Over here, stores selling media (especially PC games) do their best not to offer refunds, but it is the law that they must do so (they can offer an exchange but you are free to decline and insist on the refund) if the goods are not fit for their purpose. In the case of games, they get around it by making sure you are aware of the minimum hardware requirements before buying, but so far, for other media, being unable to play on your main player would still qualify as unfit for purpose unless it is made very clear on the packaging.
No it doesn't. If you're a software developer with proprietary code that you want to protect, then yes, you have to be careful about what you release under the GPL. But that isn't what Microsoft were saying, they were trying to worry the majority into avoiding GPL software. But the majority, even if they change the code, are not likely to have a reason to redistribute their changed version, so the terms of the GPL are irrelevant.
Re:What are the odds that Ogg will replace mp3?
on
Ogg Now An RFC
·
· Score: 1
True for UT2003, not so sure about the engine generally. The ogg player hasn't been properly integrated and the editor is still set up to deal with the old UMX (MOD) format, so this may be a one-off for the UT series only.
No. The MPA represent music publishers, it's the actual authors who get royalties on the CDs - and even they get a much higher proportion on printed media than on recordings.
You assume that the recording publishers (record labels) are the same as the song publishers, which is not the case. Sure, the CD may have the lyrics on the sleeve, and the record label probably didn't have to pay anything to do that, but they did have to ask permission. So yes, having lyrics available online may be good for the record labels, but that's not who the MPA represent.
Artist/Song title is not necessarily citing the source, though. The author of the lyrics might be the band as a whole, a single band member, or someone completely different.
This seems asinine to me. Don't free lyrics serve to enhance the listening experience? It seems to me that they are most likely to increase music sales.
Yes, that's why the record lables go to a lot of trouble to get permission to publish the lyrics with the CD. I'm sure that 99% of the time this doesn't cost them anything, especially if the author is a band member, but they still have to ask.
Of course it's illegal, the lyrics are a separate work in themselves. If you ever look at a CD insert which has lyrics, it will always specify that they were reproduced with permission - the record label has to specifically get that permission [B]even if the lyricist was a member of the band[/B] as it does not fall under the copyright of the recording itself.
You can post one or two lines, that is the equivalent of the fair use examples you gave above. But the entire lyrics for a song are not just an extract, they are a work in themselves, which may belong to an entirely different person than the music or performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Over here, stores selling media (especially PC games) do their best not to offer refunds, but it is the law that they must do so (they can offer an exchange but you are free to decline and insist on the refund) if the goods are not fit for their purpose. In the case of games, they get around it by making sure you are aware of the minimum hardware requirements before buying, but so far, for other media, being unable to play on your main player would still qualify as unfit for purpose unless it is made very clear on the packaging.
No it doesn't. If you're a software developer with proprietary code that you want to protect, then yes, you have to be careful about what you release under the GPL. But that isn't what Microsoft were saying, they were trying to worry the majority into avoiding GPL software. But the majority, even if they change the code, are not likely to have a reason to redistribute their changed version, so the terms of the GPL are irrelevant.
True for UT2003, not so sure about the engine generally. The ogg player hasn't been properly integrated and the editor is still set up to deal with the old UMX (MOD) format, so this may be a one-off for the UT series only.
No. The MPA represent music publishers, it's the actual authors who get royalties on the CDs - and even they get a much higher proportion on printed media than on recordings.
Apparently nor do the MPA, since they haven't asked for money. They've just pointed out that the site is breaking the law.
You assume that the recording publishers (record labels) are the same as the song publishers, which is not the case. Sure, the CD may have the lyrics on the sleeve, and the record label probably didn't have to pay anything to do that, but they did have to ask permission. So yes, having lyrics available online may be good for the record labels, but that's not who the MPA represent.
Artist/Song title is not necessarily citing the source, though. The author of the lyrics might be the band as a whole, a single band member, or someone completely different.
This seems asinine to me. Don't free lyrics serve to enhance the listening experience? It seems to me that they are most likely to increase music sales. Yes, that's why the record lables go to a lot of trouble to get permission to publish the lyrics with the CD. I'm sure that 99% of the time this doesn't cost them anything, especially if the author is a band member, but they still have to ask.
Of course it's illegal, the lyrics are a separate work in themselves. If you ever look at a CD insert which has lyrics, it will always specify that they were reproduced with permission - the record label has to specifically get that permission [B]even if the lyricist was a member of the band[/B] as it does not fall under the copyright of the recording itself.
You can post one or two lines, that is the equivalent of the fair use examples you gave above. But the entire lyrics for a song are not just an extract, they are a work in themselves, which may belong to an entirely different person than the music or performance.