When there is a debate regarding music that one DJ said he wrote and recorded and then another one claims the same...We must give the DJ a chance to defend himself as that is only fair....Now if there is no proof he was the creator then he will have to produce evidence it was and is his music...otherwise if the other DJ can produce the evidence he is basically screwed....But at times we can hear music sit down and put a demo together not realizing that is a song or music you have heard before...Lets not condenm on heresay lets get the FACTS...THAT IS ONLY FAIR!!!!!
Posted by MSZ on Oct-10-2010 04:47:
quote:
Originally posted by mistyg
When there is a debate regarding music that one DJ said he wrote and recorded and then another one claims the same...We must give the DJ a chance to defend himself as that is only fair....Now if there is no proof he was the creator then he will have to produce evidence it was and is his music...otherwise if the other DJ can produce the evidence he is basically screwed....But at times we can hear music sit down and put a demo together not realizing that is a song or music you have heard before...Lets not condenm on heresay lets get the FACTS...THAT IS ONLY FAIR!!!!!
are you his girlfriend?
did you know hes lying to his friends that hes known for 10years?
Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Oct-10-2010 15:49:
well apparently he posts in here.. We should hound him out of hiding and hear his "defense"
at this point there isn't any and we are to assume that his silence is his guilt.
Carry on.
Posted by Mr.Mystery on Oct-10-2010 16:14:
quote:
Originally posted by mistyg
Lets not condenm on heresay lets get the FACTS...THAT IS ONLY FAIR!!!!!
The evidence is pretty fucking clear.
Posted by kuollutrunkkau5 on Oct-10-2010 17:51:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Hopefully this will teach labels to have at least some sort of quality control and not just sign anything that gets sent to them.
Or not.
You imply to say here that trance labels actually do not exist to just make money by releasing what-ever people send them, crap or not, on digital download because if no one downloads it they lose no money anyway?
Posted by Mr.Mystery on Oct-10-2010 18:16:
quote:
Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
You imply to say here that trance labels actually do not exist to just make money by releasing what-ever people send them, crap or not, on digital download because if no one downloads it they lose no money anyway?
I'll answer that when I understand your sentence.
Posted by kuollutrunkkau5 on Oct-10-2010 18:31:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
I'll answer that when I understand your sentence.
Oh come on, as a speaker of Finnish you should have no troubles with long sentences.
I was basically sarcastic and pointing out that all labels exist to make money only. And they can sign what-ever tracks they want and what-ever people sends them no matter how bad it is. Which they often do. Because they have no risk, if no-one downloads, then they lose no money.
Hyvä transsimusiikki, kuin mun runkkaukseni on kuolleet, on kuollut, deadmau5ilaiset tappoi ne.
Posted by Mr.Mystery on Oct-10-2010 18:38:
quote:
Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Oh come on, as a speaker of Finnish you should have no troubles with long sentences.
Long, no - nonsensical, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
I was basically sarcastic and pointing out that all labels exist to make money only. And they can sign what-ever tracks they want and what-ever people sends them no matter how bad it is. Which they often do. Because they have no risk, if no-one downloads, then they lose no money.
I'm not quite sure why you're pointing this out to me.
Posted by Ian on Oct-10-2010 18:45:
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
this thread makes me extremely sad
i haven't listened to the genre i used to love for close to 2 years now because of this problem.
My problem isn't with the people who make shit music, it's with the people who like them making shit music. And the people who make shit music, I hate them too.
Posted by enydo on Oct-10-2010 18:57:
quote:
Originally posted by Vernon Wanderer
hahahahaha, this is hilarious.
Posted by Halcyon+On+On on Oct-10-2010 19:05:
So that's why trance has essential mixes. You only need one, maybe two of them at all.
Posted by kuollutrunkkau5 on Oct-10-2010 19:21:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Long, no - nonsensical, yes.
It's perfectly grammatical, it's just hard to read because it's a very long sentence.
Let me break it up for you:
- You imply to say here
- that trance labels actually do not exist to just make money by
- releasing what-ever people send them, crap or not, on digital download
- because if no one downloads it they lose no money anyway?
quote:
I'm not quite sure why you're pointing this out to me.
You said that hopefully it would teach labels to have some sort of quality control. But that goes against their interest.
With the advent of 'digital only' releases, labels have nothing to lose by just releasing as much as they can find. To sign any single thing people send to them from a commercial perspective.
Posted by enydo on Oct-10-2010 19:22:
You must be an intellectual.
Posted by kuollutrunkkau5 on Oct-10-2010 19:25:
You must be talking to me.
Posted by Goebbel Goebbel on Oct-10-2010 19:27:
welcome trance friend!
Posted by Mr.Mystery on Oct-10-2010 19:29:
quote:
Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
You said that hopefully it would teach labels to have some sort of quality control. But that goes against their interest.
With the advent of 'digital only' releases, labels have nothing to lose by just releasing as much as they can find. To sign any single thing people send to them from a commercial perspective.
Again, why are you telling me this? Do you think I didn't know it?
Posted by kuollutrunkkau5 on Oct-10-2010 19:32:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Again, why are you telling me this? Do you think I didn't know it?
Okay, let me turn it around.
If you know this, then you do think that hopefully this will teach labels to have some quality control?
Posted by Mr.Mystery on Oct-10-2010 19:33:
quote:
Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Okay, let me turn it around.
If you know this, then you do think that hopefully this will teach labels to have some quality control?
What I hope and what I know are two different things.
Posted by kuollutrunkkau5 on Oct-10-2010 19:34:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
What I hope and what I know are two different things.
Okay, let me phrase it better.
Why do you hope that this specific situation situation will teach labels to have some quality control opposed to other situations?
Posted by Mr.Mystery on Oct-10-2010 19:36:
quote:
Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Okay, let me phrase it better.
Why do you hope that this specific situation situation will teach labels to have some quality control opposed to other situations?
Because it'll end in multiple lawsuits if it won't.
Posted by kuollutrunkkau5 on Oct-10-2010 19:40:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Because it'll end in multiple lawsuits if it won't.
Well, not entirely, that's why Youtube isn't taken down either.
They just have to remove it once it comes under their attention, they have no obligation to invest their times and resources into trying to find out if every demo sent to them isn't under some form of copyright. That would be insane.
Basically, the responsibility is the person that claims copyright. If I claim copyright of some thing to you, and we venture into a business about it together, and later it turns out that I blatantly stole the thing I claimed copyright for, then I and I alone am liable for any damages. As long as you cease your actions at the point you are made aware.
It would be pretty much impossible for any label or business entity to search the entire world to see if it didn't existed before. Just imagine that you had to listen to every track on the planet to see if it didn't already exist when some-one sent you a track as a label.
And of course, 'there is no such thing as bad publicity', I never heard of this label before, and now they get free advertisement on this forum.
Posted by Mr.Mystery on Oct-10-2010 19:42:
quote:
Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Well, not entirely, that's why Youtube isn't taken down either.
How is that the same situation in any way?
Posted by kuollutrunkkau5 on Oct-10-2010 19:59:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
How is that the same situation in any way?
Well, it's the same legal principle.
Basically, labels, or newspapers, or any publishing agency such as youtube do not have a responsiblity to check if material submitted to them is copyrighted or not. That would be impossible for them to do.
They are simply required to take it down or reach some settlement once the copyright holder approaches them and informs them.
Same with labels, they are not required to check if stuff people send to them is copyrighted. Just to take it off the label when it is brought under their attention.
Posted by Mr.Mystery on Oct-10-2010 20:01:
quote:
Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Well, it's the same legal principle.
Streaming someone else's work vs. Stealing someone else's work and claiming it as their own?
Posted by kuollutrunkkau5 on Oct-10-2010 20:16:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Streaming someone else's work vs. Stealing someone else's work and claiming it as their own?
Streaming copyrighted material is also illegal. Hence the 'all rights reserved' most people choose as their copyright.
But just turn it around, say that labels did have an obligation to chek this. If you are a label manager and I sent you this track saying 'Yo, label person dude guy woman, I just created this awesome track.' and you're like 'MITÄ TISSINUOLUUS, TÄÄ ON PERKELEEN KAIKKIKYRVÄN MAHTAVA!' and you want to release it.
How could you possibly check if it were stolen? You would have to listen to every track on the planet and see if they match. So that's why I am legally liable as the artist for lying to you about that it was my original work, and you are not for assuming good faith on my behalf.
Pages (8): «12 [3] 45678»
