Re: Bug #383316: Derivative works for songs
On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:21:26 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what if the recording was of actual people playing actual instruments? You know, like people always used to. How to you generate that from 'source' at build time? what _is_ the source? The preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. [...] Exactly what I would have answered. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgph23OEKWXBA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug #383316: Derivative works for songs
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:30:07 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies... [...] I believe that for a recording to be DFSG-free, we need *both* copyrights to be licensed in a DFSG-free manner. It seems to make sense. For modifying the *song*, the preferred form is almost certainly sheet music or the equivalent. MIDI files are actually very close to sheet music, And indeed, I would be satisfied with the MIDI file as source for the song, as long as the MIDI file corresponds to the complete song (and not to one instrument only, for instance...). I do not happen to know if this is the case here, and that's why I said I'm not sure. A clarification should be sought, IMHO. [...] For modifying the *recording*, the preferred form is likely the recording itself. Overdubs, post-processing, and sampling are common ways in which derivative works are made from a a *recording*. For this purpose, an Ogg Vorbis is likely to be exactly right. I'm not really convinced: we must ask the person(s) who made the recording. If there are non-lossy-compressed recordings of the separate tracks, they could be preferred for making modifications. So I believe we want to have both the Ogg Vorbis and the MIDI, and that probably really is the source. (Unless there's a higher-quality master recording and the Ogg Vorbis is a lower-quality version, or the MIDI doesn't actually contain all the data in the sheet music, etc.) Your parenthetical sentence just expresses the concerns that I had in mind when I said I'm not sure. A clarification is needed. Now, it would be preferable to be able to regenerate the recording from the MIDI. Which would mean including the soundfonts (instrument descriptions, basically) used. So the question of whether *they* are free is also important. Really important, IMO. Here's a legal question: Do you need a copyright license for the soundfont in order to distribute or modify the recording made using them? I don't know, but I'm afraid we need one, as long as the soundfonts are copyrightable works by themselves... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpm3trLMgpOU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug #383316: Derivative works for songs
Francesco Poli wrote: Now, it would be preferable to be able to regenerate the recording from the MIDI. Which would mean including the soundfonts (instrument descriptions, basically) used. So the question of whether they are free is also important. Really important, IMO. Here's a legal question: Do you need a copyright license for the soundfont in order to distribute or modify the recording made using them? I don't know, but I'm afraid we need one, as long as the soundfonts are copyrightable works by themselves... what if the recording was of actual people playing actual instruments? You know, like people always used to. How to you generate that from 'source' at build time? what _is_ the source? Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug #383316: Derivative works for songs
Francesco Poli wrote: We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies... What sort of modifications? ...Actually, a concept from copyright law may help here. There are *two* copyrights on any given recording. One is the copyright on the *song*, which applies to the sheet music as well. The other is the copyright on the *recording*, which is represented by a P in a circle, not by a C in a circle. I believe that for a recording to be DFSG-free, we need *both* copyrights to be licensed in a DFSG-free manner. For modifying the *song*, the preferred form is almost certainly sheet music or the equivalent. MIDI files are actually very close to sheet music, conceptually, since they consist of instructions of the form play this note on this instrument at this volume; wait this long;... etc. Modification for the *song* generally consists of making a new song with a related melody or lyrics but different harmony or structure. For modifying the *recording*, the preferred form is likely the recording itself. Overdubs, post-processing, and sampling are common ways in which derivative works are made from a a *recording*. For this purpose, an Ogg Vorbis is likely to be exactly right. So I believe we want to have both the Ogg Vorbis and the MIDI, and that probably really is the source. (Unless there's a higher-quality master recording and the Ogg Vorbis is a lower-quality version, or the MIDI doesn't actually contain all the data in the sheet music, etc.) Now, it would be preferable to be able to regenerate the recording from the MIDI. Which would mean including the soundfonts (instrument descriptions, basically) used. So the question of whether *they* are free is also important. Here's a legal question: Do you need a copyright license for the soundfont in order to distribute or modify the recording made using them? If not, then even if they aren't free, I think we can consider the song and the recording DFSG-free. If you *do* need such a license, I think if the license allows total unrestricted distribution and modification of recordings made using them, again the recording would be free. (Many pardons if my understanding of MIDIs and soundfonts is inaccurate. This is the impression I've picked up.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#383316: Derivative works for songs
On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:06:01 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] There's another issue with the remaining four songs, though. Is their source available? I mean: what's the preferred form[1] for making modifications to the songs? Is this form available? I hope that the scores are available, or a track-by-track recording, to avoid any build-depends on Sony ACID Pro 5 in a really clear way. Mmmh: I don't think it's included in the zip archived previously referenced. Each song consists of the following files: $ file * guitar.ogg: Ogg data, Vorbis audio, stereo, 44100 Hz, ~256006 bps, created by: Xiph.Org libVorbis I (1.0) License.txt: ASCII English text, with CRLF line terminators notes.mid: Standard MIDI data (format 1) using 2 tracks at 1/96 song.ini:ASCII text, with CRLF line terminators song.ogg:Ogg data, Vorbis audio, stereo, 44100 Hz, ~256006 bps, created by: Xiph.Org libVorbis I (1.0) However, for debian compilation of the game, isn't the preferred source form the mixed recording? The one used in the build? We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp6yDcQ88Uqi.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Bug#383316: Derivative works for songs
--- Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies... I think that's quite complex to decide on a single-game basis, as that decision might affect most of other games, as well as synthetic videos, music all around the archive and most of media files in fact. I'm n ot really sure if the repositories are prepared to handle sucha a big amount of data, i guess we should contact the release team to check. At some point I guess we should need to reach a decision about this, which will probably involve massive bug-filling if we decide .mpg, .avi, .mp3, .ogg files and so do not qualify enough as modifiable files, but for the moment I'd prefer to stick with the currently usual way of allowing mp3 files in the archive for this game (license allowing modification and redistribution, of course), unless there is a big oposition to that. If not, it's time to start a big debate about what is considered source form in art (which, in fact, I think it'll be quite an interesting topic). Greetings, Miry PS: I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, so please include me in CC in your replies. LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#383316: Derivative works for songs
On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:11:32 +0200 (CEST) Miriam Ruiz wrote: --- Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: We must determine what is the preferred form for making modifications to the song. I'm not sure an Ogg Vorbis + MIDI form qualifies... I think that's quite complex to decide on a single-game basis, as that decision might affect most of other games, as well as synthetic videos, music all around the archive and most of media files in fact. It *must* be decided on a case-by-case basis: no general rule can be drawn from a specific decision, because what is source in one case, can be compiled form in another. This holds even for programs, not only for audio, video and similar stuff. Imagine we decided that C code is always source: that would be a wrong oversimplification, because there are quite some cases where C code is generated from some other form (typical examples: parser code generated from a grammar description by Bison, or C code automatically translated from a higher level language). Hence, each case has to be examined to determine which is the source. [...] At some point I guess we should need to reach a decision about this, which will probably involve massive bug-filling if we decide .mpg, .avi, .mp3, .ogg files and so do not qualify enough as modifiable files, As I said, we cannot reach any reasonable *general* conclusion about a format. In some cases an Ogg Vorbis file qualifies as source, because maybe it's the preferred form for making modification to a work. In other cases, an Ogg Vorbis file does not qualify. [...] If not, it's time to start a big debate about what is considered source form in art (which, in fact, I think it'll be quite an interesting topic). Art does not need any special-casing (and anyway the boundaries of art are quite blurred: some programs can be so elegant to be considered art...). Source code is defined as the form of a work which is preferred for making modifications to it. Greetings, Miry PS: I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, so please include me in CC in your replies. P.S.: I am instead subscribed to debian-legal, so please do *not* Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is in the loop! -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpZBqHrsaxDc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#383316: Derivative works for songs
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, if the author says that it's a metal version of Ryu's theme, I think he means that the melody is the same, even though the musical genre is changed. *If* this is the case, I would call it a cover and hence I'm afraid it qualifies as an adaptation or derivative work of the original soundtrack, which is copyrighted by CAPCOM (most probably). On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:05:34 +0100 Matthew Johnson wrote: Obviously debian-legal are not lawyers, but I would appreciate your opinions. I could just leave it out to be on the safe side, I could leave it in, hope that the ftp-masters accept it and hope that nothing comes of it or I could try and get an opinion from someone like SPI. I would leave it out. I agree. There's another issue with the remaining four songs, though. Is their source available? I mean: what's the preferred form[1] for making modifications to the songs? Is this form available? I hope that the scores are available, or a track-by-track recording, to avoid any build-depends on Sony ACID Pro 5 in a really clear way. However, for debian compilation of the game, isn't the preferred source form the mixed recording? The one used in the build? Puzzled, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
