179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409

7 messages · 5 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
◇ merged from 2 subjects: (idm) mixtapes and copyright infringements · (idm) re: idm v1 #409
1996-03-05 09:38rephlex (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
1996-03-05 09:43rephlex (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
1996-03-05 10:11'Nick....' Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
1996-03-05 10:30'Nick....' Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
└─ 1996-03-05 11:42James Skilton (idm) mixtapes and copyright infringements
1996-03-05 16:44Jon Drukman Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
1996-03-05 22:19g303 Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1996-03-05 09:38rephlex>Gee wiz, if there is this big a demand for old limited Caustic Window et. >al (I certainl
From:
rephlex
To:
Date:
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:38:44 GMT
Subject:
(idm) Re: idm V1 #409
permalink · <199603050938.AA11675@felix.dircon.co.uk>
quoted 3 lines Gee wiz, if there is this big a demand for old limited Caustic Window et.>Gee wiz, if there is this big a demand for old limited Caustic Window et. >al (I certainly want some too), why doesn't some smart businessperson >simply license the tracks from rephlex or whatever,
That's more like it. Hang on a minute though - It will happen one day when we've cut down the backlog a bit.
1996-03-05 09:43rephlex> >Yeah, but I don't think people here have that in mind. I think the 20 CD >copies of Cau
From:
rephlex
To:
Date:
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:43:48 GMT
Subject:
(idm) Re: idm V1 #409
permalink · <199603050943.AA11857@felix.dircon.co.uk>
quoted 6 lines Yeah, but I don't think people here have that in mind. I think the 20 CD> >Yeah, but I don't think people here have that in mind. I think the 20 CD >copies of Caustic Window ep's was suggested by someone to be sold at cost >not profit. What if someone made 20 copies and sold them at cost? I've >never seen anyone on IDM trying to sell dupes of anything for a profit. >
If I wanted 20 idm'ers to have free CD bootlegs of my tracks I'd do them myself. Nobody else is entitled to do this without MY PERMISSION. Say we have a plan to do this thing anyway - maybe featuring new songs. Do you think we'll do it if someone's done it already? Sure, it may be a year and a half away but there's plenty else around. Please can we let this drop?
1996-03-05 10:11'Nick....'Ok, what are the licencing conditions likely to be? i'd licence a Caustic Track and put it
From:
'Nick....'
To:
rephlex
Cc:
Date:
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:11:45 GMT
Subject:
Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
permalink · <ECS9603051045A@essex.ac.uk>
Ok, what are the licencing conditions likely to be? i'd licence a Caustic Track and put it on this compilation CD...I'm producing, but the licencing payments would have to be an equal cut of the profits.... do we think Rephlex would be interested? On Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:38:44 GMT rephlex wrote:
quoted 1 line From: rephlex> From: rephlex
<rephlex%popmail.dircon.co.uk@uk.ac.essex.seralph6>
quoted 12 lines Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:38:44 GMT> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:38:44 GMT > Subject: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409 > To: idm%hyperreal.com@uk.ac.essex.seralph6 > > > >Gee wiz, if there is this big a demand for old limited >>Caustic Window et al (I certainly want some too), why >>doesn't some smart >businessperson simply license the >>tracks from rephlex or >whatever, > > That's more like it. >
Hang on a minute though - It will happen one day when we've cut down the backlog a bit.
quoted 1 line>
1996-03-05 10:30'Nick....'Hey, I've just had a thought.... a Letter arriving on Jeff Mills or whoever's door, with a
From:
'Nick....'
To:
Date:
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:30:41 GMT
Subject:
Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
permalink · <ECS9603051041A@essex.ac.uk>
Hey, I've just had a thought.... a Letter arriving on Jeff Mills or whoever's door, with a writ over copyright....for a mix tape!!!! Bizzare. Nope, if labels sued for copyright infringements i think the whole scene would die.
1996-03-05 11:42James Skilton'Nick....' wrote on Tue, 05 Mar 96 10:30:41 GMT : > Hey, I've just had a thought.... > a L
From:
James Skilton
To:
'Nick....' , idm
Date:
Tue, 05 Mar 96 11:42:53 GMT
Subject:
(idm) mixtapes and copyright infringements
Reply to:
Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
permalink · <MAPI.Id.0016.00616d65737320203236364630303039@MAPI.to.RFC822>
'Nick....' wrote on Tue, 05 Mar 96 10:30:41 GMT :
quoted 5 lines Hey, I've just had a thought....> Hey, I've just had a thought.... > a Letter arriving on Jeff Mills or whoever's door, with a > writ over copyright....for a mix tape!!!! > > Bizzare.
No - It wouldn't happen that way anyway. Most of these mixtapes are recorded without the DJs knowledge and/or permission, no more than permission is granted from any record companies. I'm sure plenty of big-name DJs are pissed off at low quality boots of their performances circulating round back street shops and geezers with suitcases, but they probably accept it as part of the scene. The person who would hypothetically get sued for copyright would be those distributing the tapes, and maybe the club where it was recorded (? but I doubt that)
quoted 2 lines Nope, if labels sued for copyright infringements i think the> Nope, if labels sued for copyright infringements i think the > whole scene would die.
If they did (I won't go into whether they could/would/should) the illegal mixtape scene would die, but the whole scene wouldn't. There are so many threads to the house/rave/techno scene now, and so many people involved, that action to curb one area of "dubious" activity will never kill the whole scene. Look at the CJA in the UK. Curbs on unlicensed gatherings are put in place to keep "undesirable" activities down. A bad thing no doubt, and it's making life difficult in some instances, but it hasn't killed the whole scene by any stretch. But I digress. I simply disagree with your hypothesis. J ^ __________ ________.__/_____ _||_/ James Skilton aka Steady J _[]/_____________[.__\____-_ DJ and Party Animal | | Part Time Hedonist |____________________________| Full Time Technohead |__|-' '-|__| Steady-J@Firefox.co.uk
1996-03-05 16:44Jon DrukmanAt 2:30 AM 3/5/96, 'Nick....' wrote: >Nope, if labels sued for copyright infringements i t
From:
Jon Drukman
To:
Date:
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:44:39 -0800
Subject:
Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
permalink · <v02140b00ad621fc7461c@[206.79.132.102]>
At 2:30 AM 3/5/96, 'Nick....' wrote:
quoted 2 lines Nope, if labels sued for copyright infringements i think the>Nope, if labels sued for copyright infringements i think the >whole scene would die.
maybe the underground scene but labels are quite willing to sue if you infringe on a big seller like, say, Dee-Lite. In fact, they did sue a remix service over an unauthorized remix of same a few years back. -- Name: Jon Email: jsd@cyborganic.com Web: http://www.cyborganic.com/bass-kittens/
1996-03-05 22:19g303At 10:30 05/03/96 GMT, you wrote: >Hey, I've just had a thought.... >a Letter arriving on
From:
g303
To:
IDM
Date:
Tue, 05 Mar 1996 22:19:15 +0000
Subject:
Re: (idm) Re: idm V1 #409
permalink · <2.2.32.19960305221915.00769878@phago.demon.co.uk>
At 10:30 05/03/96 GMT, you wrote:
quoted 7 lines Hey, I've just had a thought....>Hey, I've just had a thought.... >a Letter arriving on Jeff Mills or whoever's door, with a >writ over copyright....for a mix tape!!!! > >Bizzare. >Nope, if labels sued for copyright infringements i think the >whole scene would die.
A few have done this, and in fact attempted to sue shops for selling mix tapes. 99% of mix tapes are totally illegal and both their manufacturers and the people who sell them could face proscecution. But of course it's not worth the hassle. g. :::::Warp Net!(TM)::::: http://www.warp-net.com