ok,ok. we've calmed down now. @Vosla & LMan: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he#Werkbegriff_des_Urheberrechts also wir denken wirklich, dass die von uns veröffentlichten stuecke diese kriterien erfuellen: Es muss eine persoenliche Schoepfung des Urhebers vorliegen. Sie muss e...

sorry & entschuldigung LMan for not responding properly today - will do so tommorrow.
in the meantime i recommend this [don't concern this as an response, just inspiration]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWjMd5JRclQ

1.) i really cannot see why 2/3/4 (of the four factors of Section 107 of US copyright law, right?) should be broken with this release. and i decided to spend the rest of the evening (no irony intended here!) on thinking about "acknowledged as illegal, but tolerated as a medium for expression&qu...

even if this repeats a few of my former comments:
yes, very simple - in our opinion this is "fair use".
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

if i've lacked respect for Chris and Jan i'm really very sorry for that. but please read all my comments very closely and show me where i could have shown more respect - that'd help me to excuse. on the contrary i did read chris' comments as a whole bunch of arrogance in the first place - sorry, if ...

@C64GLeN:
sorry, but you didn't argue at all, me thinks.
to say it in other words: your "arguments" (where are they?) aren't that convincing, you know?

btw. could you please specify what's so bad with my arguments then?

C64GLeN wrote:
> FFS just remove the CC license and leave the stuff up, it's not hard.

what's your argument for that?

@LMan i'd love to answer your PM, but "We are sorry, but you are not authorised to use this feature. You may have just registered here and may need to participate more to be able to use this feature."

EDIT: thanks, man! (or was it that i made my 10th posting?)

@ chris 1. the link you provided > http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others tells me under 4.Using the work of others You may use the work of others if: .... - Your use of the work is fair dealing as defined under the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act (UK). will investigat...

hey chris, we're honoured to meet you. nevertheless you're wrong on many points. 1. "fair use" does apply on music / compository works. please proove me wrong, thank you. (links accepted :) 2. there's not even 1 (!) remix on this compilation, just original works. so "Mechanical Copyri...

you're absolutely right - there was no mentioning of the composers approval which to a certain degree makes this compilation suspicious of infringing someone's copyrights. but nevertheless you should reflect this compilation does _not_ include any "remix" at all. so the conflict we're talk...

[quote="Analog-X64"][quote="headphonica"] p.s. to everyone who thinks the "Axel F"-theme is owned by someobody specifically, eat this: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ergo_Phizmiz_and_his_Orchestra/plays_Aphex_Twin/08_plays_Aphex_Twin_-_Clay_Hills_Cop :)[/quote] MCA R...

yes, we are aware of the importance of copyrights in general. but copyright cannot be the reason to take down creative works as such. obviously nobodys copyrights get hurt with a compilation like this, we think, as these are coverversions which are distributed completely non-commercial (& share-...

well, what's the problem? aynthing you do not consider fair use? just in case you're not aware of it: "Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work." http://www.copyright.gov/fls...

fyi: every single artist on this compilation confirmed it's ok to use his piece of music, especially since it's under a non-commercial+sharealike license. concerning copyrights on the original compositions you might do some research yourself before posting insulting comments. we do consider any use ...