Hartmut Noack wrote:
if you would use the licence, that I use for my stuff, you would have
this opportunity, if you use the licence, you recommend for everybody
you would have the chance to be sued if you claim to have made the track
he used (because he does not need to mention you and can easily claim,
it is his work)
I don't recommend it for everybody. Just in the case where the artist
wants to get a cut of any earnings made from the future use of their work.
Anyway, your example doesn't wash. If it was true then the Verve could
have sued the label that owns the Rolling Stones sample they used in
"Bitter Sweet Symphony". That is completely the opposite of what
happened and no precedent has ever been set for the case you outline.
Not right, for i would not use the corrupt and stupid "copyright" law to
get my claims in the first place but ask the user of my stuff for some
respect personally without a lawyer involved.
That's a good start but in most cases unlikely to get you any money.
Maybe so but money is not the preliminary target.
It is if you use a commercial copyright.
By far the vast majority of people dancing and listening to music have
absolutely no idea of the history of music apart from a couple of
Beatles tracks and a few of their favorite songs.
the vast majority loves Madonna and thinks, Bon Jovi is a Heavy Metal
Band - these majority-people are no reference to anything about music/art
Except they are the ones who spend the most money at itunes and make the
most requests for crap songs at clubs and just so happen to spend the
most money on music in general.
On top of that telling other people on this list who have got the balls
to share their work with the community to *effectively* fcuk off until
they make something "Original" is an outright insult.
Anyone who backs up Ron on that one had better get ready to have a
fight, and I use knives so you better be packing!! ;-]
BTW I respect Ron and his work but I am not prepared to let that little
slight go by. tX is a highly undervalued piece of software and anyone
who uses it deserves more encouragement to do whatever the hell they
feel like with it. If a member of this list personally doesn't like
artwork that is made public here then they are free to criticize it but
telling someone to stop doing what they are doing because they are not
original is BS.
At leas I did never made such statement - i like the stuff you make and
it is OK with me, that you use samples from others to do so, still i
think that those others should not go unnoticed.
I didn't make the track in question. However I have remixed several
tracks which incorporate samples from other peoples work with varying
degrees of appreciation from people who have listened. I am not the only
one to do it and I defend the freedom I have to do it whether it is
deemed illegal in some countries or not.
In fact I have yet to hear any truly original music being released by
anyone in this community. Should we all just give up now?
There are hundreds of tracks made in the community allready, that do not
incorporate a single second of any previously published record. DJing is
not the only way to make music...
I have yet to hear a truly original piece from this community. Even if
it is created with original recordings and samples. Everything I have
listened to takes influence from the work of others or attempts to
emulate a sound that has already been discovered (occasionally with
excellent technical execution).
I don't say this lightly as I have been listening to tracks recorded and
released by this community for 7 years.
Which makes me again question how anyone on this list feels comfortable
singling someone out to let them know their work isn't original because
it doesn't meet their standard for copyrighted material.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://lau.linuxaudio.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
"Anything your mind can see you can manifest physically, then it will
become reality" - Macka B
