Just wanted to say that I came across this http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.pdf US Government circular about copyright for sound recordings. Obviously, there is stuff in here that is different from how we want to define things in MB, but it does have some very precise definitions. What's interesting is we've managed to wander quite close to some of them. However, mainly where they talk about 'derivative recordings': "The preexisting recorded sounds must have been rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or character, or there must be some additional new sounds." Now this is for copyright, so slightly different rules but if you take out the 'or character or additional new sounds', it's essentially what we've got. But that's only for derivative recordings. This comes back the unmixed unedited question. They define a recording as the product of the “fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds” (similar to our audio track definition). So I think there might be an answer somewhere in here. I think the mixing and editing is it's what defines unique derivative recordings perhaps versus 'source recordings' (just made that up, don't know what anyone thinks but to me it's better than raw). Obviously this needs thinking about but to me it seems a fruitful line to follow.
On 14 April 2013 22:26, symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/4/14 LordSputnik <ben.s...@gmail.com> > >> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote >> > The parts that actually *are* on topic seem generally good to me. I >> think >> > the "Number of Audio Channels" bit adds unnecessary complexity to it and >> > that we should merge them (it also goes against the way almost all our >> > hybrid SACDs have been entered, with one medium and one tracklist to >> > represent the whole thing). But the other paragraphs seem perfectly >> fine. >> >> We can't reakky do that, because different mixing has been applied to >> create >> the recordings. It's implicit from the definition of recording (even >> before >> the update we made) that they should be separate. Obviously if the >> information isn't known, that section can't be applied, and where that >> information is known, it's fairly simple to do what the guideline says. >> > > I wonder if we can find a better wording for the "downmixing" part. I kind > of understand what you want to say; it's the exact same audio, not new > mixes from the source. > > In general, the proposal is looking much better now. Maybe mention "added > silence" under "different durations"? > > /symphonick > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
