iLKke wrote:
Any news with this, Linde?
The (unpopulated) boards are here, but a couple of other projects seem to be taking priority at the moment (arduino midi/dac/analog filter shield, lcd drivers).
418 Mar 13, 2012 3:05 pm
Re: ONLINE COMMUNITY NOSTALGIA (146 replies, posted in General Discussion)
µB wrote:
Also, the discussions with ant1 and Linde
Agreed! And Akira!
419 Mar 13, 2012 6:30 am
Re: ONLINE COMMUNITY NOSTALGIA (146 replies, posted in General Discussion)
There was a poker ad on it.
I wrote longer and more mean-spirited rants on 8bc than I do here.
420 Mar 12, 2012 10:04 am
Re: examples of SN76489 PSG in genesis/ md soundtracks (8 replies, posted in Sega)
I'm not sure you can get higher quality out of the PSG than the FM part (the CPU is probably the limit in these cases; I think people pushed sample rates > 50 kHz), but at least you could have more independent sample channels for sound effects/speech without interrupting FM playback. In the MSX scene, I think there's been some experiments with combining PSG (ay-3-8910 / ym2149 ) voices to produce samples with higher bit depth, though, and I'm sure something similar could be possible on SN type chips as well.
421 Mar 12, 2012 9:13 am
Re: examples of SN76489 PSG in genesis/ md soundtracks (8 replies, posted in Sega)
Yeah, I can't think of any particularly weird uses of the PSG in games. Just guessing, it might have been used to play samples on occasion. Also, I don't think that japanese game designers used a lot arpeggio chords (as in 0xy-like effects), even on systems with a lot less sound channels than the MD.
Two nice uses I've found of PSG channels is either as delay channels for FM leads or playing in unison with FM. Since the PSG will mostly be slightly out of tune unless you apply some tricks, it can fatten things up a bit.
422 Mar 8, 2012 3:02 pm
Re: Animated GIFS- the birth of a medium (22 replies, posted in Motion Graphics)
423 Mar 7, 2012 7:09 am
Re: Digitally Imported (Making profit off of you?) IDK (41 replies, posted in General Discussion)
MikeDI wrote:
I've passed this on to our content director that handles the Chiptune stream to make sure that any works marked as such are not considered for airtime.
Please have him consider removing any CC NC-type licensed works, since they all restrict what the CC legal code defines as "public performance," which includes broadcasting the work.
I think that it would be fair of you to either notify the affected artists or at least publicly share a list of the current song rotation of the chiptune stream.
424 Mar 7, 2012 6:40 am
Re: Digitally Imported (Making profit off of you?) IDK (41 replies, posted in General Discussion)
Glenntai wrote:
That, or I'm just tired and my drink hit me too quickly...
Yes, if no one was making money from the subscription service, I'm quite sure it wouldn't be offered in the first place. Then again, isn't an ad-supported stream also inherently directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation? Would people listen to just the ads, or is the music an integral part of the scheme?
ant1 wrote:
if you think the point of CC is to PREVENT people from sharing your tracks, WHAT KIND OF ASSHOL R U?
"copyleft" my ASS
*builds swastika out of money bundles acquired by selling ant1 sids in hong kong street markets*
425 Mar 6, 2012 7:57 pm
Re: Digitally Imported (Making profit off of you?) IDK (41 replies, posted in General Discussion)
MikeDI wrote:
It's a tough situation and a very fine line, as Glenntai described. One can argue cthat we're only able to charge based on what we play, but we're also not reselling or redistributing the content in a physical (albiet online) sense since we're simply selling access to higher bitrate streams without commercials on the other hand. I can also clarify that we do not have any channels that are only accessible through a premium subscription.
I disagree that it's a fine line at all. The CC BY-NC-ND license for example is quite clear about what conditions you have to fulfill to rightfully broadcast the track.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode wrote:
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
Do you disagree, as a corporation, that the streams you provide aren't directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation? How else do you fulfill your obligations to your shareholders?
EDIT:
We're also more than happy to remove any content that artists do not wish to be in rotation, although most of the time when someone learns of being broadcasted on DI they tend to send us some more content
As a commercial streaming radio service, I assume that you are not covered by OCILLA, in which case you are already seriously breaking the law if you are broadcasting any CC BY-NC-ND licensed works without explicit permission.
426 Mar 6, 2012 7:19 pm
Re: Digitally Imported (Making profit off of you?) IDK (41 replies, posted in General Discussion)
akira^8GB wrote:
Here's the catch. I think these laws differ depending on the country and whatever applies to the US doesn't necessarily apply to another country. In Argentina, for example, and this is a big case of drama, the entity, SADAIC, collects money anyway. If you don't go and get it from them, they keep it. They are assholes like that.
That sucks! I can't really say aything about copyright in Argentina, but I know that's thankfully not how it works in Sweden or the U.S. at least.
Also, places like radios, pay a "blanket" fee to these associations, they get a deal cut to them to lower costs. So I think if any of these entities that pay a blanket fee to an association is one that plays your tune, that association is collecting money for you without you even noticing.
The blanket fees the broadcasters (etc.) pay grant them the right to play the entire repertoire of these associations as much as they want during an agreed period of time. Paying the blanket fee doesn't give the broadcaster any right to play songs that are not covered by it. If they play your music without you explicitly giving them the right to do so, they have to pay you individually.
Take something like RAdio 1's "new DJs' or something. Kids send tracks in for playing. They are probably not associated to any royalty association. However Radio 1 pays a blanket fee to whatever entity works in the UK.
Yes, they pay a banket fee, still only for the songs associated with the royalty collecting entity. Kids sending in tracks to New DJs grant Radio 1 the right to play them back. The blanket fee stays the same no matter the kids, and the kids get no royalties because they agreed to the terms and conditions of the show.
The licensee paying the blanket fee knows very well what songs it covers (well, at least they are provided access to this information), and they pay for exactly that. Now, one might argue that it's stupid not to sign up with one of these agencies and get a piece of the cake that the radio stations pay either way, but that doesn't give anyone the right to infringe on the license or copyright of your work.
For all I know, since I have SELDOM filled up playlist charts at shows I played, many collection companies have money that belongs to me. And since my association is a bit weird (I am in the middle of changing it), I get nothing.
Well, I guess this is much of the same story, since music venues usually also pay blanket fees. By agreeing to be paid whatever you were paid to play and not associating with any of the collecting societies that were paid blanket fees, you might have been losing out not taking a piece of the cake, but since they already paid the blanket fee (specifically for the repertoire of the association), no one really has money that belongs to you.
427 Mar 6, 2012 3:13 pm
Re: Digitally Imported (Making profit off of you?) IDK (41 replies, posted in General Discussion)
akira^8GB wrote:
Hmm, after I posted about the CC license, I realized it has a clause that says you should ask for permission for commercial work.
But as I saw it, DI sells a service and not the music. You could be right on this though. I also thought "right to transmit" includes this.
Yes, they are selling a service, but consider the service without its content. This is why they have to pay royalties in the first place.
In any case what I was saying is that yes, people SHOULD get paid and that DI is surely already paying to the entity it needs to pay and the author only needs to collect and if you don't collect, it's your fault. They are not going to come knock at your door and give you money, you need to tell your entity where to look for it. So if you have music in DI.FM and you are not getting money, talk to your royalty agency and tell them your music is there, they should do the rest. I know what you mean with "if you are not registered to a collection company", but I am afraid the industry does not work like that and if you want the royalties, you need to be signed up. The way the system works is debatable but if someoone is worried about where your shit gets played commercially, you should be signed up to this.
First of all, read section 4 d of the legal code, which addresses royalties specifically.
Generally speaking (not just for CC-NC type licenses), a royalty collecting agency is only legally eligible to collect money for their clients, i.e. people or labels who have registered with them and given them the right to license their music. If you are not connected to a collection agency, at least by US law, royalties have to be sent either directly to you or (if the licensee hasn't been able to contact the proprietor after a substantial effort) to the copyright office. This is how compulsory licensing works. No private organization is eligible to collect money in your name unless you explicitly granted them that right!
Practically, this means that radio stations won't play music that isn't connected to a major collecting society, unless they're willing to bother to contact the proprietor to discuss alternatives, or if the proprietor gave them the right to do so without paying royalties. As far as I understand, this is how it works in most of EU as well.
Also when you perform, you collect royalties. In my opinion, it's a good thing to do.
Agreed!
428 Mar 6, 2012 10:46 am
Re: Digitally Imported (Making profit off of you?) IDK (41 replies, posted in General Discussion)
I suggest reading up on the legal code, Akira: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- … /legalcode. The "to Share" (license grant) part is in section 3, but you only have those rights within the restrictions of section 4, where 4 b is especially interesting to this case:
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
Whether or not Digitally Imported is exercising those rights in an acceptable manner is a matter of interpretation, of course, but as they are a US private corporation (legally obliged to maximize profits) interleaving the music recordings with commercial advertisement or charging users to listen to it, I don't think the debate will be too long.
Royalty collection agencies really have nothing to do with your individual rights. If you haven't specifically granted anyone any rights beyond those of the original terms of your license (defaulting to copyright law, to which your works are automatically subject), they are not free to trample your terms just because they are connected to a private agency. If you (as a proprietor of the rights to a musical work) are not connected to a royalty collection agency, YOU are the entity that needs to be paid.
I hate to point at laws, but in this case a private corporation is obviously making money off works that are licensed under terms explicitly designed to avoid this kind of commercial exploitation. Never mind the "free" airplay or whatever; if you allow this kind of breach of license, your rights as a proprietor might as well start lubing up and spread those cheeks...
EDIT: I don't know if they actually ARE playing CC licensed works without permission from the proprietors, so my post might seem a bit too specifically directed at this case in particular.
429 Mar 5, 2012 12:35 pm
Re: Conversation about the quality assesment of chipmusic (50 replies, posted in General Discussion)
I firmly believe that there is no objective way to tell if a piece of music is good or bad, or if it is of "high quality." That's not to say that there isn't a cultural (and, in the case of for example rhythm and harmony, maybe even natural) consensus about what is good or bad, but that doesn't mean that those ideas are objective or universal in any way.
nitro2k01 wrote:
Even if the song doesn't "do it" for me, I can tell that whether the musician is skilled or not, and whether the song is skillfully made.
I agree, but being able to evaluate skill doesn't really answer any questions about the music itself (even your own sentiment seems to suggest that skill has nothing to do with musical quality) -- at least not in any objective sense. However we measure (musical) skill probably doesn't have any reasonably objective basis, either. In my eyes it's just a different, equally arbitrary perspective on the matter.
430 Mar 5, 2012 11:19 am
Re: TED music collection (for c16/plus4 machines) (3 replies, posted in Commodore Computers)
Oh, great! Thanks for that. Didn't you do music for a couple of plus4 releases?
431 Mar 3, 2012 6:26 pm
Re: favourite llamasoft/ minter game? (10 replies, posted in Commodore Computers)
Sheep in space! I like gridrunner, too, but I really suck at it. Aleksi Eeben made two great games obviously inspired by the frantic gameplay of gridrunner. Look up Redrunner and Greenrunner!
