Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
What's new
Members
New posts
Search forums
VIP
OSA Radio
Chat
0
Features
Tunes
Mixes
Events
Flyers
Forums
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
What's new
Members
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Welcome to Old Skool Anthems
The Old Skool Resource. Since 1998.
Join now
NATIVE INTERNET WEB RADIO PLAYER PLUGIN FOR SHOUTCAST, ICECAST AND RADIONOMY
powered by
Sodah Webdesign Mainz
Forums
Music
The Chillout Room
Mixcloud & Graeme Park
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Spektral" data-source="post: 922856" data-attributes="member: 49767"><p>A certain somebody is apparently on a mission at the moment over whether folks have rights to this and that. To what degree and over exactly what, I don't know at the moment, so this is a bit of speculation and rumour, not factual.</p><p></p><p>I can understand not wanting people blatantly ripping off your work that's popular and capable of earning you some decent income. I can understand it in a</p><p>case where somebody's pushing some sort of business squarely aimed at ripping off your back catalogue, using your name, selling it for profit and/or undermining your ability to generate revenue. I can see why action would need to be taken, not only for copyright but for potentially trashing your reputation or brand.</p><p></p><p>However, trying to, say, intimidate people for a youtube video of a mix set the uploader created, or making and distributing a free mix-set that THEY might have themselves mixed well over 20 years ago (because<strong> one </strong>of the claimants tracks just happens to be in the mix)? <em><strong>Go f-k yourself and the horse you rode in on </strong>tends to be my position on that kind of caper. </em></p><p></p><p>I appreciate a line has to be drawn somewhere, but it grates on me that for a scene that was all about freedom, sharing, being part of a special, enjoyment of music, etc, people could potentially start trying to monetise every last whisper, perhaps pushing for whole videos and mix sets to be pulled or maybe even trying to monopolise on a whole scene like "Madchester" or whatever and virtually claiming themselves, in a way, to be the embodiment of it that everybody has to ask permission of.</p><p></p><p>If it is THEIR whole set being uploaded, their sole tracks from start to finish, their image and brand names being marketed, fair enough. It's their property and they should be getting paid for it where they can.</p><p></p><p>As for the rest, for example, a theortical case of "you don't have permission to upload that 1991 DJ mix because it has two of my tracks in it" or whatever - I tend to think you'd have to be a bit of a pretentious wanker to be all over everything and everybody like a rash.</p><p></p><p>Hopefully that's not what's going on and they are just rightly going after the serious and blatant targets. I don't really know and I'm not saying I'm right. I could be persuaded otherwise.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Spektral, post: 922856, member: 49767"] A certain somebody is apparently on a mission at the moment over whether folks have rights to this and that. To what degree and over exactly what, I don't know at the moment, so this is a bit of speculation and rumour, not factual. I can understand not wanting people blatantly ripping off your work that's popular and capable of earning you some decent income. I can understand it in a case where somebody's pushing some sort of business squarely aimed at ripping off your back catalogue, using your name, selling it for profit and/or undermining your ability to generate revenue. I can see why action would need to be taken, not only for copyright but for potentially trashing your reputation or brand. However, trying to, say, intimidate people for a youtube video of a mix set the uploader created, or making and distributing a free mix-set that THEY might have themselves mixed well over 20 years ago (because[B] one [/B]of the claimants tracks just happens to be in the mix)? [I][B]Go f-k yourself and the horse you rode in on [/B]tends to be my position on that kind of caper. [/I] I appreciate a line has to be drawn somewhere, but it grates on me that for a scene that was all about freedom, sharing, being part of a special, enjoyment of music, etc, people could potentially start trying to monetise every last whisper, perhaps pushing for whole videos and mix sets to be pulled or maybe even trying to monopolise on a whole scene like "Madchester" or whatever and virtually claiming themselves, in a way, to be the embodiment of it that everybody has to ask permission of. If it is THEIR whole set being uploaded, their sole tracks from start to finish, their image and brand names being marketed, fair enough. It's their property and they should be getting paid for it where they can. As for the rest, for example, a theortical case of "you don't have permission to upload that 1991 DJ mix because it has two of my tracks in it" or whatever - I tend to think you'd have to be a bit of a pretentious wanker to be all over everything and everybody like a rash. Hopefully that's not what's going on and they are just rightly going after the serious and blatant targets. I don't really know and I'm not saying I'm right. I could be persuaded otherwise. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Music
The Chillout Room
Mixcloud & Graeme Park
Top
Bottom
