<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Christian Hufgard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pp@christian-hufgard.de">pp@christian-hufgard.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Nicolas Sahlqvist wrote:<br>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Christian Hufgard<br>
> <<a href="mailto:pp@christian-hufgard.de">pp@christian-hufgard.de</a>>wrote:</div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">
> It is up to the "artist" that releases the music to</div><div class="im">
> decide if it is free content where later a court of law may deem it is not<br>
> due to how inspired the "artist" was of unfree content. This happens in the<br>
> commercial music industry and artists loose there revenue in such court<br>
> cases so how can you be sure that the music that is claimed to be free<br>
> actually is free?<br>
<br>
</div>Well, there's a big difference between "being inspired by someone else",<br>
"using someone elses vocals" and "declare own work as free". :)<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div>Yes, but in the kind of music I listen to mostly (techno, dance, trance, electronic etc.) and all the remixes makes the line so fine that a court has a hard time figuring out where to draw the line so back to my question, what is actually free and unfree?</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>- Nicolas</div><div> PPI / PPSE member</div></div>