On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 13:57 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > Well, the liklihood of me remixing a tune from anyone on this list > without letting them know well in advance is pretty slim. > > But in my book any tune which I have... > > A: paid for > B: Remixed live and found a way to either improve or modify it to make > a > new point > C: found a sample that helps me to save time and money Really, the problem is that copyright law does not distinguish between a DJ who samples copyrighted music for his gigs where a few hundred people turn out at best, and a huge movie studio that uses a copyrighted song in a soundtrack for a movie that grosses millions without paying. Obviously (IMHO anyway) the first should be legal, the second illegal. At least, if I were the copyright owner I'd feel ripped off by the latter, but not the former. IOW, I agree that some aspects of copyright law are broken and don't reflect reality, but I believe the concept of copyright is valid. I had a DJ friend who made an entire album using only samples from Metallica's "And Justice For All" - it was brilliant, and if you didn't know, you'd have no idea it was all Metallica samples. That should obviously be legal, and just as obviously, Puff Daddy taking Zep's "Kashmir" and looping it over a beat without paying for it would (and should) be illegal. Unfortunately, to really have a fair copyright law, I'm afraid you'd have to adopt a "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" type definition. Lee
