Jan 11, 2007 11:56 am Sorry man, not sure whether to count this as discussing piracy or not, so I'm putting it up for discussion.
Get 'em while you can - demos
Posted on Jan 11, 2007 11:16 am
BeerHunter
www.TheLondonProject.ca
Member Since: Feb 07, 2005
Hey guys,
There are a couple really cool demo tracks being posted here. gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=103004
Grab them while you can as I don't think the thread will last very long.
[ Back to Top ]
Jan 11, 2007 11:56 am Sorry man, not sure whether to count this as discussing piracy or not, so I'm putting it up for discussion.
Jan 11, 2007 11:59 am No worries, I didn't think I was discussing piracy, I was discussing demos that are posted on one of the most respected audio engineers website on the internet.
Jan 11, 2007 12:02 pm right, your post is obviously not discussing piracy, so nothing wrong there, question is whether or not what's going on on those forums is or is not piracy, and are we encouraging it (which is a violation of the rules of the forum) by linking to it. Get where I'm coming from? It's nothing you did wrong or anything, so don't worry about it.
Jan 11, 2007 12:04 pm Yeah, I guess it's GearSlutz that'd get in trouble not us, but I do remember bands getting very pissed when things like that happen, their unfinished tracks hit the streets without approval and all...
Jan 11, 2007 12:06 pm eh balls in your court now dB. I did my job, taking a smoke break haha.
Jan 11, 2007 12:08 pm I opened it back up, good call on the review though Loki. At the end of the day, it's GS that's on the hook for this, not HRC.
Jan 11, 2007 12:23 pm I certainly don't want HRC to get in any type of **** over this. This was not my intent at all. I posted the link because believe that it is very valuable to hear what work is done to take a demo to a full release.
Personally, I would not post a clients demo unless it was with their permission. Given the fact that many who have posted these demo's have been directly involved in the process I would think that the responsibility lies on them and their reputation as recording engineers. I feel that this situation is a little different though in that these songs have already been released and are not demo's of songs that have not been released. This is a big difference IMO.
Cheers to HRC and its mods for maintaining the integrity of this site.
Jan 11, 2007 01:07 pm maybe i missed a rule or something... whats wrong with discussing piracy?
Jan 11, 2007 01:13 pm Well, "discussing" it isn't wrong, per se', but linking to illegal downloads and stuff is wrong for reasons that I shouldn't even have to list.
Oh, and beerHunter, I certainly know you had no ill-intentions, no worries.
Jan 11, 2007 01:15 pm oh ok. yeah i didnt see what was wrong with discussing it... seems to me that piracy is something that should be talked about and understood.
thanks, thats good to know.
-melty
Jan 11, 2007 01:16 pm it should be stopped is what it should be, but yeah, I see what you are saying, it's not a taboo subject, just taboo to use HRC to facilitate.
Jan 11, 2007 01:57 pm dB likes saying the word taboo .
Jan 11, 2007 02:03 pm BH it will be Gearslutz that would be at fault for the use of the mp3. So HRC would not be at fault here.
AS for the differance in it being released or not. I have many demo's of clients that are now on CD's or wahtever that are being sold to the public. It is my obligation to keep those private property until said artist were to give the OK to publish it, free or not. I respect my clients enough to not let those demo's get out to the public if it is not the artist wishes.
Although I don't agree with it I guess if someone is careless enough to let it get out then they should expect it to make its way to the public in one form or another.
Jan 11, 2007 02:35 pm There is an interesting comment regarding this subject. Since it starts with "I think" I'm not sure how much it can be relied on so take it with salt.
[quote]I think, in court, you could prove that, techinically it's not illegal, assmuic you made the rough mix. The breakdown is: the multi-track on it's own is copyrighted material owned by the label. A mix is a new sound recording owned in whole by it's author(s). The two catches are 1, it's a derivative work and you must have permission to author the new work (which presumably you were told to make a rough mix). And 2, you must not have given up your ownership rights via contract, which may or may not have happened when they hired you.
So, there's a good chance that this would be legal.[/quote]
Without a doubt this is falling in a grey area. I really hope that more people will continue to post demo's though because being a musician/producer/engineer I've been able to access where my/our skills are at currently and what the labels are hearing as demo's.
One of the songs posted is 3AM pre Matchbox 20 days. In this demo you can totally hear many flaws such as the terrible reverb. In the released version the vocal performance is so much stronger. Listening to these tracks has given me confidence in what we (our band) is doing. We are a lot closer to an official release that what I had originally thought.
Jan 11, 2007 08:06 pm I do agree that there are many catches to the logic of releasing the music. Is it the property of the writer, the producer, the engineer, the studio or what. All can lay claim to a certain portion of it. As stated in the quote it is indeed a differant product, the question is is it owned by the creator such as the engineer or producer who did the mix or is it still the property of the writer.
That has long been a battle fought in the remix arena. Was there an agreement made when the remix was done as to who would now own the rights to the remix? If so was it in the remixers interest or the original writers interest. Any remixes I have done I get paid a set fee and release any rights to the music as my own as I personally don't see it as mine. I am simply remixing it how I picture it. The original content that I create with still belongs to the original creator. The same with loops I may create. Some I retain the right to and will still get money when they are used. Others I will release or give ownership to the end user for a set fee. To me the fee is usually more then I think it would bring any other way. If I feel it might bring more by me retaining the rights then I will do so.
Take someone like DJ Shadow for instance. He pays for the rights to every sample he uses. Even if he has twisted it into an unrecognizable bit he still feels he is using something someone else created and should indeed let those people benefit from it.
But as you stated the grey area's around what is and what isn't legal are huge. And I do agree I as well love hearing this stuff to see how a nice original raw sound ends up so over polished and over produced. Like the Avril Lavigne tune. I liked it in the raw content. It gave much more credibility to the punk roots she came from.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.