quote:

Originally posted by skytribe Uhh, that's because they are. If I take an unlicensed a cappella and use it in a remix, that's copyright infringement, and illegal. If I take an unlicensed sample, and use it in a remix, that is also illegal. If I use a MIDI file to do a remix, without permission from the copyright holder, that is also illegal. Explain to me, please, how these things are not equally illegal? More to the point, explain to me how it's not unethical to steal someone else's work? How would you like it if some snotnosed kid stole your a cappella that took you hours of blood, sweat, and tears to perfect, made some quick-ass remix, and made bucks off it? Come off it, guys. Sampling without permission is illegal and just plain wrong.

Look you're missing his point entirely. He's saying there's shades of grey, and you're saying that it's black and white. In the real world, we all know that nothing's black and white.

Yes they're all illegal.However, with MIDI files, as someone pointed out, anyone who isn't tonedeaf could figure out the notes. Besides which, you aren't selling it. Companies would have a hard time proving you're cutting into their profits by giving away information that a limited amount of people can use, and an even fewer amount will use well, and an even fewer amount will sell illegally.

Same goes for a capellas. It's gonna be pretty damn hard to prove that you're cutting into their profits by downloading the a capellas without their permission...unless of course they're actively selling them. The difference between the discussion of warez and the discussion of a capellas and MIDIs is the direct economic impact on the owner of the property.

I'm not saying that the downloading is illegal. It's the use of the downloaded materials that is (which, of course, simply means that the downloading is the means to an illegal end). No one can possibly argue that it's okay to use unlicensed samples in their work.

Yes, of course, anyone with a decent ear can work out the MIDI. But why do people want these MIDI files? 95% of the time, in order to make an unlicensed (illegal) remix. The other 5%, I'm guessing, is to look at the actual structure of the melody in order to figure out how it was done, and use it as a springboard.

"
If I take an unlicensed a cappella and use it in a remix, that's copyright infringement, and illegal.

If I take an unlicensed sample, and use it in a remix, that is also illegal.

If I use a MIDI file to do a remix, without permission from the copyright holder, that is also illegal."

Its only illegal (or atleast enforcable) if you try to SELL the said content (via release, whitelabel what have you). Because they would be loosing potential profits. Using an accapella or midi for a remix for fun is perfectly fine and is encouraged... otherwise lablels and producers WOULDN'T release those for remixers .

So gabriel and dresden did a remix of evanescense. It was a bootleg. As long as they didn't make cash on it.. nobody has tried to sue them for breach of copyright. If they can "get away with it (according to you) why the fuck do you care what some noob producers are doing on an INTERNET forum.

But honestly, your arguements are weak, spread out, and pointless.

es

___________________

Don't take me too seriously.

Okay, so they did a remix. How often have they played that out? Did they make money at the time they were playing out? Then it can be argued that they made money off it.

But that's not as important next to the ethical question. You cannot argue that it's ethical to remix/sample a track without permission. Why are we not fighting against that?

quote:

Originally posted by skytribe But that's not as important next to the ethical question. You cannot argue that it's ethical to remix/sample a track without permission. Why are we not fighting against that?

Because none of us make profit of any kind with our remixes. It doesn't take away any profits from the writer of the original OR the label.

Because doing remixes is part of the learning process. This IS an amateur forum after all.

Because we do remixes to honor the original. Not because we want to cash in a quick buck like some do with quick rehashes of some of the most popular tracks of their time (think Fatkid's Southern Sun 2004 ).

You are bundling us all in the same category as the bootlegging cheapskates who profit from other people's work. We are only here because we want to learn and do the music we love. Not to make money.

___________________
Latest releases:
Endless Cycles [Capital Heaven]
The Charlatan [Morphosis]

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery Because none of us make profit of any kind with our remixes. It doesn't take away any profits from the writer of the original OR the label. Because doing remixes is part of the learning process. This IS an amateur forum after all. Because we do remixes to honor the original. Not because we want to cash in a quick buck like some do with quick rehashes of some of the most popular tracks of their time (think Fatkid's Southern Sun 2004 ). You are bundling us all in the same category as the bootlegging cheapskates who profit from other people's work. We are only here because we want to learn and do the music we love. Not to make money.

Now THAT is 'hitting the nail one the head'.

es

___________________

Don't take me too seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by skytribe Okay, so they did a remix. How often have they played that out? Did they make money at the time they were playing out? Then it can be argued that they made money off it.

well no, they didn't make money of it...they made the money from the set they played...they would still have gotten the money even if they didn't play the bootlegg so you can't really say that they made money out of it, you can't think like that man...then thinking of someones melody and having it in your head would practically be illegal

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by davedresden i suggest getting the gabriel & dresden prog-a-minute. in 3 easy steps you too could change the face of dance music. batteries not included. - dave

Sure, would've still gotten the money, but the point remains that some of the money is earned illegally.

Allow me to say this again:

Stealing someone else's work is wrong. Period.

Here's a long, but interesting article that fits with this discussion.

http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2003-12-03/cover.html

quote:

Originally posted by skytribe Sure, would've still gotten the money, but the point remains that some of the money is earned illegally. Allow me to say this again: Stealing someone else's work is wrong. Period.

And allow me to say THIS again:

Not everything is black and white in the real world. There are always shades of grey.

quote:

Originally posted by skytribe Sure, would've still gotten the money, but the point remains that some of the money is earned illegally. Allow me to say this again: Stealing someone else's work is wrong. Period.

...but if nobody loses is it a theft?

Jeez, it's like talking to a brick wall.

___________________
Latest releases:
Endless Cycles [Capital Heaven]
The Charlatan [Morphosis]

Sorry, guys, but this is one of the very very few issues that I do see as black and white.

If I create a piece of music, it is mine. I decide who gets to do what with it. I don't want people making money off my hard work unless I give them permission to.

Likewise, I'm not going to make money off someone else's hard work. Is integrity a foreign concept to you guys? It's one thing to download samples, and create a remix as a learning tool for yourself. Once you start distributing that, however, you've crossed the line. Whether you're taking money for it or not is immaterial.

I know the real world is shades of grey. But as musicians, we should be upholding a certain standard of integrity here. Theft is wrong. Copyright infringement is wrong. How can you possibly argue against that?