Skip to forum content
ChipMusic.org
chipmusic.org is an online community in respect and relation to chip music, art and its parallels.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Search options (Page 80 of 215)
ChipMusic.org / Forums / Posts by e.s.c.
Topics by e.s.c.
Posts found: 1,265-1,280 of 3,429
arlen wrote:tempsoundsolutions wrote:i think its a natural thing to both love and hate what you do in anything in life, maybe not 'hate'. but perhaps something close to it.
I think instead of 'hate' you're thinking of 'critical.' We love to make music, we're just very critical of our work. As the saying goes, your biggest critic is yourself.
royalties? never been paid any of those in the past 12+ years. literally gigs with 6 acts, 50+ attendees and after venue, soundguy and doorgirl get their cuts, they say theyve got $37 for the acts to split.. sometimes nothing at all
i wish the soundguys were underpaid in chicago... most gigs that i've played here, they made more than all the artists got combined
on the off chance that you arent fucking with us and that i actually find time to finish, im gonna claim "i wanna fuck myself"
ok, and all the other artists and comps? like that cdk one? you need to pay attention to license details. technically all of yours are in violation just by not having the creative commons logo attached, but thats just being nitpicky
sandneil wrote:tempsoundsolutions wrote:see, you are clearly way too entitled for your own good, and beyond the wishes of the artists.
in future it'd be advisable for you to use "all rights reserved" to make your wishes as an artist (that your music isnt shared) clear
ok, well about this scenario: artist is fine with you sharing mp3s with friends, burning cds for others, etc as long as no money is involved.. said artist is anti-capitalist and dislikes corporations profiting off ad revenue generated by their stuff being streamed on their site (or just wants some element of control over how their work is experienced and finds youtube or whatever to below their quality standards).. they shouldnt have to use all rights reserved as that would potentially discourage the type of sharing they want to happen
qb wrote:That wasn't directed towards you. It was directed towards people that think sharing\distributing is not OK while their copyright license says the opposite.
did you read the material i linked re:cc licenses? important to remember that it'd be best to ask anyone in general, but you may even have issues should they have used an nc or nd license...
also, if people aren;t responding when you ask if you can do something, that probably means they don't want you to do it and/or your email got caught by their spam filter...
they took the whole drum loop, not just one snare sound
http://www.whosampled.com/sample/53847/ … ox-Sunday/
i'm guessing you have no knowledge of "fair use" as defined under copyright laws...
generally, very short samples like a single note or word are considered to be fair use as they comprise such a small portion of the final work
sandneil wrote:as far as i am concerned the cc licenses mostly serve as a statement of intent. regardless of the technical legal issues if youve put a "copyleft" license on your song and you want to punish someone for sharing it on youtube Thats kind of a dick move. if the video has just got audio and no footage it isnt really a derivative work any more than a mp3 to ogg transcode would be as far as im concerned
the law disagrees... http://mollykleinman.com/2008/10/20/cc- … rivatives/
article wrote:In general, the kinds of adaptations that the No Derivatives license prohibits match the definition of derivative works in the Copyright Act, but there is an exception: Songs used in video. No Derivatives licenses use the word “Adaptation” instead of the legal term “derivative work,” and include this language in the definition of “Adaptation”:
For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image (“synching”) will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
Using an unaltered song in the soundtrack to a video does not make the video a derivative work, because the song itself has not been recast, transformed, or adapted in any way. However, the language above extends the definition of adaptation to include “synchronization of [music] with a moving image,” which means that as far as No Derivatives licenses are concerned, videos that use an ND-licensed song violate the terms of the license.
ShintarouMusic wrote:Well, no need to overreact about it. Judging by your tone of writing it seems like you DO have a big problem with it and would even if it was only a couple of your songs.
Honestly, I think he has a point especially with the CC licensing. Most of the chip albums I see released are free to download and use as long as it's not commercial.
I think he's doing a favor for the community. What damage has been done here..?
unless theyve used an ND CC license... making a video file of an audio track is considered a derivative work...and i've always wondered if even an NC license would allow for upload to a commercial site like YouTube, even if the YouTube uploader isn't making any money themselves off of it the company is
Yep, one of three that low-gain bent in that style
you have to find ways to stay in the room when rendering video... i usually use borderlands 2 for that, but im slightly burnt out after 750+ hours
current home setup
Posts found: 1,265-1,280 of 3,429
ChipMusic.org / Forums / Posts by e.s.c.
