Different music in edited (1hr) versions of top gear?

[Dsemaj]

I was watching 07x01 and the 2nd half of the Aston, BMW and Porsche comparison and I noticed that the music is completely different! Why would they replace the music with something that seems like original compositions?

[Hidden_Hunter]

copyright reasons Dsemaj I beleive

[MXM]

Edited versions are broadcasted on BBC World (at least), and as Hidden_Hunter said it's copyright issue. They don't have rights to play same music abroad, or they don't want to pay extra.

[epp_b]

Copyright trolls. 'Nuff said.

[Peter3hg]

Originally Posted by epp_b

Copyright trolls. 'Nuff said.

You sound like a stuck record. A lot of the artists featured in Top Gear are relatively small and actually need the revenue of licensing the music so just shut up for a bit won't you.

[Dsemaj]

Originally Posted by Hidden_Hunter

copyright reasons Dsemaj I beleive

Mmmm, yeah I thought so.

It's surprising how much the proper music adds compared to the other stuff.

[Hidden_Hunter]

I agree, it's quite drab with the original compositions

[epp_b]

You sound like a stuck record. A lot of the artists featured in Top Gear are relatively small and actually need the revenue of licensing the music so just shut up for a bit won't you.

Once copyright starts respecting me, I'll respect copyright. It's a two-way street.

[Peter3hg]

Originally Posted by epp_b

Once copyright starts respecting me, I'll respect copyright. It's a two-way street.

No it isn't, it's an entirely one way street. You have absolutely no rights to any music, films etc. unless you obviously made them. Every band needs or has needed the revenue, in your perfect society of no/little copyright no bands would start up in any form of serious way as there would be no/little money to make in it, therefore there would be no music or little of any quality. I know which I would prefer.

[roaming]

Originally Posted by Peter3hg

No it isn't, it's an entirely one way street. You have absolutely no rights to any music, films etc. unless you obviously made them. Every band needs or has needed the revenue, in your perfect society of no/little copyright no bands would start up in any form of serious way as there would be no/little money to make in it, therefore there would be no music or little of any quality. I know which I would prefer.

I think his criticism is about the way the RIAA stretches the law to breaking point to intimidate people.

About the show: I didn't like the way SBS cut the news section out so that they could stick more adds in.

[epp_b]

No it isn't, it's an entirely one way street. You have absolutely no rights to any music, films etc. unless you obviously made them. Every band needs or has needed the revenue, in your perfect society of no/little copyright no bands would start up in any form of serious way as there would be no/little money to make in it, therefore there would be no music or little of any quality. I know which I would prefer.

Sorry, but you've been brainwashed by the content industry. The purpose of copyright is to encourage progress for society (that's you and me), not so that I can make a piece of art and make money off of it. Sure, if you happen to make a few bucks off of it, good for you. But, at the end of the day, it's a business venture just like any other. There are risks like any other business, and you can't just rely on some utilitarian law to carry you through for making a couple pieces of art.

[rheinberger]

whilst on the subject of copyright, here is something to think about

[epp_b]

whilst on the subject of copyright, here is something to think about

Yeah, and? If you ask me, that a measure of a successful copyright. One where an artists can take another work of art and make something new out of it, with different tones, instruments, words, and so forth. It's called a "mash-up" or "derivative work", and it's what makes copyright a useful instrument for society and culture.

Here's another thing to think about: who, having heard the new, derived song thought, "Well, now that I've heard Nelly's version of this pattern of rhythms and tones, I have no need to hear the original Finnish version."?

[Peter3hg]

Originally Posted by epp_b

The purpose of copyright is to encourage progress for society (that's you and me),

You got it all wrong, copyright is to protect the artists rights, it has bugger all to do with you and me, it certainly wasn't intended to encourage progress for society.
The first proper copyright law was brought in in Britain in 1709 with the intention of giving authors the monopoly over the production of their books, not the printers as had previously been the case.

[rheinberger]

Originally Posted by epp_b

Yeah, and? If you ask me, that a measure of a successful copyright. One where an artists can take another work of art and make something new out of it, with different tones, instruments, words, and so forth. It's called a "mash-up" or "derivative work", and it's what makes copyright a useful instrument for society and culture.

Here's another thing to think about: who, having heard the new, derived song thought, "Well, now that I've heard Nelly's version of this pattern of rhythms and tones, I have no need to hear the original Finnish version."?

not talking about money here. timbaland never credited anyone for the beats (if the case is that he took it directly). that sucks.

i'm not trying to prove anything against your point.

[epp_b]

You got it all wrong, copyright is to protect the artists rights, it has bugger all to do with you and me, it certainly wasn't intended to encourage progress for society.

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constit...nstitution.htm

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries