Using Licensed Music

[marcyu]

This should put to rest the music industry's argument that using licensed music in fan/home videos is a detriment to their product:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/entertainment ... PageReturn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0

"With more than 11.4 million views, you’ve probably seen the JK Wedding Entrance Dance, the Internet video gone viral of a wedding party dancing down the aisle to Chris Brown’s Forever. But it’s not clear who the biggest winner is: the happy couple or Brown. The YouTube video, posted July 19, now includes an advertisement with a direct link to buy Brown’s 2008 single. Digital sales of the song jumped from less than 3,000 the week ending July 19 to 50,000 for the week ending July 26, says Nielsen SoundScan. Additionally, Exclusive: Forever Edition album sales jumped 130%."

[Kionon]

We know this, they know this, and frankly the issue is they don't care.

[Zarxrax]

It's not about sales, its about control.

[Megamom]

I had not seen that video before!

[The Wired Knight]

Just start using music that is licensed under the Creative Common License, if it bothers you that much. It's put up by artists that are basicaly saying they frankly don't care within reason.

http://creativecommons.org/

There, knock yourself out. (Actually there's some pretty good stuff on here in terms of a lot of media.)

[trythil]

I really shouldn't have to keep posting this, but:

There is no such thing as "the Creative Commons license"

There is a SET of licenses. Some grant the rights to make derivative works, some do not. Said otherwise: lrn2readkthxbai.

While on the subject of Creative Commons, I might as well plug Magnatune. Again.

[The Wired Knight]

It's technically a misnomer but colloquially it is called the creative common license and things put with the circle cc - (cc) (stupid qwerty keyboard has no way of typing that like you can a copyright symbol) is a legitimate form of using licensed material that technically is not otherwise in the public domain.

[trythil]

It's technically a misnomer but colloquially it is called the creative common license and things put with the circle cc - (cc) (stupid qwerty keyboard has no way of typing that like you can a copyright symbol) is a legitimate form of using licensed material that technically is not otherwise in the public domain.

Uh, no. Here's why that's wrong.

The double-C-in-circle logo, by itself, can be interpreted as either not meaning anything or that the work to which it is applied is licensed under some Creative Commons license. "Colloquial" usage would lean towards the latter interpretation. But you cannot say just what rights you have to a work by the presence of the double-C-in-circle logo alone, because of the existence of Creative Commons licenses incorporating the "no derivative works" restriction, i.e. CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-ND.

Which is why I strongly object to usage of the phrase "the Creative Commons license". It's not only technically meaningless, it encourages a mode of thinking that lumps all the Creative Commons licenses -- which vary widely with regard to the restrictions they each impose -- into one amorphous blob, which is about as far from the truth as you can get.

I can get only so personal here, but maybe you should rethink going to law school. What I'm point out are elementary errors, not subtle distinctions.

[lelangir]

use original music, made by the doujin music fanbase

[hasteroth]

trythil

calm down.

Some people (me) aren't as "smart" as you.