Reviews for "Into the night"
Uses samples from:
cube3
|
.
permalink
Sun, Oct 23, 2022 @ 3:54 AM
Kristian: “hi guys. i think it’s super crass that you make your samples available for free for commercial use after feedback.”
I am standing up for peoples rights here on this website. You are not forced to use others works. You simply need to give attribution. It is done automatically on this site. However be aware that the CC license might not give you all of the permissions, next to (non) commercial use and (non) derivatives, there is also a clause around “intended use” centering around rights such as privacy, publicity or moral rights may limit how you use the material. For example, if you publish a work here containing CC licensed material in a song and make a statement with the work you publish, that the owner of the work finds offensive, morally undjust, the owner can request removal as he/she does not want to get identified with it. |
|
.
i find it super crass that the savior of the site ccmixter.org, who not only with it seems superhuman powers stood up to a bot network of presumably asian origin, not only saved that, but our all favorite toy ccmixter. org with a coup de grâce according to snowflake, and by the way, as i found out while browsing through samples, also produced a classic cinematic masterpiece as a soundtrack for this act, also as ccadmin is an advocate for human rights. i find the enumeration and explanation of the restrictions that go along with a creative commons license touching, and as a user of such creative commons licenses since 2008 on fourstones ccmixter site, so a newbie, very helpful and also informative.
but i think the human rights thing didn’t go to my address but to the users whose material i use here to create free masterpieces, which i think raise the average quality of this website quite a bit. anyway. if you delete something, send me an email. the last paragraph of your rhetorically masterful review, which fortunately does not take place behind the scenes, is, however, somewhat ambiguous and vague in definition from a semantic and legal point of view: quote: “For example, if you publish a work with CC-licensed material in a song and make a statement with the published work that the owner of the work finds offensive or morally unjust, the owner can demand removal because he or she does not want to be identified with it.” so now how exactly, if i publish a song and make a statement with the published work that the owner (?), you surely mean the remixed original work, finds offensive etc. is this talking about an intrinsic statement of the work itself? to make it clear to you. i only made an ambiguous statement once with a work i published, when kara square’s moan was connected to an acoustic toilet paper unrolling. is this kind of statement meant? or is your clearly ambiguous human rights attorney letter talking about the song descriptions i publish with the remixes? i guess since this is about human rights, both are meant. no offense dude. |
Reviews left for "Into the night"
This site uses