Song needed
- Thread starter rickryan.com
- Start date
When you make a blanket statement like this adding a link for the unwashed masses would be nice. Personally I don't believe a word your saying but I've been wrong before
I don't need to convince you. If you cared at all about the subject you'd educate yourself on it. You don't, and that's okay with me.
You're not my responsibility.
.. and if you know what you claim to know, you'd share it with those that may not have not seen this information.
Last edited:
I pay for the Spotify premium. That way I can download the song and don't need to rely on as streaming.
Special price of $99 for the year ... Music for everyone.
I have no dog in the fight I don't live in the jurisdiction I just thought since you were all wise it might be beneficial for you to show it
He has no more idea than I do
Well, that is where you went wrong, happens to me all the time as well.
OZ. WON'T. STOP. SPEAKING.
(But will never grant the uninformed masses a boon from his all-knowing pontification font, for it is on thine own self to findeth yon falsely-cited juris-fakence).
Anyone else sense the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" parallel?
GJ
(But will never grant the uninformed masses a boon from his all-knowing pontification font, for it is on thine own self to findeth yon falsely-cited juris-fakence).
Anyone else sense the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" parallel?
GJ
Last edited:
The legal term is "time shifting." It's not a copyright clause, it's broadcasting fair use application adapted in more recent decisions regarding the applications of fair use for consumers in the digital age.
Which applies to individual consumers, but not public performances, which events such as weddings can be construed as. Add to that the fact that getting the songs from YouTube without Red (a music account), or Spotify without a premium account can be dicey legally (no royalty revenue for content owners), and you have the basics of a... Wait for it....... Ethical Dilemma.
So, yeah...
GJ
So, yeah...
GJ
Actually, weddings are not public performances. I agree with the rest - not so much about royalty, but you have to intentionally download and install software to rip music from youtube - this shows you willfully went around measures to obtain something, which is where the ethics come into play.
Last edited:
Right. And the lawful payment schemes set-up by these on-line content providers, along with advertising, are what cover the costs of performance rights. It's complicated, and not nearly as simple as "no dilemma." Not that many of us haven't resorted to such measures when you "have to have it" for a specific gig, but that doesn't make it any less of a conundrum.
GJ
GJ
No, you don't. There are tons of free online converters for youtube tracks.
Big difference between broadcast time shifting and playing a recording for profit. One could *maybe* claim time shift convenience IF the customer provided the media. And specifically refers to playback of broadcasts, not playback of online media which has specific copyright coverages, particularly when pay-for-play is involved.
Exactly, and you have to intentionally get or use them to convert the tracks. None of these online places allow you to do this natively - and there's a reason for that. Your motions to get or use these converters could potentially display willfull intent.
Youtube 'IS' a public performance. That's the difference. A wedding is a private performance.