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

← archive index

Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony

7 messages · 7 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
1999-12-12 23:49Sean Cooper (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
└─ 1999-12-12 23:29eric hill Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
└─ 1999-12-13 01:52Jeremy Bratton Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
1999-12-13 03:13Mxyzptlk Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
1999-12-14 05:25tcom Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
└─ 1999-12-14 05:47Blag Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
1999-12-14 10:57Giles Ward Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1999-12-12 23:49Sean Cooper>i'm inclined to think that this is not absolute, or we'd be hearing many >more beatles co
From:
Sean Cooper
To:
Date:
Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:49:58 -0800
Subject:
(idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
permalink · <3.0.6.32.19991212154958.00b96890@shell7.ba.best.com>
quoted 3 lines i'm inclined to think that this is not absolute, or we'd be hearing many>i'm inclined to think that this is not absolute, or we'd be hearing many >more beatles covers than we do, regardless of michael jackson's position >on the matter.
copyright law includes two extenuations to copyright protection. one is called "fair use," which most people have heard of, and which negativland popularized following their legal troubles with Island Records/U2. the other is called "compulsory license" (also sometimes referred to as "mechnical license"). this is the one most likely to support sony's actions vis a vis underground resistance. from http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/copying_primer.html: "[T]he compulsory license model in music under current Copyright Law...is a unique aspect of Copyright Law, in that it allows you to make phonorecords of musical compositions after it has been recorded once (usually referred to as "covering") as you wish, without permission, as long as an appropriate fee is paid per phonorecord distributed. There is absolutely no permission required, and the original authors have no real say over who covers the song and in what manner it is covered." also, from the Web site of the Harry Fox Agency (a major entertainment industry licensing firm): "Under the United States Copyright Act, the right to use copyrighted, non-dramatic musical works in the making of phonorecords for distribution to the public for private use is the exclusive right of the copyright owner. However, the Act provides that once a copyright owner has recorded and distributed such a work to the U.S. public or permitted another to do so, a compulsory mechanical license is available to anyone else who wants to record and distribute the work in the U.S. upon the payment of license fees at the statutory "compulsory" rate as set forth in Section 115 of the Act. "The current royalty rate as of January 1, 1998 is 7.1 cents per composition or 1.35 cents per minute of playing time, whichever is greater, per record, tape or CD made and distributed." note also that copyright law does not require the licensee to deal directly with the owner of the copyright, although (particularly wrt the specifics of the u.r. vs. sony case) common decency should probably dictate otherwise. fwiw, sc --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
1999-12-12 23:29eric hill>from http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/copying_primer.html: > >"[T]he compulsor
From:
eric hill
To:
Date:
Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:29:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
Reply to:
(idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
permalink · <Pine.BSF.4.21.9912121527330.15520-100000@shell3.ba.best.com>
quoted 9 lines from >from http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/copying_primer.html: > >"[T]he compulsory license model in music under current Copyright Law...is a >unique aspect of Copyright Law, in that it allows you to make phonorecords >of musical compositions after it has been recorded once (usually referred >to as "covering") as you wish, without permission, as long as an >appropriate fee is paid per phonorecord distributed. There is absolutely no >permission required, and the original authors have no real say over who >covers the song and in what manner it is covered."
i haven't heard sony's version, can someone who has comment on an earlier poster's observation of it having "a cheesy trance beat" behind it? eric --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
1999-12-13 01:52Jeremy BrattonOn Sun, 12 Dec 1999, eric hill wrote: } i haven't heard sony's version, can someone who ha
From:
Jeremy Bratton
To:
Date:
Sun, 12 Dec 1999 19:52:27 -0600 (CST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
Reply to:
Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
permalink · <Pine.GSO.4.10.9912121951230.27133-100000@jungle.owlnet.rice.edu>
On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, eric hill wrote: } i haven't heard sony's version, can someone who has comment on an earlier } poster's observation of it having "a cheesy trance beat" behind it? the original: http://www.submerge.com/real_audio/UR-049.ram the not-so-original: http://209.207.190.80/MP3/SF4147.MP3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
1999-12-13 03:13MxyzptlkIt's not *exactly* the beat, but it's the way they've dressed it. It sounds like bad / pop
From:
Mxyzptlk
To:
Jeremy Bratton
Cc:
It'ssupposedtosounDlikethat,moM
Date:
Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:13:50 -0600
Subject:
Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
permalink · <3854646D.EE5243C8@flash.net>
It's not *exactly* the beat, but it's the way they've dressed it. It sounds like bad / popular Euro-trance fodder. Cheesy synths in the background, ever so slightly sped up (or maybe it just seems like it) and devoid of the depth and groove in which the UR original wallows. It's like someone stepped back and said "how can I ruin this track so that it's still recognizable but yet oozing with the bad trance that seems to sell big-time in some places?". The melody is there (but awash in poo) and the beat pumps along (trance away), but nobody's home. I don't know what else to say. jeff Jeremy Bratton wrote:
quoted 14 lines On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, eric hill wrote:> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, eric hill wrote: > > } i haven't heard sony's version, can someone who has comment on an earlier > } poster's observation of it having "a cheesy trance beat" behind it? > > the original: > http://www.submerge.com/real_audio/UR-049.ram > > the not-so-original: > http://209.207.190.80/MP3/SF4147.MP3 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
-- jeff "10,000 people all screaming the same thing at the same time are wrong, even if they're right." dancing/about/architecture "...with wandering steps and slow..." ICQ904008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
1999-12-14 05:25tcomhttp://www.submerge.com/real_audio/UR-049.ram the original http://209.207.190.80/MP3/SF414
From:
tcom
To:
eric hill ,
Date:
Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:55:51 +1030
Subject:
Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
permalink · <001e01bf45f3$b0709180$0300a8c0@tcom-prime>
http://www.submerge.com/real_audio/UR-049.ram the original http://209.207.190.80/MP3/SF4147.MP3 the legal(?/!@XXX) rip. tcom -----Original Message----- From: eric hill <ehill@best.com> To: idm@hyperreal.org <idm@hyperreal.org> Date: Monday, 13 December 1999 9:59 Subject: Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
quoted 3 lines from >>from http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/copying_primer.html: >> >>"[T]he compulsory license model in music under current Copyright Law...is
a
quoted 4 lines unique aspect of Copyright Law, in that it allows you to make phonorecords>>unique aspect of Copyright Law, in that it allows you to make phonorecords >>of musical compositions after it has been recorded once (usually referred >>to as "covering") as you wish, without permission, as long as an >>appropriate fee is paid per phonorecord distributed. There is absolutely
no
quoted 15 lines permission required, and the original authors have no real say over who>>permission required, and the original authors have no real say over who >>covers the song and in what manner it is covered." > >i haven't heard sony's version, can someone who has comment on an earlier >poster's observation of it having "a cheesy trance beat" behind it? > >eric > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
1999-12-14 05:47BlagOn Tue, 14 Dec 1999, tcom wrote: > http://www.submerge.com/real_audio/UR-049.ram the origi
From:
Blag
To:
tcom
Cc:
Date:
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
Reply to:
Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
permalink · <Pine.LNX.4.10.9912132125001.24341-100000@ultra.gawth.com>
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, tcom wrote:
quoted 2 lines > http://www.submerge.com/real_audio/UR-049.ram the original > http://209.207.190.80/MP3/SF4147.MP3 the legal(?/!@XXX) rip.
I hate this kind of music (it just seems kind of silly to me, nothing personal against any of the techno-crew, of course. Also, I should add that I like Cylob, especially DIOF97.) but I have to say the original is *far* more engaging and cool than that "cover" or whatever you want to call that preposterous echoed kickdrum monstrosity that Sony did. Jesus. I would buy this record in a second, and even LISTEN TO IT, just to give Sony the finger. (They screwed over the Clash too, so fuck 'em.) I urge all of you to go hear this for yourselves. My god. I'm appalled. the orginal is a little toe-tapping techno/housey thing, and the Sony "cover" is like what the elevator in some awful THUNDERDOME! themed techno-dance club for old folks will sound like in 2045. Sony's version is a terrifying glimpse of the future of big corporations ruling earth with cutthroat capitalist evil. Well, that's what I think, anyway. .Bil. [[obtain clearance before copying]] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
1999-12-14 10:57Giles Ward> I urge all of you to go hear this for yourselves. My god. I'm appalled. > > the orginal
From:
Giles Ward
To:
It Doesn't Matter
Date:
Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:57:07 -0000
Subject:
Re: (idm) More U.R. vs. Sony
permalink · <00b501bf4622$1a292640$bc5208c3@k6y0w9>
quoted 5 lines I urge all of you to go hear this for yourselves. My god. I'm appalled.> I urge all of you to go hear this for yourselves. My god. I'm appalled. > > the orginal is a little toe-tapping techno/housey thing, and the Sony > "cover" is like what the elevator in some awful THUNDERDOME! themed > techno-dance club for old folks will sound like in 2045.
Sounds like the normal euro-trance/Ibiza bollocks we get rammed down our throats on every TV ad break these days here in the UK. In between the fucking Gap ads. Pardon my french, but I can't believe how people just suck up all this shit that they're shovelled by the media. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org