13 Aug
2006
13 Aug
'06
12:31 a.m.
On Saturday 12 August 2006 4:00 pm, mike(a)mikesperone.com wrote:
On Sat Aug 12 15:25 R Parker <rtp405(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
Sorry, but this is simply not the case. As with many IP issues, It's not
possible to determine whether a particular instance is considered fair use
until it is directly challenged in court, or examined with respect to legal
precedent. That said, there is little doubt that outside of private in-home
listening, fair use of music is extremely limited.
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html
Greg
--- Patrick Shirkey
pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com>
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(a)systemsfusion.com> 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.