On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:08:57PM +0200, Sebastian Gutsfeld wrote: [plug] You might be interested in some open source software I wrote for Gameboy Advance; http://looper.mccormick.cx/ and some other software for Commodore64 ;) http://mccormick.cx/viewcvs/aSid/ [/plug] Best, Chris. ------------------- chris(a)mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 12:54:02PM +0200, Sebastian Gutsfeld wrote: Oh you really have to get some paddles and hook up your c64 to a big amp. There is truly no sound like a c64 filter sweep coming from a bass amp. My pleasure. Best, Chris. ------------------- chris(a)mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx

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; 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; ===================== 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 then you better stock up on coffee and get your toothpicks out to keep your eyes open as you type ;P Oh, Did I mention :-P R Parker wrote: -- 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

R Parker wrote: GPL anything can be freely remixed. What's your point? HuH? Up to you. -- 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

R Parker wrote: I believe its' a personal choice that a digital musician makes to incorporate legally or illegally any influence they feel intrinsic to the nature of their artwork. If we as artists are going to be held back by the rules that the industry has created to monetize art then we might as well go and jump off a tall building now. Also, I prefer the GPL because it means that anyone small who copies work I release under it doesn't have to worry about me chasing them down with a lawyer and is a relatively safe bet that companies that are paranoid about IP will not incorporate it directly into their code and claim it as their own. Apart from that it is up to the owner of artwork that is being "stolen" to chase it up. There exist many organizations that will do it on their behalf. If it gets to that point then you will probably be able to make money off the next track you release. If I was the owner of a piece of work that was ripped off and also made a lot of money I would be calling my lawyers to get my fair share. In that case I would be fairly happy that someone else had made more money for me without much further effort on my behalf and I'm sure my lawyer would be happy too. -- 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

Greg Wilder wrote: Yep. If you own it and you want to sue then go ahead. If you want to discourage DJ's from remixing or even playing your tunes then you have the right attitude. Ahem, That wasn't the industry that created that rule. Those are your words, not mine! If I incorporate parts of your recorded material into my own pieces and you don't notice does it make any difference? My experience of the music industry is that everyone is trying to rip each other off. How else do we explain the amount of crap that is produced to make money and retain residencies at "insert Your favorite club here"? If I release a track with a copyright that doesn't allow unlicensed reproduction or distribution it is my express desire that someone will make a remix that sells in the thousands so I can sue their ass and get some extra money from it, get more exposure for my original work and increase my profile through a highly visible publicity campaign explaining how hard done by I am that my music as ripped off and how amazing my original work is that someone would want to rip it off in hte first place. Why else would I want to protect my IP other than making as much money as possible from it? -- 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

On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 00:57 +0200, Hartmut Noack wrote: Are you saying that programming is less creative and original and "personal" (whatever that means) than writing and recording music? I definitely disagree. -- Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E

Hartmut Noack wrote: That shouldn't be a reason to stop people from using your work and incorporating it into their own art. Art transforms over time through the application of skills and knowledge learnt. If we get precious about other artists incorporating our work then we are just trying to stop a natural process of evolution. From my POV that is absolutely 100% pointless. However, if you want to make money from your art and you want make sure that others who make money from using your art are forced to share their profit with you it makes sense to license your work with very strict conditions. That way you can sue if the money is worth it and keep another industry ticking over too. Plus you get all the other benefits like being able to say your suing "XXX" for theft of your art work while your rubbing shoulders with lesser mortals at the next society event. And if you are really lucky the person you are suing will be there too and you can get really artistic and have a drunken fight or break something... I mean if you are going to have the airs of being and important artist you might as well revel in it... Right? -- 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

Hartmut Noack wrote: That's a big leap to make. I compare it to graphic art like a collage made up of newspaper clippings or a video of Doublwa or his poodle with TV speeches edited and juxtaposed to say what they really mean they start dribbling on TV. In those cases do you really care where the original media came from? If you have any brains you can work it out anyway. If I had a license that allowed him to do it then that's my problem if not then I would certainly follow it up and be excited about the opportunity of getting: a. associated with Trent Reznor b. A big studio payout c. Publicity for my original work d. The chance to talk about it when I'm in the company of people I need to impress... That's a good start but in most cases unlikely to get you any money. True, but how many listeners know the difference between a song crafted 100% without any other artists work and a song that had a couple of samples incorporated? For example. How many people would know the name of the Artists Moby sampled for his signature track? He is very open about it and has full permission to use it, he even lists the original artist on his CD. 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. Getting upset about someone making a remix and not mentioning the original author is pissing in the wind. It happens constantly in the music industry and is never going to stop. Most people don't even care who made the song or where it came from if they can dance, drink or get laid when it's playing. 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. I have yet to meet a DJ who has not got a sample in their collection or has not been heavily influenced by someone else's music to the point of having a couple of tracks that emulate or borrow heavily from the "originator". In fact you can't really call yourself a DJ if you don't have other peoples work in your collection. 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? -- 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

Hartmut Noack wrote: 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. It is if you use a commercial copyright. 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. 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. 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

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 09:34:25PM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: On the surface, this seems like a good argument. I scratched my head for a while trying to figure out what was wrong with it, because something seemed wrong. Finally I came up with this: It does not follow that since you appreciate/enjoy something, that you ought to have the "freedom" or "right" to do it, because sometimes things that you appreciate/enjoy doing can impact negatively on other people. When this happens, the law often steps in to protect the other people. Here is a story about such a situation: http://langintro.com/kintro/whycc.htm -- Ryan Heise http://www.ryanheise.com/

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 03:30:27PM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: Hmm :-( Here you are implying that my point was about terrorism. It wasn't at all. The example I gave (which you removed from your quote) was about someone taking someone else's work and changing it to make it look like the original author supported a certain view that he did not. What is the harm in asking the original author first before using their work in a certain way? It is actually quite a thoughtful and respectful thing to do. Again, what is the harm in asking someone if you can use a bit of their song in a certain context before actually doing it? The law you are talking about "breaking" is essentially suggesting to you that you ought to follow a not-so-radical idea called "respect". To save writing it in another email, I'll also state here that I support the view that music produced by mixing bits of other people's songs together is a valid art form, and such music typically contains interesting sounds and harmonies that are not present individually in the original songs. But there is a thoughtful and respectful way to produce such music that involves talking to the original artists first. -- Ryan Heise http://www.ryanheise.com/

On 8/15/06, Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com> wrote: This argument doesn't seem to make sense. So what you are saying is: 1)Because the original owner is not conveniently accessible to you, the rules do not apply. Therefore, any rule/law that is inconvenient does not apply. 2)Because the use is personal (shared among friends), rules do not apply. 3)Those who do see the value in a shared standard of rules/laws are from another world. This is situational ethics. Changing the rules in the middle of the game, no matter how much the rules suck, is morally wrong. If you disagree with the rules, don't play the game, or work to change them. Or did I misunderstand this line of thinking? -- Josh Lawrence http://www.hardbop200.com

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:21:24AM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: You finally discovered my point. That it is art, that it can be appreciated and enjoyed, was not in question by me. It *is* art. A literary work can also be written by mixing together pieces of other literary works, and the result is still a literary work. What I, and others, have tried to point out, however, is that even though valid art can be produced in this way, it is just not nice to take from others without asking first, because they ought to be consulted in how their name is represented in association with that work. In other words, yes, my point is about being a better person, or a better "citizen", not about questioning what is art, or what is enjoyment. Art and enjoyment can exist in anything. For example, hurting, or disrespecting other people can be done with enjoyment, and it can even be done artistically. My point, however, is about respect and the law, not art, so whatever you might say about what "is" or "isn't" art has missed my point. -- Ryan Heise http://www.ryanheise.com/

I've been following this debate with a modicum of interest. I'm sorry I didn't download the track earlier, the link is now dead. I didn't read it closely enough at first as I was in Bangkok airport... You used Dev/Null - awesome! I know he'd be stoked you used and distributed it, and we'd both love to actually hear the mix. Andrew, please contact me off-list with a link. As to the actual debate about copyright, I feel certain people are missing the point of DJ's. DJ's play *other peoples* music. That is their primary function. *Some* DJ's are also producers, and mix in their own work with a set, but that is neither the norm nor their mainstay. People who play totally orignal music are known as *artists* and typically have a clear delineation from DJ's. I've been known to use some of my own beats in a set, but I guarantee that without playing other peoples music I wouldn't get any gigs. Likewise if I was merely a Jukebox who played the full song as the artist released I would quickly be replaced by XMMS + crossover plugin. Mixing it up varies from simple crossovers and beat mixing to sampling to overlays... the extent of the mix is only relevant to the moment. It is all valid. Considering Andrew used a DJ mixing program, {openly} played other peoples music and did it all live, I think that places him {at least for this track} firmly in the DJ camp. Ah! But he didn't just play it live in a club or on radio, he put it online. That is a rather normal thing to do. We used to regularly record our live sets and stick them online after a show. I would send artists emails pointing them to it, because I figured they'd like to hear it. Of all the artists who responded I never once got a reply questioning my right to do this. True, I was never really into playing major label artists, but the point is that the artists understood this was an essential part of the game and welcomed the exposure. Often it was a good way to get sent free and pre-release CD's. Applying the minutae of copyright law to small-time DJ's is inappropriate and counter to industry norms. Once you start *selling* a mixed CD you enter a whole new arena, but we're not seeing that in this case. DJ's mixing and mashing is a vibrant, fun and important part of the audio eco-system. Distributing your mixes is known as 'sharing' or possibly 'marketing' - not 'stealing' or 'copyright infringement'. I say go for it! - Noven -- -- Novensiles divi Flamen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Patrick Shirkey schrieb: So if the there is probability, that single persons act uncivilized, the whole civilisation is a naive dream? Again: there are more methods that those, that incorporate published recordings of others, to make music. If you want to play in a death metal band, you need to take the time and effort to learn how to play the guitar real fast and bouncing the head up and down the same time. If you want to build tracks from other authors recordings and publish them, you should be able to show some respect towards those, that made the noise in the first place (e.g.: list their names at least). Too big an effort? Fetch MSWindows, get MAGIX Music Maker and klick your hit! This is the ideal method for people, that do not care about the origin of music.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Patrick Shirkey schrieb: You state, that to respect authorship is naive/nonsense/pointless because there are so many people out there, that do not care for it. right? You speak of "artists" as if *every* artist or at least a vast majority of musicians needs samples to make music. Yet it is so, that the vast majority of music being made does not incorporte such material. Now for the last time: For you, but not for those, whose work you use to present yourself as an artist if you incorporate the work of others WHITHOUT mentioning them at all - didnt you get all the credit of the listener and those other get absolutely nothing and do you think, that is cool and decent? everybody may use open source software for whatever everybody may want to do - i do not speak about licenses. Stuff like Music Maker is designed for people, that simply want to consume something whithout bothering too much about its origin. So if you do not care for the originators of the tracks, you use, to present yourself as an creator of art, you might want to use a software, that is designed for easy consumtion. And yes! the whole concept of open source is the opposite of leeching - - it is respectfull collaboration for mutual advantage and public interest.

Loki Davison wrote: If you don't like the thread don't read it. -- 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

On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 10:53 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote: I beg to differ. At least as far as the Naturally album is concerned. Everything on there is great. Mayall lost me when he said he never practiced harp playing. It's pretty obvious too ;-) I prefer Robert Pete Williams, RL Burnside, and Son Thomas. But the players you mentioned are good too. ;-) -- Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner The Fuzzy Dice http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html "As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously." Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744

On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 07:10 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote: Nope. I'll look him up on allofmp3.com when it comes back up ;-) Part of the reason that I like JJ Cale may be connected with the fact that I first heard him on my first surfing trip to Cape Hatteras. There are a lot of good memories associated with that trip. On the other hand, I really like his laid back style on Naturally. Clyde, Magnolia, Call Me The Breeze, After Midnight. He's probably Eric Clapton's favorite songwriter since he's covered at least two of his songs (After Midnight and Cocaine). It's interesting to compare his original version of After Midnight to Clapton's cover. Same thing with Call Me The Breeze compared to Lynyrd Skynyrd's cover. It's not blues but have you listened to James Hunter? He's a "new" guy out of England. R&B. Sounds just like Sam Cooke. I don't normally buy music (I hate the RIAA) but I bought his CD (he's on Rounder so there's no RIAA connection). I got to listen and talk to RL and Robert Pete Williams in 1980 at the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival. A friend of mine grew up in Leland MS and knew RL. My sharpest memory of the event is RL and my friend standing behind RLs Cadillac taking a leak on the tires ;-) Jan -- Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner The Fuzzy Dice http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html "As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously." Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744

On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 08:22 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote: That's the only album of his that I like. In the same vein though I like most of Ry Cooder's stuff. The Captain and Toenail - aaaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhh! I couldn't stand them. Spider John is my favorite Buffett song. I had forgotten who wrote it. I have the album (also known as BBCD - Big Black CD. I've got about 500 of them). I can't find him on allofmp3.com so I'll have to look elsewhere. I've heard some of it but I don't normally listen to "country". Two of my favorites. I always thought most people didn't get Stevie. The MySpace music thing should be pretty cool. I'm thinking about loading my stuff up there. The Fuzzy Dice is pretty much on hold. We play about twice a year. Katrina wiped out all of the places we were playing. Most of that band is/was from Slidell LA and I live in Long Beach MS so we have very few venues left. Our agent lived in Waveland MS so he got completely wiped out and kinda disappeared into the woodwork. My other band, Charlie Foxtrot, is playing every weekend though. It's a classic rock band with pretty fair personnel. Henry Harrington was Mickey Gilley's lead guitarist for about 15 years (including Urban Cowboy - he's in about two seconds of the movie). Jerry O'Rourke was Freddy Fender's bass player during that same time frame. They met each other on the road in Japan of all places (they both live in Slidell). My drummer has been playing for about 40 years. Everybody sings so we have 3 and 4 part harmony. At the moment we're just a cover band. I've got some original stuff and so does Henry but we never get time to sit down and work it up. Have you got a band going at present or is the book taking most of your time? I'm so busy at work that I bring it home on weekends (I do scientific applications programming for sonar and LIDAR data processing). That and the band are my excuses for not getting a chance to work on the chapter yet ;-) Jan -- Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner The Fuzzy Dice http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html "As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously." Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744

Hartmut Noack wrote: Not quite. I feel strongly that as there are so many people who remix with unlicensed samples it is pointless to expect everyone to get permission before doing so. It's also highly impractical in many cases. I don't remember suggesting that. You have perceived my comments that way. I don't give a !!! If an artist wants to remix someone else's work then they should be free to do so. If they want to sell it without clearing the license then they should expect to hear from a lawyer. So now you are suggesting that a remix is a nearly pointless exercise done by someone who is incapable of technical expertise with more advanced audio software? So now a remix is leeching as well as thievery and to top it off highly immoral and a reflexion of an inferior personality? This is great. I'm looking forward to finding out more about the level of musical snobbishness that abounds in this community. -- 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

Hartmut Noack wrote: I'm not criticizing musicians. I'm criticizing people who think that a remix using uncleared samples is not music, original or desirable. IMO that is a very high level of snobbery. A similar attitude that people who spend years learning their scales by rote direct at a musician who has no formal training. The kind of crap that rock musicians usually reserve for DJ's and vice versa. I happen to be a rock musician and a DJ with a level of formal training but not at the tertiary level. I have seen a lot of musical snobbery and the attitude some people on this list have towards remix artists is of the same flavor. -- 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

On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 13:08 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: By your logic, it's OK to steal material from a construction site if you're using it to create art. Lee

On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 13:59 -0400, Rob wrote: Copyright law says otherwise. Lee

On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 14:21 -0400, Rob wrote: Well, I happen to think the law is correct and logical in this case. My creations are my property, and I should have the same right to make a living by selling them as a sculptor or a baker or a carpenter does. Copying my creations without my permission denies me the right to make a living by selling my creations, in exactly the same way that theft deprives a maker of physical objects of that right. Lee

On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 14:51 -0400, Rob wrote: By "managed to get the laws changed" are you referring to the US constitution? English common law from the 18th century? Copyright didn't start with the DMCA you know... Lee

On Wednesday 16 August 2006 05:21, Patrick Shirkey was like: It means some of us will regard you as such, yes. I expect you'll learn to deal with it. Many great artists have done so before. -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim We are the people We've been waiting for.

R Parker wrote: But you don't mind criticizing someone for being unoriginal because it goes against your personal opinion of what is right for an artist to call their own work! I too have experienced when others use my work for personal gain and I have found the best way to deal with it is to accept it as an inevitability and attempt to make sure my work is appropriately licensed so I can get something back if it becomes financially viable. Otherwise I will release my work under a copyleft license and be thankful when anyone listens to it and enjoys what they hear. How about an antiestablishmentarialist? A Digital rights squatter with enough peyote in my teacup to permanently blow your mind. That's your opinion. I happen to enjoy a lot of the music I have heard that violates copyright. Often it is in the form of a mix CD that a friend has given me. Yeah right, so if I just happened to play your work in the next big movie and you found out you weren't getting any dosh for it, but your tracks started selling more copies at itunes then you would be really unhappy and pissed off with the world. You would have to let everyone know that the new found attention is totally unjustified and unwarranted and that you are really embarrassed about having your tunes associated with the movie. However, I happen to know this is not the case but instead your music was ripped off in an international business venture that went sour. Unfortunately for you the outcome was that your samples were "Stolen" and used in a professional DAW where you now have to endure the pain of hearing the occasional track with your samples as a basis. Aren't you just slightly pleased and gratified that anyone would want to use your work as the basis for their own? The question could also be asked as to why the company that ripped you off feel it is acceptable to continue to use your samples without further recompense? Surely you had the presence of mind to publicly license your work before you gave them a copy? -- 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

Hartmut Noack wrote: In this hypothetical situation (there aren't many movies that use unlicensed music) people who liked the track would find it on their own and you could help them by jumping up and down a bit with a lawsuit or well timed press release... Which is where it comes down to licensing your work in a way that ensures you will get recognition for it if it is used by someone else and if you don't get recognition then you have the option to sue for it if it's financially viable or otherwise justifiable. The music industry is cut throat, twisted and down right dirty. The days of being able to stop people from illegally copying recorded material are long gone. Combine both of those points and the only way to stop your work from being reproduced without permission is to not release it. Then we go back to the kindof musicianship that Ron is most interested in. Real people playing live instruments. -- 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

luis jure wrote: You just backed up my point that most people have no idea you the original author of a song is. -- 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

tim hall wrote: Well, I would have to say that if you made something that someone found worthwhile of putting a beat too or remixing it in any way shape or form then you just have to accept that it's inevitable in this day and age. You can't stop evolution!!! Telling people they *can't* evolve your digital artwork is like a rag to a bull. That was your decision. If you are a sensitive artistic type that chooses not to have confrontation over your artwork that has very little to do with anyone else. Although there would be a case for saying that maybe you don't respect your work enough to have the passion to defend it... I'm not suggesting that but the person who ripped you off might get that impression and feel justified in taking advantage of you. There's also the camp which says there are only so many hours in a day so why waste energy on something that doesn't have financial gain... 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 Is fair game and if I release it for money I will cover my own ass and make sure I get permission before doing so. If I release the remix for free, because I can, then I will get permission if I can be bothered. Otherwise it's up to the original artist to contact me if they don't like the situation. If that makes me a lesser person then I can live with that. I have plenty of so called enemies already so a few more ain't gonna make much difference. -- 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

On Wednesday 23 August 2006 08:30, Lee Revell was like: Thanks for your clarity on these complex issues, Lee. Clearly DJing should not be outlawed by this discussion. In terms of traditional Vinyl DJing, the copyright is satisfied by the venue paying public performance rights, copyright can theoretically be traced by reading the record labels. I think if a piece is clearly presented as a DJ mix and the component parts are given correct attribution, then morally I would rest my case even if copyright law does say otherwise. However, if a piece is presented as an original work and you are claiming authorship, then I think it is reasonable to say that one SHOULD seek permission for samples used. OK, this definition would create a fair number of corner cases, but it's far from fluffy. In any case respect is the issue. -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim We are the people We've been waiting for.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chris Reisor schrieb: Call me a snob, give me names !!!! But NO: if someone plays a quote, this is not the same as cutting a nice little loop out of a previously made recording, rearrange it with some other loops and call it "mine! - who the f... cares for that poor little sucker that played the loop in the first place: me not!" The only thing i can approve is, that sampling should be allowed for anybody with no cost until the derivative work makes money and so a fair share can be given easily. Remembering the names of artists, that made the material on wich a remixer rolls his own, is not sooo big a hindrance for the freedom of art. There was the reference to the case Negativeland vs. U2 - i would plea as follows: 1.) Negative Land had every right in the World to use the U2-Stuff 2.) U2 should not have been allowed to sue NL, because a mIllionsellerrockstars they have to take the burden of being a cultural phenomenon too - to be commented and discussed including quotation in the open. 3.) U2 should not have been allowed to demand more then the autor of a covered song for each sold copy of the NL-Album - about 5% of the price of the album at the shop, by my estimation. I do not try to fight freedom of art but for some quality and manners as art is distributed.

How To Play By the Rules: http://www.newmusicbox.org/article.nmbx?id=4774

On Wednesday 23 August 2006 15:00, Rob was like: Which proves my point completely. Heh. !:p -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim We are the people We've been waiting for.