Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Government The Courts News Your Rights Online

New Copyright Licence Allows Remixing In UK 25

Posted by timothy from the catching-up-with-reality dept.
BearJ writes "Yahoo is reporting that Creative Commons is set to launch a new copyright licence in the UK that will allow for 'remix' use. Technically this use of another's works are illegal. Next month's Wired magazine will contain a CD licenced under this scheme, so sampling is permitted. More info on the Creative Commons site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Copyright Licence Allows Remixing In UK More

New Copyright Licence Allows Remixing In UK

Comments Filter:
  • This is great news for UK people. Is remix use illegal in the US also, or does it qualify under fair use? In any case, Creative Commons will soon spread around the world. :)
  • If I want to sue someone for breach of copyright I still can. This seems like a publicity stunt to me.
  • The more they restrict, the more they free those who support the industry to move thier support to groups such as creative commons, and artists will decide to use thier license.

    As I said before, now all we need is a way of publishing music cheaply... d'uh... :-)

    When those people who are trying to make inroads into the industry for thier musical talents, not business acumen, are able to harness music publishing like mp3.com (or ogg.com!) then we will see people *signed* on for music deals that have purely

  • Step backwards? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Cowdog ( 154277 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:01AM (#10437681) Journal
    This might be a step backwards. A more worthy goal might be to work toward getting affirmation that all such sampling, perhaps with sample size limits, is covered under fair use. By promoting a license that explicitly allows this use, it seems CC is validating the view, recently upheld in one single court case, that sampling is never permitted under fair use.

    It's a bit as though they had come out and published a new "linking policy license" that web sites could post to explicitly allow other sites to create inbound links. Would that help the overall cause of discouraging bogusly restrictive linking policies? I'm not sure that it would.
    • You write a song, for peace on earth, for instance, or more slashdot, saying how good *BSD is in comparison to another *BSD. [ok that has sparked interested! you sick sick people! :-]

      Someone samples it and parodies it! EEeeek!

      They make it sound like you preffer the other BSD and taint the very foundation of what you said :-(

      I dunno, maybe that would be covered under free speech - maybe this is ok...

      All I know is I think the remixed Bush speeches are better than the real thing!

    • Re:Step backwards? (Score:3, Informative)

      by DrSkwid ( 118965 )

      perhaps you should know what you are talking about

      the UK has no "Fair Use" so nothing is covered under it

      • Re:Step backwards? (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        No "Fair Use" in the UK? You mean all those newspaper reviewers quoting parts of the books they review are breaking the law? You'd better tell them, Dr Expert, the fate of the UK mass media is in your hands!
      • >the UK has no "Fair Use" so nothing is covered under it

        Oh, but it does.

        And actually whether a country's law enshrines this kind of right or not has no bearing on whether the right exists. Governments recognize, enshrine, and respect rights, or do the opposite. They do not grant rigths, or create them. In other words, rights simply exist, separate from governments.

        For a license to explicitly "grant" a right that according to common practice should be universal, risks encouraging the overall deteriorat

  • Clarification of UK law (Score:3, Informative)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:16AM (#10437722) Homepage Journal
    (IANAL) The article states "Technically this use of another's works are illegal". Ignoring the grammatical mishtake, that's not exactly true. The UK law states that you cannot use a 'significant portion' of a copyrighted musical work.

    The problem is that this phrase is hopelessly ambiguous, and there is no case law to provide guidance - the music industry seems to have realised it's got a problem here, somehow ensures that a judge never gets to hear any such case, they are all settled out of court.
    • "Technically this use of another's works are illegal" Use of another's works is 100% *legal*- IF you have their permission. This license is just a way of giving permission; in exactly the same way that GPL gives permission in the software domain.

  • Looks like it's full of holes to me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @05:35AM (#10437765) Homepage Journal
    From the 'Lawyer code' version of the licence...

    "Noncommercial sharing of verbatim copies permitted" - use of the word 'verbatim' seems to preclude lossy compression, format conversion, and almost anythin else you can think of.

    "You must either use the Work as an insubstantial portion of Your Derivative Work(s) or transform it into something substantially different from the original Work. " - without definitions of 'insubstantial' and 'substantial' this is meaningless at best, and at worst actually prohibits remixing!

    However, the biggest problem that I can see is that the licence does not force the creator of the original work to state that the work is actually theirs to re-licence, so if they stole a drumbeat or two from James Brown, anyone who used their track as the basis for their work is guilty of the crime too.
    • On the first point - recompressing this would be a derived work, and you might want to keep control over the quality and completeness of your work.

      On the second point - yes they have been a bit lax here.

      This license is GPL for creative works. Now, full GPL is not really nice for an artist. If Davinci was around he wouldn't just sue, but physically maim and torture those who draw the monalisa with a spliff or a moustache on posters.

      If you make an image or music, it is your 'baby' like Gary Larson put it.
    • use of the word 'verbatim' seems to preclude lossy compression, format conversion, and almost anythin else you can think of.
      One could argue that one doesn't need to be Rich Little in order to "quote somebody verbatim".
    • You must either use the Work as an insubstantial portion of Your Derivative Work(s) or transform it into something substantially different from the original Work. " - without definitions of 'insubstantial' and 'substantial' this is meaningless at best, and at worst actually prohibits remixing!

      "Substantial" in this context is actually a word that is reasonably well defined in legal circles, and which has a lot of case law that can be used to determine what is substantial and what isn't.

      Also note that two
  • most remixes are done at the request of the copyright holder. or do you mean "mash-ups", which are sure as hell NOT remixes.
    • Most popular remixes are done at the request of the artist (or copyright holder), but there are many not-so-popular remixes of songs that most likely weren't asked for..

      ie: Cotton Eye Joe Techno Remix, Super Mario Bros Rap Song, Zelda Techno Remix, and then of course the JayZ-I-Just-Got-Acid-Pro-And-Can-Add-Loops-To-An-A capella-Remix ... you catch what I'm trying to say?
      • heh, there's a reason that those aren't popular!
        • Exactly.. but my point was, there are most likely more "unofficial" remixes of a song than "official" remixes of the song... I was responding to the comment that "most remixes are requested" ... I don't think that's the case.

          You raise a good point about popularity though.. those less popular wouldn't really be concerned with copyright laws... but look what happened with The Grey Album [illegal-art.org] (Jay-Z Black Album + Beatles White Album)
    • I don;t know where you buy your vinyl, but my local record store is covered with white label remixes - not Mash Ups. I'll even create remixes of tunes to set my DJ sets apart from the rest of the world.

      Sure, there are plenty of current releases that get the remix treatment at the request of the publisher. But there are just as many unofficial remixes of old tracks which weren't approved. Sometimes a popular white label will get licensed properly if the original copyright holder is happy with it, but this u

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close