Forum & Copyright (Guidelines)

I’m not bothered by copyright laws but clearly this site is to the max
Yes unfortunately we have to be in order to confidently continue online, without being forced to close down.
it’s especially confusing since they are changing all the time.

If the rules are constantly changing then one day it could be ok, the next not so much.

Apart from tidying up some typos, e.g. clarifying what we thought was too much "legalese," I don't recall any changes at all in the rules. Which of these rules is it that you are referring to having changed?

I'm not going to explain again why we ( and most/all other reputable sites) have rules against people uploading material they don't the right to, except to say it is illegal. And we do not want to risk the possible legal action and expenses, which would probably mean the end of the Café.
 
It wouldn’t be so bad if the rules were consistent but one day using one type of service is ok, DropBox or soundcloud for instead and the next day it’s not.
I don't think either of those are mentioned in the rules - see here which have been more or less the same since I think 2008.

A little more clarification (again) about sound clips:

Whether people use (a) Youtube, Soundcloud to embed on the site or (b) Soundclick, Bandcamp, Dropbox etc. to link files, is nothing to do with the rules. It's down to personal preference except that (as I have consistently said) Youtube and Soundcloud are advised if you are not sure about or posting potentially copyright material.

I pointed out some recently discovered very small issues with Soundcloud that were raised by Randulo and CliveMA See here These are being looked into but until I find a fix then I am not able to currently recommend Soundcloud as highly as Youtube. But it's not a real problem. If Soundcloud is preferable for you it is still OK to use it.

Links to files on storage/sharing services such as Dropbox:

These are fine if you are not linking to material you uploaded without having the rights or permissions to do so. But IMO they are not as nice a user experience as they do not play embedded player on the site. But it's really no big deal.

Apart from the Soundcloud minor embedding issues, none of the above has changed for years.
 
Last edited:
Apart fro tidying up some typos, e.g. clarifying what we thought was too much "legalese," I don't recall any changes at all in the rules. Which of these rules is it that you ate referring to having changed?

I'm not going to explain again why we ( and most/all other reputable sites) have rules against people uploading material they don't the right to, except to say it is illegal. And we do not want to risk the possible legal action and expenses, which would probably mean the end of the Café.
Ok you’re right. They aren’t rules you charged; just preferences in what places you’d like us to upload our tracks to which you did already said wasn’t set in stone.

And YES I am concerned and frustrated about doing it wrong and apologize for venting my frustration towards you.

I don’t understand all the complexities of copyrights and never will which isn’t your fault. It’s all mine.
 
I think you're mixing different areas of copyright into one subject.

Regarding the question from Carburettor, the text he quoted is simply saying you allow the forum to publish your post. It's long winded but that's all it is. No different to a magazine or paper publishing your article or photography. You have to give them explicit permission to publish your copyrighted material.

Regarding Soundcloud etc., they have copyright agreements in place with the music industry. That means a site such as CafeSaxophone doesn't have to worry about copyright infringement if it publishes something from these sites. Soundcloud, YouTube etc. have already done the legal work.

If you use a different host for something you've created then you have to make certain you have the legal right to publish that content. If it's 100% original then you have no problems. If, however, part of your creation uses something someone else has created, then you have to make certain you have the legal right to publish that person/band/company's work.

Why does Pete care? Because, as the publisher of your post, he is legally responsible for the contents of your post. If you post something you don't have the legal right to share then it's Pete who is legally responsible for that breach of copyright.

As for the recommendation for which host to use, this changes purely because of technical issues. If a host such as Soundcloud changes the way it works so that it's no-longer compatible with the software a forum uses, then it makes complete sense for that forum to tell its users of the issues and that it would be better to use another host at this time. Nothing to do with copyright.
That was a great explanation.Thank you :thumb:
******************************************************
Of course changes need to happen and will continuously happen as technology advances. The only thing that doesn’t change is change itself. Ok! I’m grasping it and will stop being so difficult. 😵
 
Pete has to protect the Café Saxophone site against lawsuits, and so he has to be conservative about what is allowed. Maybe he is sometimes over-conservative. Personally, I think he does a great job. As long as this excellent site keeps running I am grateful, and happy for him to make decisions as well as he can. It might indeed be nicer if he was perfect (or perhaps it might not

You don't need me to be perfect we have @Jeanette to fulfill that role.
 
Ads are not displayed to logged in members. Yay!
Sorry @Pete Thomas thought bit would be ok if it was just the relevant bits and not sharing it all..

@eb424 Attaching or embedding files is actually sharing.

Copying bits for educational purposes is fine.
Yes you are correct it is under certain circumstances, however that doesn't apply to a forum website

 
Im happy to discuss but on the thread I linked above
Re "safe harbor"; I'm not an expert - but used to be more informed than I am now!

See para 3;


But, yeah, changes in legislation are not on the side of content sharing sites.
 
OK but nothing there makes me feel the Cafe can host copyright material with no danger of litigation.
Quite. Fora and other content sharing sites used to get away with it by claiming they're neutral. Same with slander and other law breaking (maybe including threats of violence in the near future)... Carried out by their users.
But the laws change to require diligence...
 
Last edited:
I thought it may be helpful to share a personal experience that I had making a dispute with Y??T?b?. During the Covid pandemic, I posted a video to my Y??T?b? channel:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lw74kbC5o4


Previous in discussion with our Salvation Army officers, our ordained pastors, we decided any public posted songs should be from the US Public Domain, basically published before 1923.

Opening song for the video message is Trust and Obey. According to Trust and Obey - Lyrics, Hymn Meaning and Story:

GodTube said:
"Trust and Obey" was written by John H. Sammis in 1887, listed in The United Methodist Hymnal, No. 467.

The song is definitely in the Public Domain. When I published it, I received a message from Y??T?b? that Trust and Obey was copyrighted. The following is the feedback message I received when I sent them a rebuttal defence:

2020-04-05 YouTube Dispute Acknowledge.webp


The midi loops I used was from my Roland GW-7 as controller linked to my General Music (GEM) WK2 midi arranger. At the time I was using both arranger sequences from either depending upon my fancy. It was not a prerecorded track as I am using the arranger live.

I received no reply from Y??T?b?, but they removed the copyright claim.

Since, I have deleted all my content from them except for two videos, of which this is one. Some may disagree with me, but I just felt I did not need the visibility, and would rather not deal with an entity that only uses A.I. to inform of violations without first being reviewed by a human. IMO, A.I. is a good servant but a poor master.

For the similar reason, I deleted both my Tw?tt?r and F?c?b??k accounts.

And, to avoid problems with for example, my "bell ringing" in front of store fronts next to a Salvation Army Christmas donation kettle, I play A Capella traditional non-copyrighted songs on my saxophones. This protects both the store owners and the Salvation Army against so-called copyright violations. I have had others record my playing and post them to social media.

And to add a sense of irony to the situation is the title of the video, "Uncertainty of Obedience". With a sense of humour, I am reminded of
Murphy's Laws of Combat said:
o Anything you do can get you killed [harmed] including doing nothing.
o Look unimportant, the enemy may be low on amunition.

Please understand that I do not fault any who use these services, it is just for personal reasons and my peace of mind that I do not use them.

It is my own personal observation over time that has caused me to realise that certain of the ultra-wealthy have shorted musicians by very poorly paying royalties, usurped musicians rights to content and continue to profit from content long after a musician's death by altering law to their sole benefit.

I know we are starting to delve into politics, and as such will not discuss further unless warranted.
 
I don't share sheet music or backing tracks. For me it's not clear if I can share a KV backing track or any other backing track? It's ok to record myself with KV backing track and upload the recording so others can hear. But I doubt it's ok to upload a backing for others to use?

It's not ok to share sheet music. My freind transcribed what Clarence Clemons played on Bruce Springsteen song "Rosalita". He hesitated if it was legal even if there was no trascribing done back then. So he described what he played in words instead of reading music.
In the case of Hello Dolly, the song itself infringed copyright and there was a payout as such.

In addition, I’m pretty sure that you would get through an educational use case sharing on this site.
 
In the case of Hello Dolly, the song itself infringed copyright and there was a payout as such.

In addition, I’m pretty sure that you would get through an educational use case sharing on this site.
@Pete Thomas will confirm but I don't think we can use that as reason for sharing.

Jx
 

Similar threads... or are they? Maybe not but they could be worth reading anyway 😀

Popular Discussions on the Café

Latest Song of the Month

Forum statistics

Topics
31,923
Messages
565,017
Members
7,965
Latest member
MarcKeller
Back
Top Bottom