On Sat Aug 12 15:25 R Parker <rtp405@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>--- Patrick Shirkey pshirkey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>> Ron,
>>
>> I haven't heard it but,
>>
>> ====================
>> if (it was mixed live on tX)
>> then it is a DJ mix which can be considered in
>> certain circumstances,
>> an original work;
>
>That's what they call originality?
>
>> On top of that(until it makes money or gets
>> significant international
>> exposure and airplay){
>> the labels who own the original tracks won't even
>> know it exists;
>> =====================
>What does "not knowing it exists" have to do with
>using someone else's property when your violating the
>owner rights?
>How do think the owners of GPL licensed software will
>feel when this behaviour you subscribe to becomes the
>norm for their source code? What distinguishes a DJ
>from the person who violates those rights?
>
>> the liklihood of that happening around here is slim
>> to non existant.
>> So, If you are going to complain every time a DJ
>> makes a remix
>
>Please don't use a personal attacks when debating with
>me.
>There is a system in place that enables you to use
>property that other people own the rights to. Be
>responsible and learn to use it.
>There's plenty I'd like to say but ironically enough I
>have a session with a DJ for whom we wrote the beats.
>It'll go about six or eight hours. Maybe I'll check in
>later to see what's up. Maybe I won't.
>
>Ron Parker
>Mirror Image Studio
>
>>
>> R Parker wrote:
>> >
>> > --- Andrew Lewis alewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's a mash-up of other artists stuff, so it can
>> >>be considered
>> >> non-free/probably copyright infringement
>> >
>> > You think?
>> >
>> >> - if you are the artist or their
>> >> representation, please don't sue!
>> >
>> > I have great appreciation for the licensing of the
>> > software we use and the respect people pay to
>> >those terms.
>> > When you flagarantly violate expressed rights and
>> >then fly it in my face, I have to tell you to cease these
>> > activities. If nothing else, this demand
>> >disassociates me from you and your act of copyright violation.
>> >
>> >> I'm using TerminatorX to make some mixes of my
>> >> original material too (which
>> >> I'm sorry to say at this point - was made mostly
>> >> with 'that other OS', but my
>> >> Linux stuff is coming along).
...
>> >> Artists I should credit (those of which I can
>> >> remember in any case):
>> >>
>> >> part1: Kevin Blechdom, Minibosses, Dev/Null,
>> >> Xanopticon, Maldoror
>> >> part2: Radiohead, Gold Chains & Sue Cie, Nirvana,
>> >> Vladislav Delay, Some
>> >> bollywood music I forget :\
...
>> >> That will be all,
>> >> Andrew
I don't want to turn this into a big argument, but I just want to say one thing.
There is no copyright infringement involved in this tune that was posted. Although he did use samples from copyrighted
works, that alone does not constitute copyright infringement. I won't go ahead and cite US copyright law (and it's not some
little loophole either), but basically since there is no money being exchanged for this song and we as listeners are playing
this in a private setting, this entire thing is perfectly legal.
I won't/can't comment on originality of this work, as I'm not familiar with most of the artists Andrew cited. But I did like it,
Andrew.
The moral issue is another thing... but Andrew made it very clear that it wasn't original source material, he cited the artists
he used, and he made no attempt to pass it off as his own.
So anyway, as I said, I didn't write this to start a debate, I won't be posting anything else on this thread. I just felt
something should be said about the legality of this.
-Mike
P.S. The system in place was meant to protect publishers, not artists. But that's another topic we can discuss elsewhere.
