Removing instruments fromk backing tracks - Crazy technical idea floating...

Yes, I'm pretty sure posting a copyrighted track without the lead is a violation of copyright in many countries... when I talked about the idea of having a repository of backing tracks here, I was thinking about the free ones that can be found on the Internet. Sometimes free backing tracks exist but are really difficult to find, so that way at least, if one person in the community found one, we would all have access to it. And it would also preserve those tracks from broken links, they are a very valuable resource IMHO and it's a pity that they are lost forever due to some forum or personal website closing.

For tracks obtained by "stripping" the lead from copyrighted tracks, we would be limited to either sharing them privately by means like email (which, at least in my country, is legal) or just re-generating them at our local machine with whatever program was used - that's what I say that the program should be easy to use for the author to be my hero.

Just read up on music copyright, and its worse than I had realised.. There is almost no way I can see by which one can generate a backing track based on something not in the public domain, and be certain it is legal.

Melodyne or any process which leaves any sample of the original intact, is certainly not going to produce anything legal one can use.. Not too sure about generating MIDI from a copyrighted piece, and "reconstructing" the piece using synthesis, this, like many other matters, seems to be in a grey zone - how much "modification" needs to be done before it becomes a "new" work? Who knows!?

Even "free" backing tracks available on the web cannot secure legal certainty - Just because someone gives a track away for free, does not mean they had any right to do this or that you have any right to use it.. Its like taking stolen goods - Ignorance that it was stolen will work in your favour if you are caught, but it wont get you "off the hook" completely - and certainly wont allow you to "keep" the stolen goods or anything you have done with it.

Fred.

"Just read up on music copyright, and its worse than I had realised."  - FredM

I think merely discussing what you were proposing with anyone, living or dead, constitutes a copyright infringement.  They pretty much own the creative world.

"I think merely discussing what you were proposing with anyone, living or dead.."

LOL ;-) ... I can just see it - Microphones in graveyards, just in case anyone hums a copyrighted tune to their deceased..

Its all gone completely crazy - words and phrases in common use (like "free-range" or "Olympic Games") being copyrighted (despite the fact that "Olympic Games" was in use for decades if not centuries, UK Trading Standards, on instruction from the "copyright holders" forced small businesses to not use the words Olympic games - they even removed olympic torches made by a local school, because these infringed the copyright - Yeah - That got the kids into the Olympic spirit for sure!) , gene sequences "invented" by evolution being patented - someone holds a patent on a sequence of genes I have in my body!! - Its getting to the point where technically they can "own" me - the only way to remove these patented genes is to kill and incinerate me.

F*** them all! I think it may be time for an extremely bloody revolution - and that perhaps the French had the right idea! Off with their heads!

Fred.

Just read up on music copyright, and its worse than I had realised.. There is almost no way I can see by which one can generate a backing track based on something not in the public domain, and be certain it is legal.

I agree that copyright laws are absolutely draconian and have gone out of hand, and I would personally remove them altogether because they do more harm than good. But fortunately it's not exactly as bad as you describe it. No track at all can be illegal by itself! What can be illegal is to publicly distribute it. If you generate a backing track from a copyrighted CD and use it for your own theremin training or enjoyment, or send it to friends, the law has nothing to say about that. It's only public distribution (like posting it on a website) that can't be done. 

Fred wrote: There is almost no way I can see by which one can generate a backing track based on something not in the public domain, and be certain it is legal.

Fred, even if the composition you are altering is in the public domain, if you take someone's arrangement and change it without their authorization, you are still guilty of copyright infringement. 

If I arrange a traditional song that is indisputably in the public domain, like GREENSLEEVES, I can still copyright my arrangement of that melody and receive royalties for it. If you take my arrangement without my permission and remove some element of it so that you can use what remains for public distribution (whether or not it is for profit) I have grounds for legal action. 

The performance of a copyrighted work, and that includes all those millions of tunes on YouTube and elsewhere, without a valid license from the copyright owner, is a violation of copyright law.  It doesn't matter whether you are charging money or giving it away, IT IS A VIOLATION.

Lots of people, to their horror, have had their YouTube accounts deleted because they have recorded and posted cover versions that have become too successful. Yep! You heard me right! 

Copyright owners (i.e. songwriters and publishers) don't care if you post something and a few thousand people listen to it, but if a few million people listen to it and you are receiving a lot of attention and notoriety (and possibly making money because of the public attention you have brought to yourself) then they may be motivated to exercise their right to have you shut down.

As YouTube becomes more and more important in the development and promotion of new artists, account deletion is something that is happening with increasing frequency. It is entirely arbitrary and there is no recourse.

When YouTube was acquired by Google, the rules changed. ANY REQUEST made by large publishing companies (Sony, EMI, Universal, Warner, etc.) to delete an account will be acted upon immediately and without question. 

Since the use of YouTube and other public access websites is a free service, offered entirely at the discretion of the provider, you have no rights. Deletion of accounts is inconsistent and arbitrary. Your account could be deleted for recording and posting YESTERDAY (by Paul McCartney) while the accounts of thousands of other YouTubers who did exactly what you did,  remain untouched. 

"Unfair!" you cry.

Yes, it's unfair from the standpoint that the law is only applied sporadically, but I see nothing unfair about a creative artist owning his or her creative output and controlling how and when it is used, and by whom. 

"... I see nothing unfair about a creative artist owning his or her creative output and controlling how and when it is used, and by whom."  - coalport

Intellectual rights like patents and copyrights are constructs that grant individuals and organizations a short term monopoly over their creative output.  In exchange the public is given detailed information about what might otherwise forever remain a trade secret (patents) and full use of whatever after a certain length of time (public domain).  So it's a happy trade off and everyone should theoretically win.  The problem I have with this is the way it has been gamed by powerful interests.  By all means, let the truly creative prosper from their output as it benefits us all, but copyrights should at the very most be limited to the lifetime of the creator, and not inherited, renewed, or extended beyond that.  Something along the lines of 10 to 20 years before expiration seems reasonable.

Most of the unfairness and cruelty in the world exists because some billionaire somewhere couldn't part with a nickle.

Why should people who have spent a lifetime building a prosperous business be permitted to leave that business to their children, while those who have spent a lifetime building a collection of original popular songs be unable to do likewise?

Irving Berlin outlived the copyright on his song, ALEXANDER'S RAGTIME BAND. Was that fair?

Jist askin'.....

"Why should people who have spent a lifetime building a prosperous business be permitted to leave that business to their children, while those who have spent a lifetime building a collection of original popular songs be unable to do likewise?" - Coalport

The above is rational. I can see no way to refute any of the above argument.. [Added] -> I think Dewsters next posting does actually provide a valid argument to counter the above.

But, in the case of a business, this must be registered, and is a clearly identifiable entity - Anyone wishing to buy the business has no problem locating the owner/s and making an offer. The same applies to patents - these must be maintained, and someone wishing to use the IP has little trouble locating the owner/s of this IP to enquire about usage rights.

>> What follows is probably geek talk - I am no lawyer and it is probably BS.

This is, I know, somewhat off the main topic - but I think it is relevant nonetheless.. As I see the problem with regard to copyright it is that there is no formal central registry. I can produce a work and it is automatically my copyright (if I am the originator and creator, and the work is not a derivative or otherwise not mine). I do not need to do anything to register my work - and if I do not deliberately relinquish my ownership by unambiguously placing it in the public domain, no other person has the right to use my work.

So I may own something which is of no value to me, and by such ownership I am preventing someone who has encountered my work, and wishes to use it, from doing so - I may be happy for someone to use my work but have absolutely no idea that anyone wants to - They have no way of locating me (because there is no registry) and I have no way of knowing about them.

As I see it, there is a solution.. Give automatic copyright for a short period (say 15 years) and the option to register your work within these 15 years, and thereafter you (or those you assign the rights to - for example in a will) can renew the registration every 15 years. Furthermore, legal action against persons using unregistered works (during the automatic copyright period) should be limited to prevention of further publication, but not for recovery of any losses preceding such notification, and if the user of the copyright can show that they have incurred losses in using the work, should be allowed to continue publication until such losses are recovered.. Those who want full and immediate protection must register immediately.

If all presently held copyright was allowed to register in this way, but lapsed if not registered within the 15 year period, then perhaps this mess could be tidied up a bit.. There would be a registry where those who want to use a work can check if it is registered, and be able to locate and contact the owner if it is.

With such a registry, it should also be possible to more clearly define the 'elements' and 'rights' pertaining to a work, and to clear up some of the grey.

At present though, it is impossible for anyone to know whether their work infringes is any way on someone elses ownership - An example of this may be the sound of the RCA theremin - I remember reading some words in the manual about RCA owning the sound ?! and that performers had restrictions on how the theremin could be used... (please correct me if im wrong - but it seems like the copyright rot goes back a long way...)

Fred.

"Why should people who have spent a lifetime building a prosperous business be permitted to leave that business to their children, while those who have spent a lifetime building a collection of original popular songs be unable to do likewise?"  - coalport

An active, ongoing, thriving business is one thing.  An artificial monopoly granted by the people is another.  By participating in the patent and copyright systems, the creative person is given the protection of the state and legal system for a sufficient time to cash in on the fruits of their labors, after which the public owns their stuff.  Tit for tat.  One is always free to forgo the patent system and engage in trade secrets.  I don't make the rules, and I think copyrights are extended for way too long when it comes to corporate interests, but I think the basic idea of time limited protection in exchange for the sharing of creative output is basically good in principle.

Personally, I'm much more concerned that my creative output (for whatever it's worth) will vanish into obscurity.  So I don't want to put any stumbling blocks in the way of (almost) anyone using it.