Slashdot Discussion of Midi Remixes

[Yaginuma]

I wanted to point out an interesting discussion on Slashdot, "The Place Of Modern Midi Music?", which was posted early this morning. A Slashdot user poses the question: "Is a remixed midi file an original creation? Or is it simply a copied work with the rights belonging to the original author? Is it Piracy? What do the you think?" Consider taking some time to add your own comments on the Slashdot article page to get your views heard.

[Armageddan]

Hmm, I can't imagine this is really any different than when people do remixes and parodies of popular music. I mean, Weird Al seems to get away with it just fine, what are the laws regarding this?

[NUTCASE71733]

It's only piracy if we charge people to listen to them, that guy has no idea how hard you guys work to make awesome songs sound even better.

[Blitz Lunar]

I'd say there's a line to be drawn somewhere between taking a MIDI and changing its production values, and taking a MIDI, musically tearing it to pieces and rebuilding it with care, and remixing it properly. There's bound to be a grey area with it, since there's no clear cutoff point for where something has been taken and used asis, and where something has really been worked with.

For non-profit, I don't see the issue with it. For profit however, using any source material other than your own is always going to have an element of risk to it, be it samples, melodies, a chord progression, USING A PRE-MADE MIDI FILE, anything . First, you have to consider if the original MIDI you're using for the basis of your remix is Copyrighted itself (some companies sell floppy diskettes of MIDI files, which are Copyrighted. Others just do it as amateurs). There's a lower chance of concern with using unlicensed work (despite unlicensed work still essentially being Copyrighred). Eitherway, it's still somewhat 'naughty' to do. But as I say, for non-profit, there shouldn't be any qualm.

[Pongball]

This particular person who commented has it correct, if I'm not mistaken:

In music you have copyright on a particular recording of a song, which is what you get sued for infringing upon when filesharing. In addition you have copyright on the song itself - the lyrics, melody, composition, etc. If you look at the liner notes for a CD you will see something like "Copyright CrooksR'US Records. All rights reserved". This is the copyright notice for the recording. You often see names listed by each song, or a note to the effect of "All songs written by Your Favorite Band". This is attributing who wrote the song. This person (people) get royalties on all performances (including bar cover-bands), and recordings of the song, not just this specific recording.

This would clearly be infringing on the second copyright (on the song), but not the first (on the recording).

In video game music, more often than not, the game company itself owns both copyrights, since the composer is generally an employee if their company (unless they work freelance) and it's in their contract to hand over all the rights to their music to the company that hired them. Our entire site generally infringes upon the second copyright (the song itself), but never the first one (the recording). So in essense, what we do at this site is "bad", but hosting mp3s of the original recordings would be "twice as bad". I believe there is yet another copyright involved with the MIDI files themselves (which is why ripping a MIDI file directly from a PC game is "worse" than sequencing a MIDI file based on the music in that PC game), but I'll avoid saying anything more about that at the strong risk of spewing out ignorance.

Of course, this person raises a good point as well:

MIDI, the Musical Instrumant Digital Interface, merely sends instructions for an instrument (could be a synthesizer or a sampler or any number of other devices) to then create sound. There is no actual audio. MIDI data can be represented in many different forms, be it a list of instruction in hexadecimal, a matrix of controller values, or even as printed sheet music. Asking whether or not a MIDI "remix" or re-writing is an original creation is similar to asking whether or not someone who takes previously written sheet music and transcribes it and changes it is creating a new work.

It all depends on the level of art and interpretation in the work (think about Cage [wikipedia.org], for instance, and his work in creating scores from astronomical maps) and the legalities. I cannot comment on the legalities of rewriting music, as I am just a musician and an engineer, not a lawyer.

As far as I know, it is not illegal to transcribe audio into sheet music, which is basically what one does when creating a MIDI file from digital (or analog) audio.

By that person's definition, it seems a little more like a grey area. It's probably not illegal to transcribe audio into sheet music for one's own personal use, but I who knows about the legalities of distributing it.

[SalixRegina]

Hmm, I can't imagine this is really any different than when people do remixes and parodies of popular music. I mean, Weird Al seems to get away with it just fine, what are the laws regarding this?

Weird Al doesn't get away with it. He ask to ask permission to use other material. And it's all done in paperwork. It's how it works despite Coolio's bitterness (why do you think he hasn't filed a case?).

[Blitz Lunar]

Hmm, I can't imagine this is really any different than when people do remixes and parodies of popular music. I mean, Weird Al seems to get away with it just fine, what are the laws regarding this?

Weird Al doesn't get away with it. He ask to ask permission to use other material. And it's all done in paperwork. It's how it works despite Coolio's bitterness (why do you think he hasn't filed a case?).

If it's anything to do with "Gangsta's Paradise" then there's a good chance he hasn't got much legal ground at all, because that track is a cover of Stevie Wonder in the first place.

[The_Epitome]

Wasn't it that track 'Let's Get Retarded In Here'? Maybe. I dunno. This whole thing about whether MIDI is or isn't legal is pretty thin ice.

[SalixRegina]

B1itz is right, I believe. Although he did make some kind of retarded mark after accepting an award for one of his songs. I dislike celebrities that think their all that and bag a chips and can't laugh at themselves. Humble yourself once in a while, it makes you so much more appealing.

[funcreator]

I personally think a melody is the creation of the original musician and he or she should always be given due credit and recognition for any form of their melody. If unknown, that's understandable -- and even more understandable if stated somewhere as many remixers do. The melody is the song, simple as that. To play the theme to Jurassic Park using a Super Mario Brothers sound set and feel is still the Jurassic Park theme. To spruce a video game's theme with one's own beat or style makes the identity of the music no different, so it should consequently make the identity of the music's author no different as well. There are authors/composers, and then there are remixers/arrangers. Simple as that.
Annoying formatting removed. (Admin)

[Yaginuma]

Weird Al doesn't get away with it. He ask to ask permission to use other material. And it's all done in paperwork. It's how it works despite Coolio's bitterness (why do you think he hasn't filed a case?).

Weird Al doesn't need permission as long as his song is a parody. Al however is a nice person and always asks permission just for the sake of being nice (translation: he doesn't want to get sued, even though he technically could win every such lawsuit.) As for Coolio, gansters aren't suppose to be nice.

[Mega Mario]

I'm not going to reply to teh article, but I will answer here.

I think if you alter and you show it in a public place like here, you have to get their permission.

That's what I do. I first show the alter to a few people to see if they like it. If they do and I want to show it here or somewhere else, I'll ask the owners permission. MOst of the time they say yes, and I add it for review, giving them credit.

I alter to make it different.

LIke I made 2 Christmas alters. I gave it to review to a few people to see if it's good, and todeay, I'm going to ask teh owner's permission.

And like I use them for eoccasion. Hearing a song for a holiday or to a sound of a person's liking.



But back to the point, I think altering a is great. True, the person worked their ass off making it but if I made a song, and someone makes it sound electronic and have cool bass, it'd be cool to hear your song from a different point of view to a person or to other people.

that's why I like it. It's to hear a song froma different view.

[Forteblast]

Weird Al doesn't need permission as long as his song is a parody. Al however is a nice person and always asks permission just for the sake of being nice (translation: he doesn't want to get sued, even though he technically could win every such lawsuit.) As for Coolio, gansters aren't suppose to be nice.

Even in Coolio's case, Al asked for permission and thought he had it before Coolio backpedaled and said that he never gave permission. If Al had known Coolio never gave permission, he would have never done "Amish Paradise" (which would have been a shame, really).

[Mega Mario]

Weird Al doesn't need permission as long as his song is a parody. Al however is a nice person and always asks permission just for the sake of being nice (translation: he doesn't want to get sued, even though he technically could win every such lawsuit.) As for Coolio, gansters aren't suppose to be nice.

Even in Coolio's case, Al asked for permission and thought he had it before Coolio backpedaled and said that he never gave permission. If Al had known Coolio never gave permission, he would have never done "Amish Paradise" (which would have been a shame, really).

Hey that story reminds me of a time before.

I'm not going to reply to teh article, but I will answer here.

I think if you alter and you show it in a public place like here, you have to get their permission.

That's what I do. I first show the alter to a few people to see if they like it. If they do and I want to show it here or somewhere else, I'll ask the owners permission. MOst of the time they say yes, and I add it for review, giving them credit.

I alter to make it different.

LIke I made 2 Christmas alters. I gave it to review to a few people to see if it's good, and todeay, I'm going to ask teh owner's permission.

And like I use them for eoccasion. Hearing a song for a holiday or to a sound of a person's liking.



But back to the point, I think altering a is great. True, the person worked their ass off making it but if I made a song, and someone makes it sound electronic and have cool bass, it'd be cool to hear your song from a different point of view to a person or to other people.

that's why I like it. It's to hear a song froma different view.

Allow me to change my answer. I think alters are great if they are really worth it. It's insulting in publics is really popular sites like this (and I won't show any alters here)

[Linkums]

Hmm, I can't imagine this is really any different than when people do remixes and parodies of popular music. I mean, Weird Al seems to get away with it just fine, what are the laws regarding this?

The law for this is that keeping the music and changing the lyrics is ok, and makes it a new song... or so I've heard, I don't know how it works for music only songs.