And once again. I have yet to hear one label that has sued anyone, let alone won a case against a dude who made a mix cd that he gave away and never made a profit from. If majors in the US aren't doing it, I'm doubting any small label going after someone in Africa could...
I mean, I hope you do well on ur venture. I want to see everyone do well from this site.
But man, you would be pissed to know that people in certain countries can make copies of ur CD and give them away to anyone they pleased and you and any lawyer on the planet couldn't do anything about it.
I mean, I wouldn't do it... But one could.
I just think it was bad form to go at Frank & Raj with the lawyer talk right off the bat.
Plus, I'm guessing that your "exclusive licensing deal" would only allow you to redistribute the tracks away way you feel fit for said amount of time in your deal (Say another comp or license off to say a video game or something along those lines), but not a holder of the copyrights.
so many of your core US demographic frequent this site.
This is ridiculous...
how so? i live in the US and enjoyed frank's mix. and know i'm not the only one... you can't really defend mr. tunisia, he didn't come correct and is going to pay the price.
No you can not sue if you are not the copyright holder. But I am. Thats the essence of an license agreement. The musicians (or producer) are the original holder of the copyright. When an exclusive licensing deal is signed you basically become the "successors", this of course is for a limited time. It gives me the exclusive privilege of multiplying CD/Vinyl.
So your the "copyright holder" (temporary) and your fighting to make sure people buy your copy of the songs on your comp (and not download them from free off of Frank's mix) so you can make sure that the original musicians (or producers) are getting their cut of the profits (again, from YOUR comp)?
Is that correct? (anybody please correct me if I have this wrong)
I'll play devil's advocate here - how do we know this to be true? How do we know that the OG's are getting paid and that your not just blowing smoke up everyone's ass to make yourself look like the good guy? Not calling you a liar, just simply thinking out loud.
I think this would be a different story if it was the actual artist sounding the alarm on this. It just sounds like your a middle man trying to make a buck who throwing rocks from behind the "doing it for the artist" flag because somebody has beat you to the punch
Thats just part of our world, holms. It's called having the hot shit first.
But, what do I know.
Frank - none of this would have happened if you would have just mixed your records.
Wishing other peoples records / comps to flop is not a good look. Asking to post up contracts is just plain stupid.
When thats said I agree that Mr. Analog Africa didn't handle this the smoothest way possible. I have met both of the parties involved in this and they both have a genuine love for music and as far as I can tell they're both really cool and honest people.
Of course Analog Africa wants to make some money of the comp as it takes a huge effort both money and time wise to make a legitimate comp of african music. Is that wrong? No, of course not!
If you love african music why not support the few labels that actually make proper legitimate comps?
"limited time" is relative isnt it? In my case its 5 years from the day the compilation is released. After thoses 5 years if I dont want to prolonge the contract or the artists is not satisfied anyone else can ask to license it and release it, so yes you are correct on that, but only after my contract expires. So you want me to post my contract? You are a funny man.
No you can not sue if you are not the copyright holder. But I am. Thats the essence of an license agreement. The musicians (or producer) are the original holder of the copyright. When an exclusive licensing deal is signed you basically become the "successors", this of course is for a limited time. It gives me the exclusive privilege of multiplying CD/Vinyl.
So your the "copyright holder" (temporary) and your fighting to make sure people buy your copy of the songs on your comp (and not download them from free off of Frank's mix) so you can make sure that the original musicians (or producers) are getting their cut of the profits (again, from YOUR comp)?
Is that correct? (anybody please correct me if I have this wrong)
I'll play devil's advocate here - how do we know this to be true? How do we know that the OG's are getting paid and that your not just blowing smoke up everyone's ass to make yourself look like the good guy? Not calling you a liar, just simply thinking out loud.
I think this would be a different story if it was the actual artist sounding the alarm on this. It just sounds like your a middle man trying to make a buck who throwing rocks from behind the "doing it for the artist" flag because somebody has beat you to the punch
Thats just part of our world, holms. It's called having the hot shit first.
But, what do I know.
Frank - none of this would have happened if you would have just mixed your records.
Can I get a mix?
Do you have an Idea where most of the DJs are getting their Afro funk and Afro beat records from ? Find out and come back to me.
So You want a 60 year old musician from Benin, who dosent even know how to handel his email box to "sound the alarm"?
No you can not sue if you are not the copyright holder. But I am. Thats the essence of an license agreement. The musicians (or producer) are the original holder of the copyright. When an exclusive licensing deal is signed you basically become the "successors", this of course is for a limited time. It gives me the exclusive privilege of multiplying CD/Vinyl.
So your the "copyright holder" (temporary) and your fighting to make sure people buy your copy of the songs on your comp (and not download them from free off of Frank's mix) so you can make sure that the original musicians (or producers) are getting their cut of the profits (again, from YOUR comp)?
Is that correct? (anybody please correct me if I have this wrong)
I'll play devil's advocate here - how do we know this to be true? How do we know that the OG's are getting paid and that your not just blowing smoke up everyone's ass to make yourself look like the good guy? Not calling you a liar, just simply thinking out loud.
I think this would be a different story if it was the actual artist sounding the alarm on this. It just sounds like your a middle man trying to make a buck who throwing rocks from behind the "doing it for the artist" flag because somebody has beat you to the punch
Thats just part of our world, holms. It's called having the hot shit first.
But, what do I know.
Frank - none of this would have happened if you would have just mixed your records.
Can I get a mix?
Do you have an Idea where most of the DJs are getting their Afro funk and Afro beat records from ? Find out and come back to me.
So You want a 60 year old musician from Benin, who dosent even know how to handel his email box to "sound the alarm"?
"limited time" is relative isnt it? In my case its 5 years from the day the compilation is released. After thoses 5 years if I dont want to prolonge the contract or the artists is not satisfied anyone else can ask to license it and release it, so yes you are correct on that, but only after my contract expires. So you want me to post my contract? You are a funny man.
As for the limited/exclusive contract, i understand that there are benefits, but at the same time, its not like you can prevent prior compilations or recordings from being in the marketplace, and as you state, nor can you control what gets produced after the 5 years expire.
It doesnt seem like much of a benefit (compared to a regular licensing agreement)....except that it protects and provides you with legal rights for those 5 years that you wouldnt have under a non-exclusive agreement. I want to see your contract because, as a lawyer, i am curious to see how it is worded. I'm not doubting the existence of it.
No you can not sue if you are not the copyright holder. But I am. Thats the essence of an license agreement. The musicians (or producer) are the original holder of the copyright. When an exclusive licensing deal is signed you basically become the "successors", this of course is for a limited time. It gives me the exclusive privilege of multiplying CD/Vinyl.
So your the "copyright holder" (temporary) and your fighting to make sure people buy your copy of the songs on your comp (and not download them from free off of Frank's mix) so you can make sure that the original musicians (or producers) are getting their cut of the profits (again, from YOUR comp)?
Is that correct? (anybody please correct me if I have this wrong)
I'll play devil's advocate here - how do we know this to be true? How do we know that the OG's are getting paid and that your not just blowing smoke up everyone's ass to make yourself look like the good guy? Not calling you a liar, just simply thinking out loud.
I think this would be a different story if it was the actual artist sounding the alarm on this. It just sounds like your a middle man trying to make a buck who throwing rocks from behind the "doing it for the artist" flag because somebody has beat you to the punch
Thats just part of our world, holms. It's called having the hot shit first.
But, what do I know.
Frank - none of this would have happened if you would have just mixed your records.
Can I get a mix?
Do you have an Idea where most of the DJs are getting their Afro funk and Afro beat records from ? Find out and come back to me.
So You want a 60 year old musician from Benin, who dosent even know how to handel his email box to "sound the alarm"?
Like I brought up before. Maybe someone else can chime in. I've never heard of any licensing deal that also gives you copyright ownership. Wouldn't a world exclusive licensing deal just give you possible rights to license to others? But not ownership...
And Dres, I don't think anyone was hitting him off with the "I hope ur comp goes down the tubes". More like it's not very kewl to fire off e-mails with lawyer talk to someone doing a personal mix cd or Raj posting it. It's not like his comp was getting shared for free. The guy isn't owed anything from them. We are talking about a mix CD given out for free...
What's next? Nas saying his lawyers are going to get involved if a DJ puts Life's a Bitch on a classic mix CD and refuses to put an ad on the mix saying where & when you can pick up his greatest hits comp coming out in 6 months is going to be sold.
Look. I'm a really nice guy and do what I can to "support the scene". My communication skills may be lacking but that's because I am trying to juggle 8000 things at once.
Samy came at me all sideways and immediately made a bad impression by threatening to sick lawyers on me for hosting a fucking DJ mix that ultimately was a great promo tool. People are checking for Frank's mixes and those rabid enough about them will seek out a legit issue.
He came across as paranoid and greedy. His initial wish was for me to take it down from the web site and I did. It wasn't until he realized the impact of all this that he backtracked and wanted me to make good by keeping the mix up and giving his comps a plug!!??
At this point, I wish to have nothing to do with any of it. It was on the site for a good month and a half and whoever really wants to here this can get their hands on it.
My advice would be for him to get to know the people who will ultimately be his customer base. And NOT attack them with petty law suits.
Look. I'm a really nice guy and do what I can to "support the scene". My communication skills may be lacking but that's because I am trying to juggle 8000 things at once.
Samy came at me all sideways and immediately made a bad impression by threatening to sick lawyers on me for hosting a fucking DJ mix that ultimately was a great promo tool. People are checking for Frank's mixes and those rabid enough about them will seek out a legit issue.
He came across as paranoid and greedy. His initial wish was for me to take it down from the web site and I did. It wasn't until he realized the impact of all this that he backtracked and wanted me to make good by keeping the mix up and giving his comps a plug!!??
At this point, I wish to have nothing to do with any of it. It was on the site for a good month and a half and whoever really wants to here this can get their hands on it.
My advice would be for him to get to know the people who will ultimately be his customer base. And NOT attack them with petty law suits.
Case closed.
RAJ It is true I know I made a bad impression first, but we are human and we sometimes make wrong judgements. But What followed was an olive branch that you have decided to ignore. It is very easy to blame others but to have a close look at ourselves is always a bit more difficult.
You write "It wasn't until he realized the impact of all this that he backtracked and wanted me to make good by keeping the mix up", Thats nonsense.
The reason why I Changed my mind is because Frank wrote a cool mail, not because he belives he was wrong by placing the mix on your site, but because he realised we missundestood each other. In that mail Frank also apologies for being rude with his replying to a friendly email. Franks mail arrived in my mailbox at 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT) And the mail send to Raj saying that I dont mind the mix on his website was sent at 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
I might have paniqued, and the reasons for that were describe. You are passionate about music and we are the labels making it possible for you to have a superbly mastered vinyl to decorate you DJ crown. As such one would have expected another reaction, even if we have different opinions. I was open for any kind of suggestions but you have choosen silence as a way of communication.
(This mail was sent on the 21.05 - The mix was removed on the 22.05) Raj I have send you a mail explaining the efforts involved, the money spend and the fears I have , It couldnt have been a more open email, but you have decided to ignore it.
Passion is not only about listening to music but also to protect, not only the african composers but also to protect the labels releasing the music, that is passion.
As I said Frank just needed to ask for permission, what more can I offer? That didnt seems to work so I??ve asked you to mentione my label at the end of the track listing. Obviously I was asking for too much and now the mix is going to be removed insteed!! Surprising.
It is not my objective to leave a bad impression. To be of different opinion with someone doesnt harm, communication is the key. Samy
not to drag this convo out any longer, but didn't you say yourself that your licensing deal doesn't take effect until the comp is released? why would frank need to ask you for anything before then?
not to drag this convo out any longer, but didn't you say yourself that your licensing deal doesn't take effect until the comp is released? why would frank need to ask you for anything before then?
The track is protected by the time you declare it, I can declare a song months before it is released. Here in Germany we declare the songs at the GEMA which will make sure Your rights are protected not only for the duration of the license but from the time the tracks are declared.
The licensor has to be aware by the fact that the preparation of a compilation will take a year sometimes two. To give you an exemple: Luaka Bop licensed the track "Minsato Le, Mi Dayihom" 4 years before actualy releasing it, thats very unusual, but as long as the licensor is aware of that and doesnt get other offers, no harm.
RAJ AND OTHERS MIGHT BE INTERESTED BY THIS:
If a DJ wishes to record a mix on an audio carrier or in the form of a file, he or she must first clarify the following rights:
1. Right to arrange a musical work: The nature of the works of music is changed by the act of mixing. The composer, who is usually represented by a music publisher, must authorise any arrangement or adaptation of the original work. Information concerning the music publisher in question can be obtained from the database on GEMA's homepage www.gema.de/engl/musicsearch/ or from GEMA's Documentation Department in Berlin, Dagmar Rosenberger, [email]drosenberger@gema.de[/email], Tel. +49 (0)30/21245-450.
2. Right in and to the recording, neighbouring rights: The recording itself is also vested with rights. The owners of such rights are the audio-carrier producers (record companies). If existing recordings of CDs or phonographic records are used to create a mix, the audio-carrier producer must be asked beforehand for permission to use the recording. Relevant information can be obtained from IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
If a DJ wishes to record a mix on an audio carrier or in the form of a file, he or she must first clarify the following rights:
1. Right to arrange a musical work: The nature of the works of music is changed by the act of mixing. The composer, who is usually represented by a music publisher, must authorise any arrangement or adaptation of the original work. Information concerning the music publisher in question can be obtained from the database on GEMA's homepage www.gema.de/engl/musicsearch/ or from GEMA's Documentation Department in Berlin, Dagmar Rosenberger, [email]drosenberger@gema.de[/email], Tel. +49 (0)30/21245-450.
2. Right in and to the recording, neighbouring rights: The recording itself is also vested with rights. The owners of such rights are the audio-carrier producers (record companies). If existing recordings of CDs or phonographic records are used to create a mix, the audio-carrier producer must be asked beforehand for permission to use the recording. Relevant information can be obtained from IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
I'm sure these are fascinating bits of law that almost NO ONE has ever followed nor will given the current climate.
It's not reasonable - let alone rational - for someone making a FREE MIX to bother with any of this. Seriously.
DOR I am looking to have a constructive discussion about this issue as it means a lot to me but if you want you can continue making shallow comments, feel free. In the meantime read this:
if existing recordings of CDs or phonographic records are used to create a mix, the audio-carrier producer must be asked beforehand for PERMISSION to use the recording.
DOR I am looking to have a constructive discussion about this issue as it means a lot to me but if you want you can continue making shallow comments, feel free. In the meantime read this:
if existing recordings of CDs or phonographic records are used to create a mix, the audio-carrier producer must be asked beforehand for PERMISSION to use the recording.
Guy... What you are stating I believe is German law. Not the law of the world. You must look into the countries of where you say the infringement is taking place and go by their laws. Not your countries.
We've had this talk on here before...
Like, when your comp comes out. I'm able to buy it or download it and make as many copies as I want and give it to anyone in my country I please. German laws or any other countries laws don't mean a thing...
I'm sure these are fascinating bits of law that almost NO ONE has ever followed nor will given the current climate.
It's not reasonable - let alone rational - for someone making a FREE MIX to bother with any of this. Seriously.
frank had no legal right, nor do any other djs, to post a FREE mix of music without permission and/or ownership rights. the fact that he posted the mix gratuitously is irrelevant. thats like arguing that because you stole $100, but gave it away, its not illegal.
this guy paid for a license to sell this music. so he has a legitimate interest in getting his money's worth, right? whether he approached the issue with a level-head is arguable, but if any of us were in his shoes, i think our first instinct would be to say, what the fuck, someone is giving away the shit i just paid for.
for whatever reason, people still dont understand that it is illegal to share music you don't own. the music on my ipod is entirely made up of dj mixes. i wish the law wasn't the way that it is. but to act like the law is unenforceable is very risky. people get nailed. ask dj drama.
If a DJ wishes to record a mix on an audio carrier or in the form of a file, he or she must first clarify the following rights:
1. Right to arrange a musical work: The nature of the works of music is changed by the act of mixing. The composer, who is usually represented by a music publisher, must authorise any arrangement or adaptation of the original work. Information concerning the music publisher in question can be obtained from the database on GEMA's homepage www.gema.de/engl/musicsearch/ or from GEMA's Documentation Department in Berlin, Dagmar Rosenberger, [email]drosenberger@gema.de[/email], Tel. +49 (0)30/21245-450.
2. Right in and to the recording, neighbouring rights: The recording itself is also vested with rights. The owners of such rights are the audio-carrier producers (record companies). If existing recordings of CDs or phonographic records are used to create a mix, the audio-carrier producer must be asked beforehand for permission to use the recording. Relevant information can be obtained from IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
I'm sure these are fascinating bits of law that almost NO ONE has ever followed nor will given the current climate.
It's not reasonable - let alone rational - for someone making a FREE MIX to bother with any of this. Seriously.
Thats exactly the reason why all the labels who use to release african music few years ago had to close down, nobody gives a fuck. Is that really what we want? Today downloads has become the most important source of income for small labels (its is called the L syndrom which I can explain to you if you want). I dont mind few tracks on a mix, and I??m keeping repeating this, but I was worried to see all my comp Downloadable for free by the time it is released. Is it so hard to undestand? Anyway I have tried my best to explain my thoughts but I guess I failed.
if existing recordings of CDs or phonographic records are used to create a mix, the audio-carrier producer must be asked beforehand for PERMISSION to use the recording.
And what people are trying to tell you is that for the vast majority of DJs who put together their own mixes, they will never bother with this and absent prosecution or litigation have absolutely no incentive to.
You may not like that reality but it doesn't change the fact that it's a reality. The law will not help you here. A more pleasant personality with Frank or Rich, however. Would have done far far more good than quoting unenforceable (not to mention debatable) intellectual propety rules.
it's just music, i feel blessed just 2 be able to hear these sounds that otherwise would have nevar graced these ears
sure cool, get the rites so everyone else tryin to just spread the music without gettin a profit have to get your consent? who are u anyways? hey Prince, this aint Hey Jude buddy, cool yo' stryde baby
Is it me, or is this dude sounding WAY more reasonable than everyone is giving him credit for? I know he made a bad initial impression on Raj, and that's between the two of them, but for the rest of us I think it's pretty clear his heart's in the right place. yahm?
I just arrived in Berlin with an 8 hours delay after a 22 hours horror trip with Brussels Airlines from Conakry via Dakar and right now, I'm busy getting drunk on ice cold OG Check Budweiser...
Anyway, as I tried to explain to Mozambeat earlier in my email, I guess most of the trouble was due to myself more or less telling him to go fuck himself when he first contacted me. I just thought that I was only making music available for people to hear and rather gave him free PR for his Comps than stealing anything. I just enjoy sharing the music that I love. I used to DJ for a living since the mid 90s and it always meant a lot to me to have people dance to and enjoy music that I had just discovered for myself. For the past 2 years now I've been living in Guinea and while it continues to be an amazing experience, it also makes me realize, how much playing records in a club meant to me. Now I'm finding all this "new" exciting music that I've never heard before and sharing it with people online has been very rewarding and encouraging to me. Then, out of the blue, I get a mail from someone asking me to restrict myself from sharing a certain list of songs. Me being an old punk rocker just say "go fuck yourself". Of course Mozambique wasn't pleased with the response and when he saw that I put up a new mix including 2 tracks that he had licenced, he got mad and started coming at me and RAJ with lawyer talk...
I am now convinced that all this mess is just a result of bad communication and bad paople skills on all parts involved.
Is it me, or is this dude sounding WAY more reasonable than everyone is giving him credit for? I know he made a bad initial impression on Raj, and that's between the two of them, but for the rest of us I think it's pretty clear his heart's in the right place. yahm?
We all love Frank and Raj, but you and Moz are right and Raj and the rest of us are wrong.
People are clowning this guys English. Talking about the greater philosphical issues around downloading music.
Moz has shown he is willing to talk and try to understand where we are coming from, we should give him the same respect.
Comments
So is there a lawsuit coming to me if I post the mix up right now on this thread?
And once again. I have yet to hear one label that has sued anyone, let alone won a case against a dude who made a mix cd that he gave away and never made a profit from. If majors in the US aren't doing it, I'm doubting any small label going after someone in Africa could...
I mean, I hope you do well on ur venture. I want to see everyone do well from this site.
But man, you would be pissed to know that people in certain countries can make copies of ur CD and give them away to anyone they pleased and you and any lawyer on the planet couldn't do anything about it.
I mean, I wouldn't do it... But one could.
I just think it was bad form to go at Frank & Raj with the lawyer talk right off the bat.
Plus, I'm guessing that your "exclusive licensing deal" would only allow you to redistribute the tracks away way you feel fit for said amount of time in your deal (Say another comp or license off to say a video game or something along those lines), but not a holder of the copyrights.
I may be wrong on that one tho...
This is ridiculous...
how so? i live in the US and enjoyed frank's mix. and know i'm not the only one... you can't really defend mr. tunisia, he didn't come correct and is going to pay the price.
So your the "copyright holder" (temporary) and your fighting to make sure people buy your copy of the songs on your comp (and not download them from free off of Frank's mix) so you can make sure that the original musicians (or producers) are getting their cut of the profits (again, from YOUR comp)?
Is that correct? (anybody please correct me if I have this wrong)
I'll play devil's advocate here - how do we know this to be true? How do we know that the OG's are getting paid and that your not just blowing smoke up everyone's ass to make yourself look like the good guy? Not calling you a liar, just simply thinking out loud.
I think this would be a different story if it was the actual artist sounding the alarm on this. It just sounds like your a middle man trying to make a buck who throwing rocks from behind the "doing it for the artist" flag because somebody has beat you to the punch
Thats just part of our world, holms. It's called having the hot shit first.
But, what do I know.
Frank - none of this would have happened if you would have just mixed your records.
Can I get a mix?
Wishing other peoples records / comps to flop is not a good look. Asking to post up contracts is just plain stupid.
When thats said I agree that Mr. Analog Africa didn't handle this the smoothest way possible. I have met both of the parties involved in this and they both have a genuine love for music and as far as I can tell they're both really cool and honest people.
Of course Analog Africa wants to make some money of the comp as it takes a huge effort both money and time wise to make a legitimate comp of african music. Is that wrong? No, of course not!
If you love african music why not support the few labels that actually make proper legitimate comps?
Stop the fucking hate, strutters.
Peace,
Dress
So You want a 60 year old musician from Benin, who dosent even know how to handel his email box to "sound the alarm"?
Do you have an Idea where most of the DJs are getting their Afro funk and Afro beat records from ? Find out and come back to me.
So You want a 60 year old musician from Benin, who dosent even know how to handel his email box to "sound the alarm"?
As for the limited/exclusive contract, i understand that there are benefits, but at the same time, its not like you can prevent prior compilations or recordings from being in the marketplace, and as you state, nor can you control what gets produced after the 5 years expire.
It doesnt seem like much of a benefit (compared to a regular licensing agreement)....except that it protects and provides you with legal rights for those 5 years that you wouldnt have under a non-exclusive agreement. I want to see your contract because, as a lawyer, i am curious to see how it is worded. I'm not doubting the existence of it.
Like I brought up before. Maybe someone else can chime in. I've never heard of any licensing deal that also gives you copyright ownership. Wouldn't a world exclusive licensing deal just give you possible rights to license to others? But not ownership...
And Dres, I don't think anyone was hitting him off with the "I hope ur comp goes down the tubes". More like it's not very kewl to fire off e-mails with lawyer talk to someone doing a personal mix cd or Raj posting it. It's not like his comp was getting shared for free. The guy isn't owed anything from them. We are talking about a mix CD given out for free...
What's next? Nas saying his lawyers are going to get involved if a DJ puts Life's a Bitch on a classic mix CD and refuses to put an ad on the mix saying where & when you can pick up his greatest hits comp coming out in 6 months is going to be sold.
Jokes 4 dayz...
Talk like this isn't about the love of the music.
Samy came at me all sideways and immediately made a bad impression by threatening to sick lawyers on me for hosting a fucking DJ mix that ultimately was a great promo tool. People are checking for Frank's mixes and those rabid enough about them will seek out a legit issue.
He came across as paranoid and greedy. His initial wish was for me to take it down from the web site and I did. It wasn't until he realized the impact of all this that he backtracked and wanted me to make good by keeping the mix up and giving his comps a plug!!??
At this point, I wish to have nothing to do with any of it. It was on the site for a good month and a half and whoever really wants to here this can get their hands on it.
My advice would be for him to get to know the people who will ultimately be his customer base. And NOT attack them with petty law suits.
Case closed.
RAJ
It is true I know I made a bad impression first, but we are human and we sometimes make wrong judgements. But What followed was an olive branch that you have decided to ignore. It is very easy to blame others but to have a close look at ourselves is always a bit more difficult.
You write "It wasn't until he realized the impact of all this that he backtracked and wanted me to make good by keeping the mix up", Thats nonsense.
The reason why I Changed my mind is because Frank wrote a cool mail, not because he belives he was wrong by placing the mix on your site, but because he realised we missundestood each other. In that mail Frank also apologies for being rude with his replying to a friendly email.
Franks mail arrived in my mailbox at 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
And the mail send to Raj saying that I dont mind the mix on his website was sent at 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
I might have paniqued, and the reasons for that were describe. You are passionate about music and we are the labels making it possible for you to have a superbly mastered vinyl to decorate you DJ crown. As such one would have expected another reaction, even if we have different opinions. I was open for any kind of suggestions but you have choosen silence as a way of communication.
(This mail was sent on the 21.05 - The mix was removed on the 22.05)
Raj
I have send you a mail explaining the efforts
involved, the money spend and the fears I have , It
couldnt have been a more open email, but you have
decided to ignore it.
Passion is not only about listening to music but also
to protect, not only the african composers but also to
protect the labels releasing the music, that is
passion.
As I said Frank just needed to ask for permission,
what more can I offer? That didnt seems to work so
I??ve asked you to mentione my label at the end of the
track listing. Obviously I was asking for too much and
now the mix is going to be removed insteed!!
Surprising.
It is not my objective to leave a bad impression. To
be of different opinion with someone doesnt harm,
communication is the key.
Samy
not to drag this convo out any longer, but didn't you say yourself that your licensing deal doesn't take effect until the comp is released? why would frank need to ask you for anything before then?
Permission...
This thread is jokes.
The track is protected by the time you declare it, I can declare a song months before it is released. Here in Germany we declare the songs at the GEMA which will make sure Your rights are protected not only for the duration of the license but from the time the tracks are declared.
The licensor has to be aware by the fact that the preparation of a compilation will take a year sometimes two. To give you an exemple: Luaka Bop licensed the track "Minsato Le, Mi Dayihom" 4 years before actualy releasing it, thats very unusual, but as long as the licensor is aware of that and doesnt get other offers, no harm.
RAJ AND OTHERS MIGHT BE INTERESTED BY THIS:
If a DJ wishes to record a mix on an audio carrier or in the form of a file, he or she must first clarify the following rights:
1. Right to arrange a musical work: The nature of the works of music is changed by the act of mixing. The composer, who is usually represented by a music publisher, must authorise any arrangement or adaptation of the original work. Information concerning the music publisher in question can be obtained from the database on GEMA's homepage www.gema.de/engl/musicsearch/ or from GEMA's Documentation Department in Berlin, Dagmar Rosenberger, [email]drosenberger@gema.de[/email], Tel. +49 (0)30/21245-450.
2. Right in and to the recording, neighbouring rights: The recording itself is also vested with rights. The owners of such rights are the audio-carrier producers (record companies). If existing recordings of CDs or phonographic records are used to create a mix, the audio-carrier producer must be asked beforehand for permission to use the recording. Relevant information can be obtained from IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
I'm sure these are fascinating bits of law that almost NO ONE has ever followed nor will given the current climate.
It's not reasonable - let alone rational - for someone making a FREE MIX to bother with any of this. Seriously.
DOR I am looking to have a constructive discussion about this issue as it means a lot to me but if you want you can continue making shallow comments, feel free. In the meantime read this:
if existing recordings of CDs or phonographic records are used to create a mix, the audio-carrier producer must be asked beforehand for PERMISSION to use the recording.
Does this involve going all limp-wristed and/or perhaps growing a droopy moustache?
Guy... What you are stating I believe is German law. Not the law of the world. You must look into the countries of where you say the infringement is taking place and go by their laws. Not your countries.
We've had this talk on here before...
Like, when your comp comes out. I'm able to buy it or download it and make as many copies as I want and give it to anyone in my country I please. German laws or any other countries laws don't mean a thing...
frank had no legal right, nor do any other djs, to post a FREE mix of music without permission and/or ownership rights. the fact that he posted the mix gratuitously is irrelevant. thats like arguing that because you stole $100, but gave it away, its not illegal.
this guy paid for a license to sell this music. so he has a legitimate interest in getting his money's worth, right? whether he approached the issue with a level-head is arguable, but if any of us were in his shoes, i think our first instinct would be to say, what the fuck, someone is giving away the shit i just paid for.
for whatever reason, people still dont understand that it is illegal to share music you don't own. the music on my ipod is entirely made up of dj mixes. i wish the law wasn't the way that it is. but to act like the law is unenforceable is very risky. people get nailed. ask dj drama.
Thats exactly the reason why all the labels who use to release african music few years ago had to close down, nobody gives a fuck. Is that really what we want? Today downloads has become the most important source of income for small labels (its is called the L syndrom which I can explain to you if you want). I dont mind few tracks on a mix, and I??m keeping repeating this, but I was worried to see all my comp Downloadable for free by the time it is released. Is it so hard to undestand? Anyway I have tried my best to explain my thoughts but I guess I failed.
And what people are trying to tell you is that for the vast majority of DJs who put together their own mixes, they will never bother with this and absent prosecution or litigation have absolutely no incentive to.
You may not like that reality but it doesn't change the fact that it's a reality. The law will not help you here. A more pleasant personality with Frank or Rich, however. Would have done far far more good than quoting unenforceable (not to mention debatable) intellectual propety rules.
sure cool, get the rites so everyone else tryin to just spread the music without gettin a profit have to get your consent? who are u anyways?
hey Prince, this aint Hey Jude buddy, cool yo' stryde baby
Keith,
Please feel free to tell me how any German laws have anything to do with what is going on in Africa, or any other country for that matter.
Anyway, as I tried to explain to Mozambeat earlier in my email, I guess most of the trouble was due to myself more or less telling him to go fuck himself when he first contacted me. I just thought that I was only making music available for people to hear and rather gave him free PR for his Comps than stealing anything. I just enjoy sharing the music that I love. I used to DJ for a living since the mid 90s and it always meant a lot to me to have people dance to and enjoy music that I had just discovered for myself. For the past 2 years now I've been living in Guinea and while it continues to be an amazing experience, it also makes me realize, how much playing records in a club meant to me. Now I'm finding all this "new" exciting music that I've never heard before and sharing it with people online has been very rewarding and encouraging to me. Then, out of the blue, I get a mail from someone asking me to restrict myself from sharing a certain list of songs. Me being an old punk rocker just say "go fuck yourself". Of course Mozambique wasn't pleased with the response and when he saw that I put up a new mix including 2 tracks that he had licenced, he got mad and started coming at me and RAJ with lawyer talk...
I am now convinced that all this mess is just a result of bad communication and bad paople skills on all parts involved.
Shit, this probably really sounded kinda gay...
We all love Frank and Raj, but you and Moz are right and Raj and the rest of us are wrong.
People are clowning this guys English. Talking about the greater philosphical issues around downloading music.
Moz has shown he is willing to talk and try to understand where we are coming from, we should give him the same respect.