[Graphicism]

I posted a thread in the music section on the 28th of this month that was taken down for containing 20 second samples of songs and cover art, the moderator closed the entire thread where a discussion of said music was taking place. The mod followed up with a PM saying linking to music was 'seriously not allowed' and went on to say 'could create potential problems for this site and for Jude'.

What I would like to know and what I replied with, which I will add went ignored, was how is this any different than everyone else posting or embedding youtube videos? How is this any different than the daily posting of cover art here at head-fi. At the very most the 'offending link' could of been removed and our discussion of music suggestions could of continued but instead the thread was killed completely.

Jude had mentioned to me that the wallpapers I designed were fine however if t-shirts were to be designed, which we spoke about a little, company logo's couldn't be included and I would need permission to use the head-fi logo which is all fine and well with me. I suppose it depends on the mood of the moderating wether or not they want to allow a discussion to take place or not, I can't say I like that.

I suppose I'll reiterate and leave it at that.
• Whats the difference between my album cover art wallpaper and the daily postings of cover art here at head-fi?
• Whats the difference between posting a link to a sound sampler I made using 20 second clips and entire songs and videos from youtube being posted?
• Would if of made a difference if I uploaded it to youtube instead of my own dedicated server?

 

[Benaiir]

Well, HF could get sued, altho realplayer/iTunes/almost anywhere that sells music on the 'net offers 30+ seconds of music play.

 

[AtomikPi]

I don't think 30 second or less clips are remotely copyright infringing. It would be different of course if you had full songs or something like that. Therefore I think the mods are probably just trying to be overly safe and probably would rather be "safe than sorry."

 

[Czilla9000]

I was hoping you were going to post about why the remembering Senator Kennedy thread was taken down. In general, I think the mods have become more sensitive as late. It seems to happen in waves - they get lax and then strict, lax and then strict.

Look, I'm an elephant (hint, hint) but I had no objection to the Senator Kennedy thread. I don't care what party you're from, you can honor the dead.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benaiir /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, HF could get sued...

No one is going to get sued for a 20 second clip of music.

--Jerome

 

[roadtonowhere08]

I agree with jsaliga in that if all they consisted of was 20 second samples, the probability of a lawsuit would be laughable, even in light of RIAAs rabid litigiousness. This is done on Steve Hoffman's forums all the time with no problem.

 

[Uncle Erik]

You might want to ask the administration again - I've found them helpful on several matters and they'll usually give you a well reasoned explanation. I don't want to obligate anybody, but some will let you call them and discuss things. You're not going to get an explanation from any of the regular members, so drop one of them a line and talk about it.

 

[virometal]

I followed that thread's brief existence and would have never thought it in danger of elimination.

Too bad, I was enjoying it as well.

 

[El_Doug]

Indeed, the thread was quite interesting. I am quite surprised the offending clips werent simply removed

 

[Graphicism]

It was a 17 minute track made up of about 60 ~ 20 second samples that I took from about 60 albums to make a continues MP3 of electronica samples to hopefully get some people interested in electronica they may not have heard before. The thread discussion was developing into further electronica albums being suggested as well as a link to purchase a couple on amazon. I even added that I would identify the song and instruct them which album to purchase and mentioned 90% of them being available on amazon.

I PM'd the mod on the 28th but didn't hear anything back, I had no idea I could call someone, honestly I don't want to make a huge ordeal out of this... I just want it to stop and see where the line is drawn.

As I say if I'd of uploaded it to youtube and embedded it in head-fi it wouldn't of been any different than all the other shared videos here. The offending wallpaper was comprised of album art which like I say is also shared on here daily.

 

[Uncle Erik]

You should drop one of them a PM - it doesn't have to be the mod who dealt with the thread - and ask if they have a few minutes to chat about the policy. I've met a few of the mods and administrators and they're open and friendly.

 

[boomana]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should drop one of them a PM - it doesn't have to be the mod who dealt with the thread - and ask if they have a few minutes to chat about the policy. I've met a few of the mods and administrators and they're open and friendly.

The OP was given an explanation, which he obviously didn't like: Distributing free downloads of other artists' music, even if common sense says a few seconds here or there doesn't meet a legal threshold, simply isn't a door that needs to be opened here. Distributing "original" graphic artwork, however appealing, using other artists' work and trademarked logos is another door that doesn't need to be opened. It's not personal. If the op can't understand that, there's not much more that can be added. If he finds the moderation too overactive or restrictive here, he can surely find other venues to distribute his creativity or start his own website.

 

[Gatto]

I think the problem he's having is would anyone have given him a problem if the music was hosted to something like youtube instead of a private site...

 

[roadtonowhere08]

boomana: honest question, if Graphicism used stock album art and posted all clips as youtube links, would that have been allowable? Was the problem the fact that the music was a montage hosted on a private server and the art was edited?

Not trying to stir the pot, but your justification for closing the thread would could also be applied to countless others posted over the years with nary an objection. Again, I am not trying to question your authority (pay no attention to my signature

), but clearly some form of distinctions and standards must be established to prevent objections from the mods as they go about their subjective tasks.

 

[grawk]

It would have been allowable, because youtube does their own policing.