You can copyright an arrangement. It doesn’t mean you get to interfere with unrelated works.
Time for another rebranding?
3 Likes
i meant its nuts that the algorithm recognized the song when it was played on different sounding instruments imperfectly by a different band at a different tempo. i understand that copyright covers performances.
5 Likes
Indeed, the technological aspect is quite impressive; like those sites that can find tracks based on the users off-key, a cappella version sung in to their phone.
I just need something like that, that can pick up the psychic echoes of a track I heard on the John Peel show decades ago, and that continues to haunt the periphery of my memory. I’ve not had any luck with the current technology, “Er… it was something sort Balkan, maybe Greek, or Turkish, or something, and it went sort of, “Haaaaaaaaaaarh”…”
7 Likes
We’ve all got one or two of those.
Read this: John Peel's online record collection re-launched - BBC News
And browse this: https://www.johnpeelarchive.com/
You might get lucky. Or not.
3 Likes
Hot dog! Sexy man!
3 Likes
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh fuck youtube…
uses (edit) The Who youtube channel for punctuation… 
2 Likes
As long as there is ‘charge’ to be in, it is only ever the assholes that are going to reach for it. Fact. Our goals as a species are to make sure ‘charge’ is surplus to requirements, for one, and then to inform the assholes of this fact in the very special way that only a 7.62x39mm (traditional ordinance for a revolution, I find myself becoming sentimental in my dotage) round to the goolies can.
So there need to be significant penalties for falsely claiming ownership? Like public whipping?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
