slartabartfast

I am not very well informed about British copyright law, but to the extent it is similar to the US: This is an interesting problem that is not always due to a false claim. When a work is in the public domain because the author died centuries ago, it does not preclude a contemporary composer from creating and copyrighting a new work based on the original. What he must show, in order to claim his own copyright for the derivative work, is that what he has created based on the historic version is sufficiently original that it qualifies. The bar for that originality is not particularly high. An exact copy or performance of an ancient text would almost certainly not meet the test, or the mere transposition to another key. The creation of a new arrangement or orchestration would give the arranger a copyright on the arrangement, but not on the original song. Most commonly this becomes an issue when a contemporary "folk singer" records an old song. Rarely do such performances exactly follow some easily identifiable composition from an old text. There may be additional verses, melodic changes, updating of the language etc. That potentially creates a new copyright for the altered version. Covers of the new version thus may require a performance license, and changes that incorporate significant aspects of the new version may need a license to create derivative works of that new version. Publishers of the new version are likely to want to be paid if a subsequent version is substantially similar to what they have copyrighted. So unless you found your copy of the original song with a publication date old enough to put it in the public domain, and your rendition does not take any new material from a more recent version, you may find your work accused of infringement. An interesting conundrum, to which I have not found a convincing answer, is what happens when a collector just records someone else performing a folk song, and publishes a transcription of the performance. The phonorecord is clearly copyrighted since it is a contemporary work, although the ownership of those rights would depend on the agreement with the performer. Usually the transcriber is at pains to say that he is NOT the author or the work. After all it is being presented as a folk song. By a similar argument, the performer typically claims not to have written the old song , but to have heard it from another performer in the past--making him a collector in his own right. The publisher or author of a book of such transcriptions will often as not claim copyright to the songs therein, although it looks like his only contribution is to the arrangement and production of the various works--the book but not the songs it includes. It is hard for me to see how anyone in this scenario is an author who has a legitimate right to claim infringement of the composition. Of course it costs very little for a copyright troll to send a cease and desist letter or demand payment, and most people doing folk music are in a poor position to defend an expensive infringement lawsuit.

How do you know that the pictures are public domain? In the US any picture of a living person (technically any picture made by the photographer for his lifetime plus 70 years) should be assumed to be under copyright. For works for hire owned by a non-human legal entity like a corporation, created after 1978 the copyright lasts 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. It is actually very difficult for the author to put anything into the public domain per se. Copyright automatically attaches as soon as a work is created in tangible form, with a few exceptions like certain works made by or for the federal government. That copyright survives the author, and can be licensed, sold, inherited or seized as part of a legal action--so even if the author wants to give it away, he may not have that right. That implies that the author may not even be able to immunize you from a infringement action if someone else has assumed control of the copyright. Unless you have a license from the copyright holder, or the work has some kind of universal license like the Creative Commons licenses, it is likely infringement to use it. Performance/recording of a copyrighted work requires a license from the owners of the composition (word and lyrics) rights which can be obtained without specific consent of the copyright holder under the compulsory licensing provisions for sound recordings, but setting the music to a video requires a specific synchronization rights license. YouTube has a system for dealing with infringing music that involves deals with the various copyright holders, that they will not insist on the removal of the video from YouTube in exchange for a portion of revenue from advertising associated with the video by YouTube. If the copyright owner is not participating in that deal, then YouTube can get a takedown notice and be required to remove it. The person who posts the infringing video is liable to infringement action by the copyright owner in that case as well. YouTube has robot song identification that will pick up musical infringement, but I doubt they have the same for images that you use, and I am not aware of any deal they have with the owners of pirated pictures or video. When you are dealing with the likeness of a person, especially one who is famous, you open a whole new can of worms. The use of the picture of a person, and even in some cases attributes that are easily recognized as being associated with that person you may be violating the person's exploitable right to his identity. That is not a copyright issue but a whole separate area of law that is defined differently in different states. If the subject of a photograph has limited the use of the photo in the photographic release, he may have an action against someone using the photograph outside the bounds of that release. So if the band member agreed to sit for the photograph for the sole specific purpose of it being used on an album cover, for example, he may have a case against someone using that photo on a box of cereal or in a YouTube video.

I wonder if developers have decided (erroneously) that people who use a free DAW will not pay gigantic prices for their plugins.

My SL88 Grand sends note messages from each active split region which by default includes the entire keyboard. Disabling all the active splits except one fixes it. The most accurate way to check on a keyboard issue is to download MIDIOx and see what is being sent when only the keyboard is the MIDI input.

This is a bit confusing. Are you using the keyboard to send messages to your plugins (softsynths) about control parameters or are you just using the keys to send MIDI note messages so that the synth will play that note? If the latter, then you need to set up the MIDI tracks to receive on different MIDI channels if you do not want them all to receive the sent notes. Note that none/omni as a choice on your channel input will receive messages from all channels. But that just pushes your problem along to the keyboard, which likely can be set to broadcast on a single channel or on several different channels with a keyboard split. Depending on how difficult it is to change your keyboard out channels, muting the unwanted channel(s) or easier still soloing the channel you want to hear in Cakewalk may be simpler.

It sounds like you are using the internal sound chipset of your computer. Usually that means RealTek high definition audio in one of its many iterations. To the best of my knowledge, RealTek has never released an ASIO driver for their chips. There are newer Windows standard driver models that work on some of their chips. If you can find the option to use one of the standard windows drivers WDM or better yet WASAPI you will get better latency. If your system is an older installation you might try automatically updating the drivers for your audio or download new ones from RealTek. I

THE SMALL PRINT Terms and Conditions This is a 1-computer lifetime license, for commercial or noncommercial use No free updates; if you update the program, it may become unregistered No free tech support You must get your license key before the offer has ended May not be resold Technical Details Developed by Ashampoo Version is v2021 Download size is 80+ MB Supports Windows 7, 8/8.1, and 10 (32-bit and 64-bit)

If you are the sole author of multiple songs, you will likely want to take advantage of the relatively new option of "Group Applications for Unpublished Works" (GRUW). That will allow you to copyright up to 10 individual songs for a single filing fee. To use that option you must use the online (eCO) registration, and upload each song as a separate digital file. You can apply for both the composition (music and lyrics) and the recording rights at the same time, but be careful to be sure that you are doing so when you file. Most song writers are primarily interested in registering the composition, and the quality of the performance and recording is not an issue, they just want the convenience of not having to transcribe the music into standard notation. The advantage of the GRUW, aside from the cost, is that each song gets its own individual copyright, which makes it somewhat cleaner to license individual songs. If you want to copyright the actual recording of a group of songs that you have organized into an album, then you need to register as a collected work uploaded as a single file, and the assumption is that it will be released in that form.

I expect the difference between what YouTube takes down and what they ignore is that the owners of the stuff that gets taken down have not bought into the deal with YouTube to claim and monetize the infringements. Many of the bigger publishers, who typically own the rights to the most popular songs are on board. They gave up trying to police their copyrights against a flood of infringement and have enough revenue from other sources so that they can pass on harassing YouTube posters. Making a small fraction of what they would make on legitimate licensing is OK with them, since the cost to make the income from YouTube is basically free. Your cover of one of their songs is not likely to result in listeners stopping listening to the original recordings. And if they have enough in their shared catalog, they can make a substantial amount of money and share very little with the composers who effectively use them to collect their royalties. On the other hand, an independent composer, or small label, would probably not make anything to speak of to offset what they see themselves as losing by performances of their work streamed without their permission. Assuming that the takedowns are not initiated by copyright trolls attempting to extort money from performers they find infringing on YouTube, there are a variety of reasons someone might manually flag an incident. Maybe they just want to control how their work is presented, or hope that someone will pay them a significant amount for a highly successful viral video. And there are for-profit services that run YouTube and other websites through their own song identification robots paid by their client copyright owners to do this kind of policing. I am sure most people who post covers do not do anything to secure the rights to the song or visuals. YouTube would simply not work if that was required. Most people who have looked at the issue advise to do exactly what you are suggesting--post what you want and let YouTube and those who own the copyrights catch and sometimes stop them. Unfortunately, the fact that is is unclear to the poster whether a particular work is covered by the agreement between YouTube and the publishers for any particular song makes getting too many strikes a real possibility.

Really????

A synchronization license is required whenever you are creating a video that uses someone else's musical composition. So if you make your own video or license someone else's video, and yourself perform someone else's song composition to act as part of the sound track, you need the original composer to provide you with a synchronization license to use the music composition. Otherwise you are infringing the composition (music and/or lyrics) rights of the composer of the music that you are recording. I you are the author of the song you are performing, then you, as the author, have rights to synchronize it, perform it, record it, rearrange it or create a derivative work (change music or lyrics) as part of your author's copyright. So, yes, everything posted to YouTube needs synchronization rights. If you use any part of someone else's video you need a license from the creator of the video to use his video, both as the video itself and as a derivative work because you have altered it by adding your audio, but that is not a synchronization right. If you use a recording of someone else's performance of a song that you authored, then you do not have to license the composition rights as a sync license, but you need a license to use the actual audio data of that recording, the master recording rights. So if you film your own video and use a few seconds of a pop record as background you do not need a license to publish the video but you do need a license from the authors of the words and music (synchronization rights) and another license to use the actual audio recording/phonorecord (master recording rights). Who owns the master rights depends on how the contract was set up prior to making the audio recording, but typically ends up in the hands of the recording company that released the song. It frequently happens that a performer does not own master rights to their own recording of their own composition and so cannot use or fully benefit from their own originally recorded voice performing their own composition without getting a license from the owner. Taylor Swift is notoriously facing this issue. To get to the farther end of reasons that music videos are copyright hell, consider that even if you film the video yourself, you may still have obstacles clearing the images in your video. The creator of a work of art has the sole right to create derivative works of that creation. When you photograph a piece of art (whether a single original or one of a licensed million copies) that photograph may be considered a derivative work of the original. So a picture of a smurf doll in your video might require permission from the owner of the smurf design copyright. Such issues rarely matter in cheap to free videos, but when big money is at stake it may. A potter friend of mine made a ceramic spoon rest that appeared just incidentally sitting on a stove in a scene in a major movie, and the producers contacted her for permission to use it in this way. https://www.easysonglicensing.com/pages/help/articles/music-licensing/what-is-a-synchronization-license.aspx

The first point to note is that you cannot use a mechanical license for audio that plays with as a soundtrack to a video presentation. What you would need would be a synchronization license, and since this is the same intellectual property that would be needed if the song were to become part of a billion dollar grossing motion picture, most copyright owners would want to negotiate the terms for these rather than rely on a licensing robot to get them the best deal. The availability of the compulsory license for making purely audio recordings is a part of the copyright statute that enables musicians to do audio only cover songs of previously released/published recordings. Since a compulsory license does not require the consent of the owner it is much easier to obtain. Whether YouTube is actually obtaining a limited synchronization license for you would depend on the specific wording of the contract that they negotiate with the copyright holder. It seems more likely that they are simply making a deal between the copyright owner and YouTube that immunizes YouTube from liability for hosting infringing material after they have been notified of its true ownership. YouTube does not need any such immunity so long as they remain blissfully (and not very credibly in many cases) unaware that the material the poster copied illegally is owned by someone else. The safe harbor terms of the MMCA already provides that. The fact that no one has been sued because of a YouTube cover, if true, probably represents the copyright owners calculation that the high cost of litigation (including loss of goodwill) will not likely be offset by the benefits of an award that could actually be collected from an individual poster. I have not found anything to indicate that the poster actually obtains legal immunity that would bar a lawsuit against the poster, even if the video production is claimed and monetized by one of the owners of some infringing material. Such immunity or specific protection may be written into the YouTube agreements with the copyright owner, or the owner's acquiescence to the copying could perhaps serve as an effective defense that there is an implied license. There is certainly nothing to indicate that infringement by the poster would not be actionable in the event that the owner does not accept an agreement to exercise a content ID claim instead of a takedown. The "strike" system is a YouTube company policy, not a statute. You make a point that YouTube could test uploads for infringement and warn instead of issue a strike for an infringement discovered prior to hosting the post. That would be a policy issue for them. It is not clear if everything is scanned by a bot that will actually detect everything that is infringing. No bot is going to be able to detect a song that has only been performed by the author at a local coffee house, and if YouTube finds infringement of material that does not belong to one of its publishing partners, it would be obligated to block the material and unable to claim ignorance of its true ownership in the event of an action for infringement. It would make more sense if YouTube were to act like some of the other commercial infringement detection services that scan the net (or respond to positives) exclusively for content owned by their paying customers. They do have a method to appeal a strike and get it removed and the production reinstated. That gives the poster the opportunity to defend his work, and also enforces his responsibility to confirm his ownership of all parts of the production prior to uploading it. But you should understand that the infringement occurs, not when the production is viewed for a price by an audience, but when the first and only copy is created in your computer. If YouTube learns that they are hosting infringing content in any form, they risk losing the MMCA safe harbor protection and becoming liable themselves for publishing infringing content.

The issue with YouTube allowing infringing work to remain on their service is not so much that the poster is providing it without charge to the streaming service/public, but rather that the true owner of the copyright has made a deal (invisible to you) with YouTube that it will not contest YouTube hosting or you posting your upload in return for a portion of the revenue YouTube makes from placing ads on the page. My understanding is that this forbearance of an otherwise legitimate action for infringement is very different from a license granted to you by the copyright owner. You do not actually have a right to use the work, and certainly not to publish/exhibit/stream it on some other site or venue, but rather a reasonable expectation that you will not be sued by the owner so long as the deal between copyright holder and YouTube remains in force. The true owner of the copyright has the option to issue a "takedown notice" under the copyright law, or make a "content ID claim" and then choose under what conditions it will allow the work to be used. If the copyright owner is not paying someone (usually YouTube) to monitor uploads or plays, then your infringement may simply go unnoticed. You are not being permitted to use it just because it has not been discovered, you are just getting away with it. In that case you do not have any assurance that your infringement will not eventually be discovered, and legal action initiated. Many, many of the most popular songs are owned by major publishers that have the deal with YouTube, but small publishers or individuals sometimes do not. In that case their only option is to file a takedown and/or initiate a lawsuit.

Check whatever streaming service you plan to use for their policy. It is not clear to me how these services would confirm that you have a license. Some of them have an automated takedown system that will flag an upload as copyright infringement if their music ID robot decides you have uploaded something under copyright to someone else. You may find yourself involved in appealing a takedown or "strike" even if you have a valid license. How multiple services would confirm that you are limiting downloads numbers to remain within your licensing terms is a mystery, so having that aspect of the license enforced by the services seems impossible. Also note that the Songfile streaming license is time limited. You are getting a compulsory license, which you could get without the help of the agency by notifying all of the copyright holders of a previously released released audio recording and paying a very small fee per download. That would require a fair amount of research effort and bookkeeping along with regular payments directly by you to the copyright holders. A fee of less than $20.00 is probably a bargain. These music sharing sites would probably not work at all if they were really diligent about copyright issues--which is why the SoundCloud "monetization" model was acceptable to the publishers whose intellectual property was being stolen in overwhelming quantity. The cost of policing the theft by the publishers was prohibitive relative to the returns. Consider your licensing fee to be a small price for insurance against an unlikely, but potentially very expensive, claim of infringement.

The terms of your licensing contract apply. If you are dealing with a legal agent of the copyright owner, and they are in turn following the terms of their agency agreement you are covered. Why the cost and terms should vary from one agent to another is one of those mysteries of capitalism. It may well pay to shop around for the best terms. It is likely that some of the offers are from someone who is just selling on from another agent or offering a "service" that just connects you to another agent, like those services that offer to "copyright" your original work for a fee when in fact they are just registering your work with the Copyright Office for a substantially higher cost than the office would charge you to do so yourself. It is conceivable, but unlikely, that someone who does not have a legal agency might offer you a license, in which case you would be infringing the copyright if you proceed. Harry Fox is the agent (sometimes the sole agent) for many publishers, and can be considered reliable. Remember that the license you require depends on the method of distribution you plan on using. A simple mechanical license lets you record the audio, but will not cover the same song if it is part of a video playback, which would require a synchronization license. Technically almost everything on YouTube would require a sync license, but YT has made agreements with many publishers to offset their liability in hosting infringing content by putting ads on your music video, the revenue from which they split with the publisher. Not all copyright holders (including independent composers) have bought into this deal, so there is some risk in assuming that you are immunized for everything you post on YT.

MIDIOx is a freestanding application, not a driver, and can be downloaded at http://www.midiox.com/ Although the manual for the Uno has apparently not been updated since Windows XP. there are drivers on the M-Audio website for the Uno up to Windows 10, and it sounds like you should definitely try them. Follow the directions in the manual for installation. https://m-audio.com/support/drivers click: under Series\MIDI interface under Product MIDISport Uno USB under driver whatever fits your OS.

Before you spend money on a relatively expensive interface, you should test the converter to be sure it is passing MIDI messages as intended, and is not some weird interaction with Cakewalk or Cakewalk setup issue. Download the free MidiOx and see what the Uno is sending to the computer using another application.

I have no explanation for the odd in/out connection with the MIDItoUSB device. A single note playing when multiple keys are pressed suggests that the keyboard (or the synth it is actuating) are in portamento mode.

To be clear the 5 pin DIN connector is going to be much less efficient than a proper USB, the transmission protocol for that MIDI connection is a small fraction of USB. Most contemporary MIDI controllers are designed to use USB primarily and have the DIN only for backward compatibility. The only legitimate concern about USB is that the drivers (if they are not class compliant) will stop working with some future OS update and will be abandoned by the manufacturer, while anyone still putting a DIN socket on the machine will likely make it compliant with old MIDI protocols. As to the need for MIDI input for a controller without a sound module, my SL88 Grand has DIN MIDI in, out and through in addition to USB, which will allow old school daisy chaining and control over the firmware in the keyboard from another MIDI device without USB in the very unlikely event that I cannot connect that way. MIDI is not just for notes. But you do not need those MIDI sockets to do everything they are capable of if you have the right software running in the computer connected by USB except connect directly to a sound module that has no USB, and I have never plugged anything into the DIN's.

It is rapidly becoming obvious that brick and mortar music stores are acting as showrooms for Amazon et. al. Try it out in a nice setting with a bunch of knowledgeable sales people who can advise you to upgrade your expectations to something that will give them a fatter commission and then pay 20% less to get it by mail order from a totally unrelated business. Result--less stock and less expertise at the local store.

The best thing about making physical changes to your system that result in instability is that they can generally be undone in a couple of minutes. Plug in RAM--BSOD--remove RAM--fixed. If you have both sets of RAM already purchased, you can experiment for nothing, without worrying unnecessarily that you are going to smoke the machine as long as they are electrically equivalent. That said, you are likely going to be able to get the same performance without a huge amount of RAM, and having unused memory sitting in the box heating up the planet may be an issue for you. Or you may be able to sell the old sticks for a few pennies on the dollar and buy something more useful.

Not necessarily. Some motherboards will address RAM in different channels/banks at different speeds. Your manual will show you how to install the sticks so they are not mixed on the same channel.

So it looks like this is now being offered for $34.99 with code CREATE40, and no requirement for ownership of another product. https://www.waves.com/plugins/nx-ocean-way-nashville#introducing-nx-ocean-way-nashville-plugin

The usual practice on bank cards is for the bank to take a discount, that is, the merchant receives less than the card account is debited. This is considered a "processing fee" paid by the merchant to the bank, for which the merchant receives the patronage of those customers who want to use the credit card and some bookkeeping services. In fact the money that the bank receives actually comes from the customer's account, and the merchant has already set his price higher to account for the discount. This charge is invisible to the customer, except when merchants offer to give them a portion of that discount in the form of a lower price for a cash purchase.

Well, I just dropped a running 8TB and lost all my backups, so hey if I had a 12, I could have lost 50% more. I am looking for something a bit smaller thanks.