KVR Audio

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:22 am

arkmabat wrote:Oh yeah, Michael Jackson owns happy birthday. How did that happen?!

Evidence?

Actually you might want to see the recent legal cases surrounding that. I'm not saying you're wrong and I can see the point you're making (doesn't seem to argue against anything I've said) but it is genuinely interesting. Have a look.

arkmabat · Post by **arkmabat** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:23 am

On YouTube, anything that says Official or VEVO in the title is likely legal. All the others are borderline because it's technically not saved anywhere on your hard drive. Ethical to watch copyrighted content distributed by someone else? No. Legal? Still in the courts over whether RAM is a "copy" or not, last time I checked. (USA)

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:26 am

In fact nothing ever stops being debated in law. At best you can point to the current case-law, precedent and the outcome of similar cases even when not establishing official precedent.

The United States supreme court has ruled that the meaning of words and phrases in the constitution can be defined by the supreme court.

So essentially they declared themselves God.

Disagreeing with them makes us Lucifer, no?

arkmabat · Post by **arkmabat** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:29 am

Heh heh.

I'll look up the happy birthday thing.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:31 am

"I AM THE LAW!"

Sendy · Post by **Sendy** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:50 am

I thought the part where, you know, I freaking said "don't listen to a word I'm saying" might have clued you in on the fact that I was kinda being light-hearted and am aware I don't know much about law. Now I have to actually go to bed and try and get to sleep with the knowlege that aciddose thinks I'm an idiot.

The Pi thing I got from Numberphile. They seem pretty smart...

Tough break

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:25 am

I didn't say you're an idiot, I was just confirming that yeah it isn't a very good argument.

I call myself a moron when I don't bother to invest the time to look stuff up and it turns out I'm wrong. In fact emotionally I feel like I'm punching myself in the face for days afterward if it makes you feel any better.

Don't do that if you can help it. We're all in this together.

I try to give you a jab or two so you don't need to

"Don't believe in the you that believes in you! (that guy is a dick anyway.) Believe in the me that believes in you."

(The English doesn't capture the true meaning of the story. Watch it if you like anime, it's a good one. Sub-titles please

)

izonin · Post by **izonin** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:51 am

To ME you people sound borderline Canadian

Sampling other peoples records (Daft Punk style) is a creative process. It's misfortunate that there's a law against it.

chaosWyrM · Post by **chaosWyrM** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:03 am

aciddose wrote:As someone using this software, do you need to care?

No.

Not even the authors of this product need to care because it is so unlikely they could ever face serious consequences that it isn't worthwhile to invest the slightest amount of worry.

I'm only speaking from a true/false perspective here. Is it possible to be sued? Yes. Not maybe. If your only options are yes and no, and the answer is not no, that makes the answer yes. End of story.

the first three sentences are exactly correct.

as to the rest...as i mentioned...you can be sued for anything. like literally anything. making the claim "you can get sued for that" is absolutely meaningless if not given any context.

so no its not the end of the story.

in theory anyone can sue anyone else for anything. its just a matter of filling out some forms, sending them in, and then serving the defendant.

will it ever actually get in front of a judge is the real question, and in this case...no...no it wont.

if it wont/cant ever make it in front of a judge...you didnt really get sued.

a plaintiff even runs a risk of penalties if the filed lawsuit is considered frivolous.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:03 am

I hope one day during my lifetime (getting shorter every day unfortunately) I might see copyright return to reasonable limits like 15 years + 15 years extension, where you don't need to prove something is public domain but rather prove it isn't public domain.

Unfortunately I think it needs to get worse before it gets better. The french didn't invent the guillotine until they had damn good motivation for doing so.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:04 am

chaosWyrM wrote: as to the rest...as i mentioned...you can be sued for anything.

Okay great, end of story.

Actually you need to come up with some pretty sound reasoning to explain why you think you couldn't be sued by someone with valid standing in this situation.

If you can start a company that creates prints of records from the 70s and also get liability insurance for this company at a low rate, I might believe you.

Otherwise, bullshit and you haven't even begun to make a valid argument.

Just do some research on the "happy birthday" situation arkmabat referred to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

chaosWyrM · Post by **chaosWyrM** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:08 am

aciddose wrote:
The United States supreme court has ruled that the meaning of words and phrases in the constitution can be defined by the supreme court.

So essentially they declared themselves God.

Disagreeing with them makes us Lucifer, no?

interpreting the constitution is the main function of the supreme court. thats kind of what its for.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:11 am

No, it isn't.

The purpose of the supreme court is to enforce the constitution based upon its intent, not to interpret it.

They're supposed to make valid argument based upon the meaning that would have been understood at the time by those responsible for writing the law.

They're not supposed to make shit up whenever and however they feel like.

It says so in the constitution for f**k sake!

If they're allowed to say it means whatever they want it to, it means there is nothing to define what they can or can't do!

Don't you realize this would be circular reasoning?

chaosWyrM · Post by **chaosWyrM** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:14 am

aciddose wrote:
Actually you need to come up with some pretty sound reasoning to explain why you think you couldn't be sued by someone with valid standing in this situation.

in which situation exactly? as a user of the library or as the maker/seller?

ill assume its the former.

we can start here:

precisely how is the plaintiff going to show standing?

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:17 am

Plaintiff owns rights to source of samples, this makes samples unauthorized derivatives.

User received license from those without the right to license.

See here: https://torrentfreak.com/cnn-cbc-sued-f ... eo-150813/

The user can be notified that their own work is an unauthorized derivative.

This sets up a situation in which those holding the rights to the source material have standing against both the distributor of the product and the user who produces anything with the product.

This can go before a judge. Whether or not the user has a valid defense is another question but once you need a defense I'm afraid you've officially been sued.

Is Boom Bap legal?