Comments on: EMI goes after The Beachles

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:39:17 +0000

It seems that EMI only goes after someone if they don’t have a cut out of it. It is strange that they look the other way with some of their partners as highlighted here.
Check out this expose at http://maths.blogthing.com/2006/11/28/is-emi-profiting-from-beatles-digital-piracy/
Is EMI profiting from Beatles digital music piracy? Is McCartney watching?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:19:15 +0000

I need The Beachles.
If someone could send it to me in a zip file using YouSendIt.com (a free service for sending large files via email), I would truly appreciate it and probably send you some cool stuff back (like maybe The Beastles or Revolved).

- Reverend Flash (the NON-anonymous, but simply unregistered NON-coward)
flash@freepdx.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:02:06 +0000

Hi Reader’s Write!

I just came across this post when searching for this album. If you could please contact me at pbhta@yahoo.com I would appreciate it very much. Hope to hear from you!

tim

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:42:53 +0000

I’ll take one of those!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:49:30 +0000

EMI is correct. Anybody else who disagrees is dishonest and does not know the difference between right and wrong.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:21:32 +0000

Here, here. If someone uses another’s work to create a new work of parody (as was the case here, obviously), it is not necessarily protected by copyright.

Mr. Counts has the upper hand and he knows it. And his record - in spite of some negative reviews - is quite refreshing. I wish that more mashups were this much fun.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 02:25:59 +0000

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:34:19 +0000

“The artists he mashed deserve the royalties (such as they might be) generated.”

Is anyone so naive as to think that a most musc publisher who allows (by licensing or becoming owner of the new work) the use of existing songs in a new mashed work will actually pay any money to the songwriter of the existing song? Either they will pay nothing or almost nothing, as usual.

Also, I strongly doubt most music publishers will ask for authorization from the original songwriters. After all, most songwriters gave away all their rights (and soul too) to the music publisher for some phantom promise that never materialized.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:52:27 +0000

Bad, Bad! I hope the RIAA does its job on you!!!! (hehehehe)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:23:18 +0000

Post them something like this you mean…?

“I have just read the reports of your pitiful attempts to curb the distribution of the Sgt Pepper/Petsounds mashup. By all means reply and convince me that this in any way infringes your copyright of these two original works or, and I guess this is more critical from your pov, affects sales of your product. On the contrary, it is more than likely that exposure to this separate unique creation will direct listeners to the original recordings. Along with just about every family in the known universe I already own copies of both works in multiple formats so you have more than had your money’s worth from me. I will now make it my mission to obtain a copy of the mashup* even though the chances are that at the age of 57 I am unlikely to view it as an improvement on the superb originals - that said I still rate Revolver as the definitive Beatles album. Or, a further thought occurs to me. Is this just sour grapes that your company didn’t think of the idea first. Whoa, a missed opportunity there. Memo to self - must be more creative…

Regards

Dave”

* Thanks for the link to the BT guys

Jadeic

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:21:11 +0000

heh,
Surprisingly, this can be found on pirate bay and some other
Torrent sites

Shocking.

Don’t get it .

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:36:23 +0000

thanx for the link =)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:16:58 +0000

Will pass it around to anyone who wants it … thanks EMI

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:08:49 +0000

Suing this guy and trying to censor him guarantees that myself
and millions of others who would not have heard of, or even
cared about this will go out of their way to dl and distribute this
to as many as humany possible fo free.{sic}

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:24:12 +0000

Comparing a music mashup to fashion designers copying each other is just incorrect. Fashion designers look at trends and fashions from other designers and create their own work, sometimes derivative, sometimes unique. The key work here though is CREATE. A mashup is just some guy, usually a non-musician (in the broad sense that he doesn’t play an instrument) who plays one record over another and mixes them together in some interesting way. He is not listening to these albums and writing a new song, he’s just using their own music to create a new groove. He has absolutely no claim to proceeds from such a mashup. The artists he mashed deserve the royalties (such as they might be) generated.