Exactly. On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assume you mean sued by the original samplee, not GT > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Elizabeth Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hmm..if people remix GT's "CC" album and also get sued, now that would be >> a case... >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> Feel free not to download the album, or download it and not pay for it. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Elizabeth Stark wrote: >>>> > Yup, super sketchy b/c you can't separate those elements out from the >>>> > infringing work itself. >>>> >>>> NC-ing appropriation art is, on balance, a bit of a fail. >>>> >>>> http://robmyers.org/weblog/2006/03/26/sampling-artists-and-nc/ >>>> >>>> And it doesn't explain the situation to consumers, who will assume that >>>> the license means that they can't be hassled over posessing an >>>> infringing work. >>>> >>>> - Rob. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
