Commodore Remix

1) Start at: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyr ... _of_others
The way musical works can be used is VERY restrictive, and certainly doesn't include what you're doing. This reading of copryight law is fairly consistent across national boundaries, btw.

2) If there's even one bar of a C64 tune in there, it's technically not an original work any more. And no, I haven't listened to the tune. But if this isn't based on C64 music, why this thread? You can't go around defining "original works" to benefit yourself, you know.

And yes, I did read your other posts. I just didn't agree with their factual content. Or tone. Plus I didn't like the font.

Incidentally, did you imply that the only reason I might disagree with your opinions is because I haven't read them? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?

3) "We consider"? You can consider anything you like, but it doesn't alter reality. There are C64 melodies in there. They're not original works, it's a derivative work. It simply doesn't matter what your definitions are.

4) Sheet music is all-important in law: the physical sheet traditionally music defines the musical content of a piece. This is what defines "Mechanical copyright". You may think you know what you're talking about, but if you don't know the difference between mechanical (music) and phonographic (recording) rights, then you simply don't have a clue. None.

5) If they were original works, this would be true. But they're not. They're original recordings which are derivative works based on copyright material.

Chris

headphonica wrote: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 Copyright" has no effect under this circumstances.

3. we consider the pieces on this compilation original works (explained in my last posting above already) by the musicians which allows them to set the license.

4. irrelevant here, isn't it?

5. as said in 3.) the musicians who created the music we published have the right to choose from any license option they like.


ok. thinking about your statement, i cannot assume you really read my posting or listened to the music.
hmm, that makes things difficult...

"Before 1991, sampling in certain genres of music was accepted practice and such copyright considerations as these were viewed as largely irrelevant. The strict decision against rapper Biz Markie's appropriation of a Gilbert O'Sullivan song in the case Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc.[14] changed practices and opinions overnight. Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."[15] In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles." The recent Sixth Circuit Court decision in the appeal to Bridgeport Music has reversed this standing, eliminating the de minimis defense for samples of recorded music, but stating that the decision did not apply to fair use."

No time to explicate, but last sentence suggests that fair use *does* apply to music. Also, IANAL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#A ... tantiality

@ chris

1. the link you provided > http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyr ... _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 investigate further on this, but thanks so far!


2. actually we _did_ define the works released on this compilation "originals". so it's technically up to you to proof this is not the case, right?


3. see 2.) [as you start mixing this up, i can't help]


4. sorry if i haven't got it yet, but what has sheet music to do with the topic?


5. very interesting you know? you haven't heard the music yet, but you're able to tell it's all derivative work... wew!

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

@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?)

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

what's your argument for that?

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

what's your argument for that?

You've not been very good with reasonable arguments so far, but it's a nice fair solution that will make everyone happy.

@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?

headphonica wrote:sorry, but you didn't argue at all, me thinks.
to say it in other words: your "arguments" aren't that convincing, you know?

Right, before I lose my temper, It's difficult to understand your English (I assume you are not an native speaker) but it looks a lot like your being deliberately belligerent and contrary in pretty much everything you have posted so far, please try and make an effort to be a little more polite, everyone here just wants to reach an understanding.

In Chris and Jan you are talking to experts on C64 music, please have a little respect.

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 misunderstood him...
however, basic reverence doesn't help here.

about being a non-native speaker: i wasn't aware it was neccessary to check the "native speaker"-box at registration here.

c'mon guys, let's calm down everyone, including me.
let's examine the arguments - and please be that fair to acknowledge that i already posted arguments, e.g. about "fair use" & original works on this compilation.
let's listen to the music and decide if these are original works then, ok?

Very simple : You make a tune, all thought up by yourself. Then i come along and use YOUR tune and make a new arrangement, but you can still clearly hear it was based on your tune. Does that make my tune an "original work" ? No, i DERIVED it from yours, so it's a remix. or, if you prefer, a re-arrangement. Nevertheless, it is not original.

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

headphonica wrote: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

1) No it isn't: you're essentially breaking 2, 3 and 4, especially since you're publishing it worldwide. There's no court in the world who would regard a compilation of otherwise copyrighted (sonically and musically) tracks as fair use of any of the underlying copyright, as long as the underlying music is recognisable. What you've done is like a white label release: acknowledged as illegal, but tolerated as a medium for expression. But those are limited quantity and acknowledged as such. The people releasing them don't try and claim all sorts of rights over them, as you're doing.

2) A Creative Commons licence is a licence laying down terms for redistribution (i.e. publishing): even if your usage falls under fair use (which it doesn't), that doesn't give you extra distribution or publishing rights such as those you're claiming for your work. Redistribution of copyright works (which, by the way, are under the jurisdiction of GEMA/MCPS/PRS, organisations which control copyright by law) is simply infringement.

3) Your track contains portions of C64 remixes. They were released as remixes. They were called the same as the original tune. They were credited at their source as being covers of music from the original composer. The original remixers made no claim of originality. Those are all unquestioned facts. There is no opinion involved. One person claiming that they're original pieces because it suits his purposes to do so is just not even worth discussing. They're not even your pieces to make assertions about: you just borrowed them and hacked them about.

"You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts".

*insert famous Danny Glover quote here*

Chris

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" and the original intention of copyrights...

2.) another lack of understanding on my side: assuming the release should fall under "fair use" (what you doubt, but we think so), how does this _not_ apply to distribution? "fair use" does exactly rule that, doesn't it?

3.) if i got you right you're saying: "wait those 70 years (until copyright allows you to) and then do what you have to do, but wait."
hmm, well...

Since German law is the most important for this particular case, this may be of interest: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200811 ... 2920.shtml

Also, just so we don't paint in broad strokes about how fair use doesn't apply to music (I'm not suggesting anyone is, at this point, but I still think this is informative):

"The rap group 2 Live Crew borrowed the opening musical tag and the words (but not the melody) from the first line of the song "Pretty Woman" ("Oh, pretty woman, walking down the street "). The rest of the lyrics and the music were different. Important factors: The group's use was transformative and borrowed only a small portion of the "Pretty Woman" song. The 2 Live Crew version was essentially a different piece of music and the only similarity was a brief musical opening part and the opening line. (Note: The rap group had initially sought to pay for the right to use portions of the song but were rebuffed by the publisher who did not want "Pretty Woman" used in a rap song.) (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)" - http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... 9/9-c.html

NOTE: I am not making any claims about the headphonica stuff. I haven't heard it and I don't like electronic music for the most part, so I probably won't!