Dubstepforum.com

drake89 wrote:

Attila wrote:You're right, Led Zeppelin I-IV should really be public domain.

Ok to be fair I can agree that extending them through the life of the artist. But there has to be some kind of sanity and balance. I don't care if you're George fucking Gershwin nobody should be getting royalties 80 years after a song was written! IMHO...

After a bit of reading copyright expires 95 years posthumously in US and 70 years in the EU. So the last of The gershwins work enters the public domain in 2032! According to the article I read

There's copyright extensions which can keep it going long after, and multiple persons might have been credited as a creator of the piece, so it would only start being counted down after the last credited person dies.
But why should their family not continue to get royalties for the hard work and sacrifices made? Though I do think it should be regulated so random greedy people don't just buy up back catalogues of creations they had no parts in and start suing everyone, not giving any to the actual creators (Amen break).

Why? Because i believe that after death the music should return to the public domain. As far as the sacrifice hard work argument you put forth- why should their family capitalize off their hard work? I think the public would be much better served. Here in Memphis you can't put Elvis on a roll of toilet paper without paying royalties to Lisa Marie Presley, shitty. Michael Jackson owning the Beatles catalog- shittier. George Clinton not owning his masters- shittiest. This is not my area of expertise tbf.

I agree with the family living off of royalties to some extent. That's how stuck up bitches are made.

Well, we all know we're not allowed to do it so I guess you can't really complain. As long as I don't get sued I'm happy. That said, I got a ton of bootlegs up on SC and only one ever got removed. I usually credit the authors though, but legally that doesn't mean anything. Morally though, it might be appreciated. Dunno.

drake89 wrote:Why? Because i believe that after death the music should return to the public domain. As far as the sacrifice hard work argument you put forth- why should their family capitalize off their hard work? I think the public would be much better served. Here in Memphis you can't put Elvis on a roll of toilet paper without paying royalties to Lisa Marie Presley, shitty. Michael Jackson owning the Beatles catalog- shittier. George Clinton not owning his masters- shittiest. This is not my area of expertise tbf.

The family should get the money because that's who they worked to support in the first place. I meant the sacrifice and such the family makes. Being a travelling musician is hard on the whole family, especially kids. Someone is going to get it, so I'd much rather it be them than some fat CEO in a suit with savvy business sense.
I get your point though, but half of Elvis' hits aren't even his songs anyway haha, the original Bieber imo. Similar hair too. Anyway nothing is stopping you from sampling them or mixing them. Just upload it elsewhere as mentioned. Soundcloud is just trying to protect itself from being sued out of existence. Being a fairly large and prominent company, they would more likely sue them, not you.

So if sound cloud removes a remix is it purely down to the label/original owners requesting it to be taken down? If you made a Good remix like Doctor P - Bulletproof ft. Eva Simons (Kredo Bootleg Remix) it would be a shame to have no way of promoting it. Your not profiting from it anyways...

Mike Renai wrote:So if sound cloud removes a remix is it purely down to the label/original owners requesting it to be taken down? If you made a Good remix like Doctor P - Bulletproof ft. Eva Simons (Kredo Bootleg Remix) it would be a shame to have no way of promoting it. Your not profiting from it anyways...

well you could always just put it on mediafire and tell everyone to download it if you really wanted.

Mike Renai wrote:So if sound cloud removes a remix is it purely down to the label/original owners requesting it to be taken down? If you made a Good remix like Doctor P - Bulletproof ft. Eva Simons (Kredo Bootleg Remix) it would be a shame to have no way of promoting it. Your not profiting from it anyways...

That's actually untrue. Some people actually get quite famous off of doing remixes. There's a lot of EDM artists that have made their name off of remixing other bigger name producer's music. Granted the remix has to be good but the fact of the matter is that producers name was used to bring attention to it. If that producer happened to have been signed to a label that gave the studio time and the mastering, well then you also used them. So in some ways you really are profiting from their work.

Personally I could really care less. If you're going to do it then do it. But don't do it knowing you had no rights to it and then complain when the actual owners of it tell you to take it down or to stop. People need to understand that a label is a business, and that business is making money. To a lot of producers and artists, imitation and parody is the greatest form of flattery. But to a label it's potential lost money.

deadly habit wrote:protip: if you're using a free service don't bitch
pony up and buy your own hosting and domain

Pro tip: they making money off the free users, so the free users have a say. Pinche capitalist

bl0rg wrote:

paradigm x wrote:

bl0rg wrote:im gonna have to stop using soundcloud.

Or stop doing unauthorised remixes and uploading them without permission?

do you think any of the remixes of this song had permission?

why do you continue to bring this up? that doesn't dismiss you infringing copyright. you're paying the penalty.
isn't this the tu quoque fallacy to some extent?

William Brave wrote:

deadly habit wrote:protip: if you're using a free service don't bitch
pony up and buy your own hosting and domain

Pro tip: they making money off the free users, so the free users have a say. Pinche capitalist

And the free and paid users agreed to a ToS which includes this: