Rules to use remixes on Youtube...

[XLent]

Hi
I would like to ask about possibility of using several remixes in a my video-tutorial (non-profit/no make money).
Here you can watch a fragment of what it would look like:
https://mega.nz/file/rXpkGTxC#hZB1lMWA9 ... 1PondkWA3s

I wrote to authors of these remixes, but I don't think they are active because I didn't get any reply.
Can I use these remixes, and if so, what are rules for using them?

Thank you in advance.
Greetings
XLent

[LMan]

Hey XLent,

thanks for reaching out, however you'd still need permission from the authors; nobody here can speak for them.

Good luck on your quest!

[XLent]

It is rather 'mission impossible', looking at activity authors of these remixes.
E.g:
Firefox (Active period: 2006 - 2019)
Bit Arts (Active period: 2018)
Chabee (Active period: 2006 - 2017)
TDK (Active period: 2004 - 2007)

I was hoping AmigaRemix was managing these files.
However, if this is not the case, all I can do is use original modules.

Thank you and best regards.

[Chris Abbott]

TDK is on bandcamp, and is Mark Knight (also on Facebook).

[Chris Abbott]

Also, using the original modules still _technically_ needs permission from the composers of the modules. In fact, remixes technically need permission from two people: the remixer and the composer.

[C64GLeN]

It is rather 'mission impossible', looking at activity authors of these remixes.

This took me five minutes

Firefox (Active period: 2006 - 2019)

https://soundcloud.com/firefox-amigamusician

Bit Arts (Active period: 2018)

https://twitter.com/bit_arts / https://www.facebook.com/norbert.roecher

TDK (Active period: 2004 - 2007)

https://twitter.com/TDK_Chiptune

[C64GLeN]

Couldn't find anything for Chabee, except his remix64 page, which should be your first stop.

https://www.remix64.com/member/chabee/

[Vosla]

They call him "C64GLeN - The remix detective" ^^

[C64GLeN]

They call him "C64GLeN - The remix detective" ^^

I see myself as more of a nosy internet stalker.

[10 GOTO 10]

Hi everyone!

I think that music is an art and art is like philosophy... both of them comes from the soul and definitely makes this realm of reality a better place for us. Seneca says multiple times in his writes that he never hesitated to use and share other philosophers' thoughts without the concern of he will be stigmatized by people for using others' work. He believed that philosophy comes from a source which represents the good itself and it makes people and the world better. So that's why it have to be shared and can be used anyone either to spread this good among the people in the world or even to make his or her own life better. I know what are copyright laws but it seems these laws is getting ruin the original purpose of art. We became greedy, and very possessive with art, most of the cases we only think about music as a tool makes money for us. This guy would like to use some old stuffs for a non-profit decent project. But... Don't get me wrong please I don't want to take credits from the remixers! I just speak about the phenomenon in general and honestly I felt a little bit that this guy has just ran into firewalls. We speak about music which has been created a very long time ago, then re-used by remixers and now, these remixes would be used for a non-profit project. I don't think that this is a big deal in a certain way. Am I wrong? I don't know. Maybe I just have a bad day - it's cold and rainy all day - therefore I'm too sensitive?

Cheers guys!

[poke16384]

Whats important here is ownership of intellectual property and control over how it used. The 2 copyrights (which have already been explained) ensure that a piece of music cannot be used contrary to the wishes of the composer(s). They also allow the composer(s) to profit from their creation(s), if they so wish and prevent others from profiting without their permission. Most remixers (and original SID composers for that matter) are reasonable folk and tend to be both co-operative & enthusiastic about having their music exposed to a new audience or performed in a new environment but...

They will usually ask a few reasonable questions about how their music will be used. If it is a non-commercial project then the composer(s) would reasonably expect to receive a visible 'credit' somewhere in the project. If the person using their music is going to profit from it then it is reasonable for the composer(s) to also expect to profit. They would also tend to look at any company or organisation associated with the project to decide whether they wish their music to be associated with that company or organisation. ..and finally they would / should ask about the limits of usage of their music, for instance; it would clearly be wrong for a person, company or organisation to agree payment to a composer or remixer based on sales of their music on a physical CD or via digital download from the person's / company's website and then upload that composer's / remixer's work to a 3rd party, streaming service or resale service like 'Amazon Prime' or Spotify; and profit additionally from the work themselves without permission or paying the composer(s). It would also be wrong for a person, company or organisation with permission to use a piece of music in 1 project; to then use the music again, in multiple projects.

In the scenario we have here, it seems straight forward enough.. but permission is still required if 'Xlent' wants to ensure that they have permission to use the composer(s) music in a way that the composer(s) are happy with.