Branching Out Secret Mixter
Home » Forums » Help » No Morr revisionism please

No Morr revisionism please

Uncool Bob
permalink   Sat, Jun 9, 2007 @ 4:12 AM
Hi ccMixter,

I was trying to find out what happened to Morr’s latest Suzi Q remix (which may have been removed for copyright reasons). He posted a question here but now it is gone.

I guess I can contact him directly, but I don’t like the idea that forum posts are deleted like this (unless maybe Mr Morr requested it). I know there is a sticky ‘faq’ question on this topic, but I don’t think that’s relevant.


Rev. Ken
permalink   Tue, Jun 12, 2007 @ 12:09 PM
Hey all, interesting discussion ;)

Like Teru I think the rules in this case are reasonably clear, and it’s our individual responsibility to check stuff out and be willing to accept the big elbow even when disputing something.

Creative Commons is grey enough without mixing in (c) commercial recording sources which were never cleared for remix use.

In a (c) vs CC dog fight, (c) will always win, so it’s important that we stick together and look out for each other. Play nice now fellas ;)

btw I’d also like to point out that many sample disks, Zero G etc actually specify that you may not share a sample as-is. So, be careful of exposed or dry loops, because technically speaking you may be breaking the license terms if somebody else could re-sample.

More about Da’Break here…
Uncool Bob
permalink   Tue, Jun 12, 2007 @ 1:30 PM
Well… tempers got frayed and we lost Morr. I hope this doesn’t happen again.
permalink   Uncool Bob Tue, Jun 12, 2007 @ 1:37 PM
But why has Gabriele Magurno gone too? Maybe in protest?
permalink   Sun, Jun 10, 2007 @ 10:30 PM
Dealing with illegal samples in a particular upload is a “customer service” issue between the site and the uploader.

The thread in question was in fact taken offline and Morr and I have had extensive discussions on the issues involved… I’ve been waiting to hear back from, on the “private channel” but instead, as has previously happened now on 3 separate times, he has ignored my requests to take a conversation private and instead misused the forums and the review section for his own personal issues.

Now, I’ve just traveled 3,000 miles four times in the last week and I’m short on sleep and pretty much out of patience for a remixer who doesn’t take care to make sure all the samples used in their upload is cleared for re-licensing under the terms of the site and then refuses to follow simple requests insisting on the making the process of clearing the track much, much harder than it needs to be.

What I REALLY don’t appreciate (short on sleep or not) is the public accusation that I have been anything but extremely explicit in explaining the issue with the tracks… whereas you have been the one to ignore repeated requests from me.

Now, this is the last time I’m going ask: Take this matter offline or I will bounce you from the site.

Uncool Bob
permalink   Mon, Jun 11, 2007 @ 4:36 AM
Hi Victor,

Hope you got some sleep! Sorry for feeding this can of worms…

I think there could be some general interest in the outcome of the moderation process - especially if the discussions between remixer and site admin end in agreement. I don’t think it should all be offline. What do other people think?

I totally agree that we have to have a “better safe than sorry” approach to sample clearance - lawyers are too boring and expensive.

Instead of removing a forum post, could you edit it to say “this discussion has been moved offline according to this site’s Terms of Use” or similar? I had a quick look at the T&Cs and perhaps the handling of moderation disputes could be added (apologies if it’s already there).

I’m not against moderation - I blew the whistle on a track some time ago!

Rev. Ken
permalink   victor Mon, Jun 11, 2007 @ 9:36 AM
Quote: Rev.
Instead of removing a forum post, could you edit it to say “this discussion has been moved offline according to this site’s Terms of Use” or similar?

That’s what I normally do, last week I was just in a hurry. (more on the ‘debate’ below)
permalink   Mon, Jun 11, 2007 @ 6:53 AM
I think that this could be an useful debate for CCMixter, and also it could increase the power of this community because we are users, supporters, members, and not only “remixer-robots”. We are talking about samples. The whole culture of the CC remixers is sample-based, i presume. All of us use breakbeats, fx, bits of vocal lines, that are not homemade. The same thing for single snare, kick, bass, hats samples that we have found in a Vst, or we’ve sampled for an old vynil. This is dj culture: forcing different bits of music to sound in a new way giving them a new reason to live. I’m obviously not saying to sample a whole copyrighted refrain adding a simple breakbeat, but it is normal to use little bits of music from other artists. Try asking it to Dj Vadim :-) Surely well known artists as Chemical Brothers or Daft Punk have used tons of little breaks from other artists, manipulated them, and finally used for building new exciting beats. I think that this is the spirit of the members of CC, and the true spirit of dj culture. And so when it happens, i think it is right to debate it in pubblic, empowering the dialogue between us, and between moderators, avoiding to delete posts, and always trying to give feedback to users when you think there is some kind of copyright violation. I think remixers will be glad of this dialogue and they will repair to the “damage”, if there is one. For example i’m going to delete a track of mine (Close my Eyes) that uses a short bassline from John Zorn.
permalink   victor Mon, Jun 11, 2007 @ 10:00 AM
The idea that we don’t want to discuss the state of sampling as an art form in today’s culture is not what this thread about. You are correct: It is, of course, right to debate that and I would urge you to start a new threat on that topic. In fact the notion that we would want to avoid such a discussion is tinged with absurdity since at the end of that trail is the very reason Creative Commons and by specific extension, ccMixter, even exists!

No, this thread is the result of a rare but not unknown to me occurrence of a member of the community willfully violating the procedures and terms of the site, being busted for it and then hauling off on a self-righteous rage. The few time it happens it usually takes place in my inbox but a couple of times now it will spill into the public, always at the insistence of ‘victim’ uploader and always resulting in useless unhelpful ad hominem attacks (yet another violation of the terms of the site) as Morr does above. I’m never sure what the member expects to happen at that point — perhaps they envision me at some deposition after the site’s been sued for hosting illegal samples using a defense like “I would have been more vigilant but I hadn’t slept or been laid for a long time…”

There may be another discussion to be had about the procedures at this site once an upload has been flagged and/or moderated and, if you like, you should start another thread on that topic and I’ll more than happy to walk through the history and rationale of how we came up with it. Code’s post directly below here pretty much nails it though…
permalink   Mon, Jun 11, 2007 @ 7:47 AM
basicaly, i think the procedure is like this: If you find your track has been removed then you have to contact site admin (via hyperlink listed on every mixter site). CC admin is very helpful and i am sure he can give you some more details, explanation and point out solution.
I dont think the best place for such case is a public debate which always ends with flaming, especialy if Mr. Morr appeared to be very offensive in his posts, and right now he cannot expect any respectful answer.

I advise to read FAQ and Help forum resources.
permalink   Mon, Jun 11, 2007 @ 12:32 PM
The way I figure, site moderators do what is best to uphold this basic concept. Anything which falls into a gray area should be discussed in private. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. And no it’s not vague as fuck.


About the music you post to ccMixter: You may only post music to ccMixter that you have the right to post and license under a Creative Commons license. For example, this means that you can only post music that you yourself create, music that is in the public domain or any other material that you have the express permission to use and license to the world, for example, under a Creative Commons Sampling Plus license or a Creative Commons Noncommercial Sampling Plus license. For the avoidance of doubt, materials that infringe the rights of any third party (ie. materials used without express permission of the copyright owner) may not be used.

By submitting music to ccMixter, you represent and warrant to Creative Commons that you have the necessary rights and authority to upload the track to site and license it to the world under the Creative Commons license that you apply to that music.