22 Dec
2002
22 Dec
'02
10:35 a.m.
Often, for legal reasons, the owner of the copyrighted loop would have
to come after you to protect their copyrights. If a loops company
chooses to let someone distribute their loops without proper licensing,
even in small amounts, then when a big company comes along and does the
same thing, the big company can say the loop manufacturer has
demonstrated that they don't care about their copyrights.
However, I think that this isn't where you want to be anyway, since
you're not interested in distributing copyrighted loops. (Right?)
I'd think you'd want to get in touch with a couple of loop owners and
find out how you could keep your library clean and also keep them happy.
Maybe if you put the onus on them to provide the loop information, so
that you can keep the library clean, then if they don't you can say they
didn't care.
On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 06:17, Darren Landrum wrote:
I think this is a good point. A company which will
deal with that
situation only by lawsuits and demands to shut down the system is
clearly out to destroy, and nothing you do will stop that goal.
I guess it all depends on the company. Most of the loop-makers and
sample-makers are small companies, specializing in only their areas.
Would a company like that be unreasonable, or would they be willing to
accept that we are doing all we can to keep our library uncorrupted?
Regards,
Darren Landrum
On Saturday, December 21, 2002, at 11:35 PM, Speaker to Vegetables
wrote:
It's really more a political problem than a
technical one, isn't it?
MD5
checksums may still be useful as part of a strategy of making it clear
to all interested parties that one is doing what one can to keep
materials that are not legitimately publicly distributable out of the
library. Anyone who demands more than that has clearly abandoned
reasonableness and can only be dealt with by unreasonable means.