Guest | 10 Nisan 2014 saat 20:08

mydrugsonline.net viagra buy cialis for less auto insua insurance

Guest | 18 Mart 2014 saat 15:03

free online life insurance quotes buymedsonline.net here order cialis brand cialis online

Guest | 24 Şubat 2014 saat 12:15

marymeganhoward.com

Guest | 19 Şubat 2014 saat 13:17

I've always found the clpsuomory licencing of cover versions an interesting part of the law. It's one of those areas where there is a balance between the original artist losing control over what happens to their work, in return for the benefit to culture gained from having the cover version exist, and the benefit to the cover version artist of having the (free speech) right to sing a song if they want to.Recently Prince has argued that he should have a moral right to prohibit cover versions. I would argue that the requirement for licences should be lifted for private individuals who are not generating revenue.Attribution is an interesting area too, I'm in favour of making it a moral right for the author to be credited, but what about iTunes, which prohibits attaching text files to songs? What about unwarranted writing credits (some stars demand a writing credit even if they contributed nothing to the writing), and what about insipration... if I pick up a sitar and perform take five, what should the Sachal Studios Orchestra be entitled to as a credit?Parody cover versions are protected by law in the US's draconian regime, but actionable here in the UK. Is the UK's culture really benefitted by banning works of Weird Al Yankovich that Americans are free to buy and hear? Should YouTube block access to those parts of his work that are forbidden to us Brits, and if so, for who? How much of an obligation to should there be on YouTube to determine the physical location of it's users?Another interesting point is the exemption for gender changing - Artists gain a legal right to amend a cover so that the lyrics suit the gender of the singer, at the expense of a legal right to have their lyrics kept intact. I found a great example of this while researching for a recent discussion over on the 1709 blog. Lee Fox is an artist who performs (very good) rock cover versions alongside his original work (a very wise strategy for a lesser known artist, as fans of a more popular artist being covered will pay attention to them). His cover of Goldfrapp's "Strict Machine" is gender changed, but also role-reversed. In the original the vocalist is female, and proclaims "I'm in love with a strict machine". Reviewers have interpreted this as a song sung from the point of view of a submissive person in a sadomasochistic context. Lee Fox arguably oversteps the bounds of legally allowed gender changing by singing "don't you know I'm a strict machine", thereby (arguably) taking on the dominant role in the sadomasochistic context. I'd strongly defend this as a perfectly reasonable thing for Lee Fox to do, but I wonder if as the laws stands, he might be on slightly shaky ground?

Guest | 19 Şubat 2014 saat 03:20

timNovember 6, 2012I saw Chris Brubeck's Triple Play in Thomasville Georgia, which is a small town in South Georgia, and the show was awesome. You sholud check to see if there is some sort of organization in your town that could try and get Triple Play to come and put on a concert there. I am willing to bet that Chris Brubeck and gang would gladly show up. They put on a very entertaining show, playing their material as well as some of his Dad's too.