Sparkyboy
Offline
Stellenbosch, South Africa

It has come to my sad realization that the only 8bit South Africa now gains is Olinosterfant.

They are using FantomenK and Dubmood tunes (among others) as "backing" tracks for their horrible rapping. I've contacted Dubmood, not FantomenK yet. He told me he remembers them asking for permission, but never gave them permission, 'cause they "sucked". And yes they do. However, they do give one brief mention of using the tunes:

Die ham en kaas albino haas se musiek deur FantomenK en rof soos n berg vis se musiek deur Dubmood. Legitness Tjiekie!

Translation: "The "Ham en Kaas Albino Haas" music is by FantomenK and "Rof soos 'n Berg Vis" is by Dubmood."

This is the only time I've noticed "Rof Soos 'n Berg Vis" is acknowledged as being created by Dubmood. They're playing gigs quite often now, they are however giving away their tunes for free. Which seems to have no mention of the tunes being created by other people (you can hear Subfocus and The Bloody Beetroots in other tunes as well). This isn't even sampling. Now however, check this:

Download en versprei 'rof soos n berg vis'! Dis ons eerste single wat binnekort op kampus radios gan jam reg oor S.A en ons shoot binnekort die musiek video vir die tune! Tjiekie fkn oei!

Translation: "Download and spread our new single "Rof soos 'n Berg Vis" which will shortly be playlisted on campus radios across South Africa and we're starting to shoot a music music vid for it soon."

Isn't that taking it a bit too far? Even IF they did get permission from Dubmood, I doubt he'd give the thumbs up for this.

Another guy has pointed out that Olinosterfant has been using other people's tunes and flamed them for it by saying that he worries for their future record company who's going to struggle with copyright. This probably refers to the Sub Focus & The Bloody Beetroots tunes, but they wave it down by saying "we're giving it away for free, chill out".

Now, I'm asking you guys for help. Dubmood gave me the permission to "flame" them. I don't wanna stir up shit. FantomenK has not been informed, but in one status update they say that they are working with FantomenK. They even play FantomenK "sets" at the end of their gigs. They are starting to get merch in line (shirts) and therefore will be making money soon. Firstly, legal or not? Secondly, can Dubmood and others claim to stop using the tunes, 'cause "technically" their making direct money of it yet, but even so, without permission it's still wrong right? What I'm basically asking is, what is the best course of action in a situation like this?

Bit Shifter
Offline
Brooklyn NY US

No expert or lawyer but if this is all being done either without permission, or exceeding whatever permission may have been given, then yeah it's infringing. Trouble is we don't know how broad or specific any permission Dubmood & FantomenK may have given these guys. Best course of action is to alert Dubmood (sounds like that's taken care of) and FantomenK. Rule of thumb: noncommercial infringement is still infringement. In other words, the part that matters is the permission of the originating artist, not the presence or absence of commercial exploitation on the part of those who've appropriated the original work.

edit: clarifying, sort of, someone give me coffee plz

Last edited by Bit Shifter (Apr 21, 2010 4:00 pm)

Bit Shifter
Offline
Brooklyn NY US

Worth mentioning: I wouldn't sign on as a Flame Army Recruit. It generally isn't terribly effective.

Bit Shifter
Offline
Brooklyn NY US

As I slowly wake up I realized I should specify: if FantomenK or Dubmood released the tracks in question under a license (i.e. some creative commons licenses) that permits derivative works, then this would probably not be infringement.

calmdownkidder
Offline
Liverpool, UK
Bit Shifter wrote:

Worth mentioning: I wouldn't sign on as a Flame Army Recruit. It generally isn't terribly effective.

Yeah, last time we did this it just gave hipster journos something to sneer at, and gave Crystal Castles more of a punk credibility than they deserve.

Sparkyboy
Offline
Stellenbosch, South Africa

I agree. Most creative commons licenses (the most commonly used ones) are released to permit derivative works, but with permission from artist first. That's how I release my music, and I think 8bc did it as well. I shall inform Dubmood for more clarification on his works.

Bit Shifter
Offline
Brooklyn NY US

Unfortunately that's not correct. By using a license that permits derivative works, you have already granted permission, to everyone in the world, to make new things out of your art. This is why it's important to consider the different licensing options carefully.

akira^8GB
Offline
New York City
Bit Shifter wrote:

Unfortunately that's not correct. By using a license that permits derivative works, you have already granted permission, to everyone in the world, to make new things out of your art. This is why it's important to consider the different licensing options carefully.

Yeah, licenses that permit derivative work are already allowing it as long as the resulting derivative work is released with the same license and credit to the original is given. Author permission would be necessary only if the license needs to be changed (ie to commercial)

MisfitChris
Offline
Connecticut USA

We are just going to go over there and steal their teeth.

Sparkyboy
Offline
Stellenbosch, South Africa
akira^8GB wrote:
Bit Shifter wrote:

Unfortunately that's not correct. By using a license that permits derivative works, you have already granted permission, to everyone in the world, to make new things out of your art. This is why it's important to consider the different licensing options carefully.

Yeah, licenses that permit derivative work are already allowing it as long as the resulting derivative work is released with the same license and credit to the original is given. Author permission would be necessary only if the license needs to be changed (ie to commercial)

Ah yes, thanks for the clarification.

MisfitChris
Offline
Connecticut USA

Dubmood has this under control! Lets not stir up any more dust here hehe.

µB
Offline
A gray world of dread

Tracks on 8bc are released under by-nc-sa, unless stated otherwise in the song description. Which means if I take a FantomenK track form there, yodel over it, credit him in the mp3 tag or somewhere around the download link (orginially written by,  using a sample from), I can distribute it under my name as much as I like as long as I don't make money with it. I don't have to get his permission to do this, he gave it to me by releasing under that license. Looks to me like they're in the green- don't know about the dubmood tracks, he'd know what license he released them under.

Edit: Oh, it also means they have to release their tracks under the same license.

Last edited by µB (Apr 21, 2010 4:38 pm)

dubmood
Offline
Marseille

my songs is not under any web2.0 licence (with a few exceptions when this has been enforced by weblabels). Pure oldschool copyright by creation license. smile

and I never gave this guys permission, I didnt even answer their email, since theese boer kids (read uber-nationalists) are obviously having their little 15minutes of fame that will bring them some green, ill guess I have to do something about it. I mean, I would usually dont mind but this is like the inbreed dutch remix of Fitts for fight.

Reteris
Offline
̛̛̩̥̩̥̩̥̅ ̥⎬̛̛̛̛̛̥̥̩̥̩̩

I just don't understand WHY people would want to do stuff like that, even with permission
I doubt it brings much gratification

akira^8GB
Offline
New York City
dubmood wrote:

this is like the inbreed dutch remix of Fitts for fight.

Fucking LOL! Hahahaha!

Jellica
Offline
England

do we get to hear any of their music please? all i can find is shitty videos of them speaking shit.