 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Today, I had an idea. I could set my video camera up on the drive way,
film myself dancing to my favourit music, and post the results on YouTube.
You immediately see the problem with this, don't you? Yes, that's right:
the minor detail of "copywrite infringement".
OK, so a bunch of guys spent ages making this music. I respect that. But
the thing is, it's not like I can *ask* for permission. "The copyright
to this recording is owned by EMI Records Ltd." Uh, yeah, right. And if
I write to EMI Records Ltd (assuming I can even find a postal address),
what are the chances of ever getting a reply, never mind a reply in the
affirmative?
Now obviously it's their property and if they don't want me to use it,
they have the right to do that. It's not like I have the God-given right
to distribute their stuff just because it's convinient to me. It's just
frustrating, that's all. Basically the only way I can upload this video
is if I dance to some of my own music (i.e., written and performed by
me). And that'll be a blast. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:09:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You immediately see the problem with this, don't you? Yes, that's right:
> the minor detail of "copywrite infringement".
And the solution is/may be "fair use".
Go ahead and video it and post it; the worst that happens is you get a
takedown notice and have to remove it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> "copywrite infringement".
And copyright infringement, also!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You immediately see the problem with this, don't you? Yes, that's right:
>> the minor detail of "copywrite infringement".
>
> And the solution is/may be "fair use".
Don't think that works.
According to the YouTube FAQ (which is not legally binding of course),
it's OK to have music playing if it's incidental to the main purpose of
the video. In other words, if the music was taken away, it would still
be an interesting video.
Posting a 4-minute video containing an entire track prominently in the
foreground because that's what I'm dancing to is hardly "insubstantial",
however.
> Go ahead and video it and post it; the worst that happens is you get a
> takedown notice and have to remove it.
No, the worst that can happen is that I get sued for several hundred
thousand pounds and/or put in jail. Apparently the music industry likes
to do that occasionally, to make an example of people.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> "copywrite infringement".
>
> And copyright infringement, also!
>_<
Damnit, I always get that wrong...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/7/2010 1:09 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You immediately see the problem with this, don't you? Yes, that's right:
> the minor detail of "copywrite infringement".
And here I was thinking the problem would be that you would look like a
fool... ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:41:25 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> You immediately see the problem with this, don't you? Yes, that's
>>> right: the minor detail of "copywrite infringement".
>>
>> And the solution is/may be "fair use".
>
> Don't think that works.
>
> According to the YouTube FAQ (which is not legally binding of course),
> it's OK to have music playing if it's incidental to the main purpose of
> the video. In other words, if the music was taken away, it would still
> be an interesting video.
>
> Posting a 4-minute video containing an entire track prominently in the
> foreground because that's what I'm dancing to is hardly "insubstantial",
> however.
The full track wouldn't be covered by fair use, but a snippet would be.
>> Go ahead and video it and post it; the worst that happens is you get a
>> takedown notice and have to remove it.
>
> No, the worst that can happen is that I get sued for several hundred
> thousand pounds and/or put in jail. Apparently the music industry likes
> to do that occasionally, to make an example of people.
Generally with Youtube they resort to DMCA takedown notices for the US.
It's if the video isn't taken down in compliance that things start to get
uglier.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:51:40 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The full track wouldn't be covered by fair use, but a snippet would be.
And of course the standard IANAL disclaimer applies here.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> And here I was thinking the problem would be that you would look like a
> fool... ;)
Well, yes, actually I do this simply by being *alive*. :-P
I mean, hell, you've *seen* me, right??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/7/2010 1:58 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> And here I was thinking the problem would be that you would look like
>> a fool... ;)
>
> Well, yes, actually I do this simply by being *alive*. :-P
No...
> I mean, hell, you've *seen* me, right??
I have ...
But, you don't want to reach the high point of internet fame by doing
what could only be described as a full-body dry-heave on YouTube, either
XD, besides, there are plenty of people out there that have already done
that ...
Note: I don't know how well you dance, for all I know you could be the
world's best dancer.. In that case, disregard my commentary ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Generally with Youtube they resort to DMCA takedown notices for the US.
I thought they just generally scrubbed the audio out. (I.e., reencoded the
video with no audio track.) And with the DMCA takedown, youtube just takes
it down unless/until you argue they shouldn't.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> what could only be described as a full-body dry-heave on YouTube, either
> XD, besides, there are plenty of people out there that have already done
> that ...
LOL
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:07:14 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Generally with Youtube they resort to DMCA takedown notices for the US.
>
> I thought they just generally scrubbed the audio out. (I.e., reencoded
> the video with no audio track.) And with the DMCA takedown, youtube
> just takes it down unless/until you argue they shouldn't.
I don't think YouTube alters the video, it may be that users repost with
the audio scrubbed out.
But yes, with DMCA takedown they take it down, but they do have an appeal
process. The video is replaced by something that says it was taken down
and whom the request came from (there used to be a recording of Bill
Bailey's Remarkable Guide to the Orchestra up there, but it was taken
down due to a copyright assertion by Bill Bailey and there's a notice
that says so).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Generally with Youtube they resort to DMCA takedown notices for the US.
>> I thought they just generally scrubbed the audio out. (I.e., reencoded
>> the video with no audio track.) And with the DMCA takedown, youtube
>> just takes it down unless/until you argue they shouldn't.
>
> I don't think YouTube alters the video, it may be that users repost with
> the audio scrubbed out.
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en-uk&answer=117597
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I mean, hell, you've *seen* me, right??
>
> I have ...
>
> But, you don't want to reach the high point of internet fame by doing
> what could only be described as a full-body dry-heave on YouTube, either
> XD, besides, there are plenty of people out there that have already done
> that ...
>
> Note: I don't know how well you dance, for all I know you could be the
> world's best dancer.. In that case, disregard my commentary ;)
Well, I've spent a year and a half at a *dance school*, and in a
fortnight I will be taking my first *dance exams*...
But it's what happened on Saturday night that I was hoping to recreate
parts of. I'll let you know when I've blogged it...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2010 8:24 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, I've spent a year and a half at a *dance school*, and in a
> fortnight I will be taking my first *dance exams*...
Break a leg! :-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, I've spent a year and a half at a *dance school*, and in a
>> fortnight I will be taking my first *dance exams*...
>
> Break a leg! :-)
Oh don't you start! This dancing lark is surprisingly dangerous. While
dancing, I made one lady's arm click in 3 seperate places. But that's
nothing; the other day I managed to ELBOW MY PARTNER IN THE ****ING
FACE! o_O And on Saturday night, somebody behind my put their stilletto
down my ankle...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> And the solution is/may be "fair use".
There's no such a thing from the point of view of the music industry.
When they threaten to sue you, or even send you a payment claim outright,
are you going to fight? I don't think so.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> When they threaten to sue you, or even send you a payment claim outright,
> are you going to fight? I don't think so.
You're only going to fight if you're *really* sure that it _is_ fair use...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2010 8:32 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Well, I've spent a year and a half at a *dance school*, and in a
>>> fortnight I will be taking my first *dance exams*...
>>
>> Break a leg! :-)
>
> Oh don't you start! This dancing lark is surprisingly dangerous. While
> dancing, I made one lady's arm click in 3 seperate places. But that's
> nothing; the other day I managed to ELBOW MY PARTNER IN THE ****ING
> FACE! o_O And on Saturday night, somebody behind my put their stilletto
> down my ankle...
>
That is "Good Luck" in Thespian talk. And yes I ken dancing is dangerous.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > When they threaten to sue you, or even send you a payment claim outright,
> > are you going to fight? I don't think so.
> You're only going to fight if you're *really* sure that it _is_ fair use...
Are you going to take the risk? It's always the same: They say "either
you pay us X monetary units now and we forget about it, or if you don't,
we will sue you for X*10 monetary units, your choice". So it's basically
a gamble: If you go to court, you get to pay either 0 or X*10 plus whatever
the court proceedings cost to the loser, or if you don't want to gamble,
you pay X to get out of the situation.
And remember, they have more highly-paid lawyers than a law school makes
in a year. Still willing to gamble?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh don't you start! This dancing lark is surprisingly dangerous. While
>> dancing, I made one lady's arm click in 3 seperate places. But that's
>> nothing; the other day I managed to ELBOW MY PARTNER IN THE ****ING
>> FACE! o_O And on Saturday night, somebody behind my put their stilletto
>> down my ankle...
>
> That is "Good Luck" in Thespian talk. And yes I ken dancing is dangerous.
Heh. Just a pitty that *I* didn't realise the danger sooner, eh? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You're only going to fight if you're *really* sure that it _is_ fair use...
>
> Are you going to take the risk? It's always the same: They say "either
> you pay us X monetary units now and we forget about it, or if you don't,
> we will sue you for X*10 monetary units, your choice". So it's basically
> a gamble: If you go to court, you get to pay either 0 or X*10 plus whatever
> the court proceedings cost to the loser, or if you don't want to gamble,
> you pay X to get out of the situation.
>
> And remember, they have more highly-paid lawyers than a law school makes
> in a year. Still willing to gamble?
Like I said, you'd need to be really, *really* sure the law is on your
side...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2010 8:44 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Heh. Just a pitty that *I* didn't realise the danger sooner, eh? ;-)
>
A little bit of danger spices up your life. :-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:20:35 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Generally with Youtube they resort to DMCA takedown notices for the
>>>> US.
>>> I thought they just generally scrubbed the audio out. (I.e., reencoded
>>> the video with no audio track.) And with the DMCA takedown, youtube
>>> just takes it down unless/until you argue they shouldn't.
>>
>> I don't think YouTube alters the video, it may be that users repost
>> with the audio scrubbed out.
>
> http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en-
uk&answer=117597
Interesting, I didn't know that - but that would seem to answer the
question about you posting a clip. If the audio infringes, you may end
up with it muted, in which case just mention the name of the song and
artist somewhere, and we can imagine. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:32:23 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> And the solution is/may be "fair use".
>
> There's no such a thing from the point of view of the music industry.
The music industry doesn't matter; that's in US copyright law, and the
law is ultimately what matters.
> When they threaten to sue you, or even send you a payment claim
> outright,
> are you going to fight? I don't think so.
They threaten to sue, take the video down. It's not like they're suing
everyone who uses copyrighted music on YouTube, otherwise there'd be a
hell of a lot less content up there.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:35:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/06/2010 8:32 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Well, I've spent a year and a half at a *dance school*, and in a
>>>> fortnight I will be taking my first *dance exams*...
>>>
>>> Break a leg! :-)
>>
>> Oh don't you start! This dancing lark is surprisingly dangerous. While
>> dancing, I made one lady's arm click in 3 seperate places. But that's
>> nothing; the other day I managed to ELBOW MY PARTNER IN THE ****ING
>> FACE! o_O And on Saturday night, somebody behind my put their stilletto
>> down my ankle...
>>
>>
> That is "Good Luck" in Thespian talk. And yes I ken dancing is
> dangerous.
Never *ever* say "Good Luck". Ref. "The Producers". ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Interesting, I didn't know that - but that would seem to answer the
> question about you posting a clip. If the audio infringes, you may end
> up with it muted, in which case just mention the name of the song and
> artist somewhere, and we can imagine. :-)
They have a system to automatically mute content that shouldn't be up
there. That doesn't make it OK to put it up though. It's still illegal,
they can still sue you, and it's still not funny.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/06/2010 9:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That is "Good Luck" in Thespian talk. And yes I ken dancing is
>> dangerous.
>
> Never *ever* say "Good Luck". Ref. "The Producers". ;-)
>
True
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:05:02 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Interesting, I didn't know that - but that would seem to answer the
>> question about you posting a clip. If the audio infringes, you may end
>> up with it muted, in which case just mention the name of the song and
>> artist somewhere, and we can imagine. :-)
>
> They have a system to automatically mute content that shouldn't be up
> there. That doesn't make it OK to put it up though. It's still illegal,
> they can still sue you, and it's still not funny.
Anyone can sue anyone. I can sue you for wearing your hair funny.
Doesn't mean I can win.
I never claimed it was *funny*, but take a look at the videos that come
back with the search "dance video" and tell me how many have copyrighted
songs in them. That's just a sample; I doubt any of those people have
been *sued* by RIAA or IFPI. Usually one gets a warning first and is
given a chance to comply. The ones that tend to draw attention are the
popular videos - do you think your video is likely to be in the top 10?
Top 100? Top 1000?
Yes, it's a risk - and as I said, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like
posting a video of doing some dancing is likely to be considered pretty
harmless, *especially* if the audio quality isn't that good - for
example, if the audio is being played through a pair of cheap speakers
that are then recorded in the audio. If it were me, I'd be inclined to
do that rather than to dub the track directly into the audio track in the
video posted. If all the viewer can hear is the 'thud thud' of the beat,
chances are nobody will identify the song clearly enough to be able to
make a case.
But do whatever you want - if you think it's too risky, then don't. I'm
not giving you legal advice or telling you to do something you don't want
to, I'm telling you my take on your concerns. You're free to disagree
and disregard any advice given or opinions expressed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4c0d35ea@news.povray.org...
> Today, I had an idea. I could set my video camera up on the drive way,
> film myself dancing to my favourit music, and post the results on YouTube.
>
> You immediately see the problem with this, don't you? Yes, that's right:
> the minor detail of "copywrite infringement".
>
> OK, so a bunch of guys spent ages making this music. I respect that. But
> the thing is, it's not like I can *ask* for permission. "The copyright
> to this recording is owned by EMI Records Ltd." Uh, yeah, right. And if
> I write to EMI Records Ltd (assuming I can even find a postal address),
> what are the chances of ever getting a reply, never mind a reply in the
> affirmative?
>
> Now obviously it's their property and if they don't want me to use it,
> they have the right to do that. It's not like I have the God-given right
> to distribute their stuff just because it's convinient to me. It's just
> frustrating, that's all.
Welcome to society. We have these things called rules, regulations and laws
that basically say that not everything convenient or desirable for an
individual is without consequences. See, I find it convenient to walk around
naked in the mall, drive while talking on my cell phone, smoke on a bus...
etc, and I find it frustrating that these actions are not without
consequences. There are probably tens of thousands of such things that you
cannot realistically expect to be able to do without facing the
consequences. Why are you particularly frustrated with IP laws and not all
the others?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Why are you particularly frustrated with IP laws and not all the others?
I'm frustrated not so much that I can't use copyrighted material without
permission, but rather than it's not possible to *ask* for permission.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm frustrated not so much that I can't use copyrighted material without
> permission, but rather than it's not possible to *ask* for permission.
Of course it's possible to ask for permission, even if you are a tiny local
radio station you can get permission to play songs to the public.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I'm frustrated not so much that I can't use copyrighted material
>> without permission, but rather than it's not possible to *ask* for
>> permission.
>
> Of course it's possible to ask for permission, even if you are a tiny
> local radio station you can get permission to play songs to the public.
After a whole heap of digging, I discovered that the way to do this
(apparently) is to apply for a license from a fee collection agency.
Looking at the prices they're talking about, it boggles my mind that a
"tiny local radio station" can even come close to affording it. But more
importantly, a UK license only applies to the UK, so you can't use it on
the Internet unless you can prove that distribution is limited to UK
residents (which it isn't, in this case). So that's still no help.
It does, however, explain how coffee shops manage to play music and not
get sued out of existence. I've always wondered about that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:32:23 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> And the solution is/may be "fair use".
> >
> > There's no such a thing from the point of view of the music industry.
> The music industry doesn't matter; that's in US copyright law, and the
> law is ultimately what matters.
RIAA and other companies couldn't care less what the US copyright law
says about fair use.
> > When they threaten to sue you, or even send you a payment claim
> > outright,
> > are you going to fight? I don't think so.
> They threaten to sue, take the video down. It's not like they're suing
> everyone who uses copyrighted music on YouTube, otherwise there'd be a
> hell of a lot less content up there.
Have you followed what Viacom has been doing to youtube videos lately?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:43:46 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> The music industry doesn't matter; that's in US copyright law, and the
>> law is ultimately what matters.
>
> RIAA and other companies couldn't care less what the US copyright law
> says about fair use.
It doesn't matter if they care or not - it's the damned law that matters.
>> They threaten to sue, take the video down. It's not like they're suing
>> everyone who uses copyrighted music on YouTube, otherwise there'd be a
>> hell of a lot less content up there.
>
> Have you followed what Viacom has been doing to youtube videos lately?
Yes.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4c0d4947@news.povray.org...
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > And the solution is/may be "fair use".
> There's no such a thing from the point of view of the music industry.
>
> When they threaten to sue you, or even send you a payment claim
outright,
> are you going to fight? I don't think so.
Well, that's because 99.999% of those being threatened have no legal leg to
stand on. When you consider the amount and extent of infringement, I would
say the media companies are beeing extremely nice about the whole thing by
even offering such settlements that amount to minor slaps on the wrist.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4c0d52be@news.povray.org...
> But do whatever you want - if you think it's too risky, then don't.
Well, that would be the best advice and the common sense that's all too
uncommon. Why do people insist on doing things that they know they should
not be doing? Yes, it would be great to do X, but X has consequences Y, and
if Benefit(X)+Benefit(Y)<0 then I'm not going to do X. Simple. AFAIK, nobody
forces anybody to post copyrighted material to YouTube.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Simple. AFAIK, nobodyforces anybody to post copyrighted material to YouTube.
And I have no intension of doing so until I get written permission.
The question is... is it physically possible to get that permission?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:19:22 -0600, somebody wrote:
> I
> would say the media companies are beeing extremely nice about the whole
> thing
I wouldn't have expected any less from *you*, after all, you've made your
position clear on several occasions. I'm just surprised it took you so
long to say so in this thread.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> The question is... is it physically possible to get that permission?
It's certainly possible to ask.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:43:46 -0400, Warp wrote:
> >> The music industry doesn't matter; that's in US copyright law, and the
> >> law is ultimately what matters.
> >
> > RIAA and other companies couldn't care less what the US copyright law
> > says about fair use.
> It doesn't matter if they care or not - it's the damned law that matters.
The problem is that "fair use" is up to interpretation, and the music
companies have lots of lawyers specialized in convincing the judges that
their interpretation is the correct one. Do you have the money to hire a
lawyer who is more convincing?
Most people don't have the money, time and especially motivation to
pursue the issue.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> The question is... is it physically possible to get that permission?
>
> It's certainly possible to ask.
I haven't figured out how yet...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> The question is... is it physically possible to get that permission?
>>
>> It's certainly possible to ask.
>
> I haven't figured out how yet...
It can't be too hard. That's why they're in business.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> It's certainly possible to ask.
>>
>> I haven't figured out how yet...
>
> It can't be too hard. That's why they're in business.
Well, just for giggles, have a crawl around the EMI website and see if
you can find any obvious contact details. Cos I certainly can't.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/06/2010 6:33 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> It's certainly possible to ask.
>>>
>>> I haven't figured out how yet...
>>
>> It can't be too hard. That's why they're in business.
>
> Well, just for giggles, have a crawl around the EMI website and see if
> you can find any obvious contact details. Cos I certainly can't.
>
You can apply for a public broadcast licence. Google "ppl for music" and
"prs for music" Found from the link below
http://tinyurl.com/3ynyfl4
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> You can apply for a public broadcast licence. Google "ppl for music" and
> "prs for music".
From PRS:
http://tinyurl.com/ydj8hyk
"offering music or general entertainment content to the UK public"
Well that's going to be a problem then. YouTube is accessible to the
entire world.
Also, the cost is £107 *per year*. In other words, I need to keep paying
a fee for this one video for the rest of my life (or until I delete it
from YouTube).
From PPL:
http://tinyurl.com/36cdd8d
It's not even clear what to pick, and there's no price data at all until
you actually contact a rep.
> Found from the link below
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3ynyfl4
Looks like the guy eventually went with using royalty-free music.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> But, you don't want to reach the high point of internet fame by doing
> what could only be described as a full-body dry-heave on YouTube, either
> XD, besides, there are plenty of people out there that have already done
> that ...
>
> Note: I don't know how well you dance, for all I know you could be the
> world's best dancer.. In that case, disregard my commentary ;)
I just made the video. Obviously this is the first time I've ever seen
myself dance. (Usually you can't see what you look like, obviously.)
Uh, yeah... maybe this one stays on my harddrive. *o_O*
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/06/2010 9:56 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Looks like the guy eventually went with using royalty-free music.
>
If you want to be legal then that's the way to go.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Looks like the guy eventually went with using royalty-free music.
>
> If you want to be legal then that's the way to go.
Obtaining the copyright holder's permission would also make it legal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
