The Velvet Forum

I thought by:

Evolution One wrote:The fact that is an edit makes no difference...

you were referring to the recording itself, not the rules. But in terms of the rules I'd say that the fact that the official one is only an edit they should make an exception because it's technically not the same song.

GroovyMusic wrote:I thought by:

Evolution One wrote:The fact that is an edit makes no difference...

you were referring to the recording itself, not the rules. But in terms of the rules I'd say that the fact that the official one is only an edit they should make an exception because it's technically not the same song.

I'm wondering if maybe you both thought that then?

To be honest I'm with you on this...or at least half with you. If anybody has heard the two versions they are very, very different but I'm not sure what the "legal" take would be on things like this?

It's a little annoying because the VU, like many other bands have actually encouraged their fans to tape things like this!! As we know though, what is acceptable for an upcoming band desperate for succes is not always what is acceptable when they become something of the size (+value ) of the VU.

I don't think it does any harm myself with things like this, it's not as if the edit is comparable to the bootleg in sound quality and Im sure that most peope who would download the concert would very happily pay for an official release of it at the same quality of the PS&S edit? I know I certainly would anyway!!

I dont understand what the debate is. A song is a song. Take a piece of it off, and that piece is still part of that song. The law says it is anyways...isn't that what the "sampling" debates were all about back in the 80's? Evolution seems to have a grasp of the situation.

This is another thread that has devolved into nitpicking annoyingness. Thankfully I have the Complete Funhouse Sessions to keep me distracted. All 10,000 takes of Loose!

mg196 wrote:I dont understand what the debate is. A song is a song. Take a piece of it off, and that piece is still part of that song. The law says it is anyways...isn't that what the "sampling" debates were all about back in the 80's? Evolution seems to have a grasp of the situation.

No, a song is not a song. It's a 1/3 the size of the original?the original is public domain as I see it.

mg196 wrote:

Vox wrote:Dime is very strict about it (even if only a small portion of a song has been officially released, the torrent will be banned)

That is exactly why I post 99% of my torrents on Dime. If my torrent is banned for some reason other than "officially released" reasons, I post on Demonoid.

What are you saying?

GroovyMusic wrote:No, a song is not a song. It's a 1/3 the size of the original?the original is public domain as I see it.

The way "you" see it means nothing as you are not the law. The law states that it is illegal to distribute somebody elses property without their express consent.

Every note of that recording is owned. This argument has been going on for decades since people started sampling other peoples recordings.

That is why most sites will remove the recording.

GroovyMusic wrote:

mg196 wrote:I dont understand what the debate is. A song is a song. Take a piece of it off, and that piece is still part of that song. The law says it is anyways...isn't that what the "sampling" debates were all about back in the 80's? Evolution seems to have a grasp of the situation.

No, a song is not a song. It's a 1/3 the size of the original?the original is public domain as I see it.

it will become "public domain" in 2016 (50 years after the recording). That's the current lifetime of a recording's copyright protection.

Technically everything editted OUT is public domain...but that's obvious

GroovyMusic wrote:Technically everything editted OUT is public domain...but that's obvious

Not according to the law and because of that many sites wont allow the track to be listed. The material is the "intellectual property" of the authors whether copyright is applied for or not.

It's fair to guess that the owners don't agree with you either as if they did I'm sure we would be able to download them freely from them.

the 50 year law is not mandatory, the i.p. owner can apply to extend the copyright. This is continually being looked into and it's looking more likely that it will be extended by some years.

So if I go and meticulously isolate everything LEFT OUT of the PSAS edit you're telling me that wouldn't be ok for dime?