterns and give credits to who you took your samples from."