Charli XCX

[Adrift 4,778]

It's not like actually live but it's from the video where they debut it live (completely just playing the studio track while a girl lip synced) and it has the intro and stuff. I think? Idk, the officially uploaded version on youtube is just the song though, not the long intro.

 

And I looked into whether or not QT was real and find out as much as I could about this whole thing, and I have concluded that QT is not a real energy drink. It's just for this little pop universe that they created with a cute fictional pop star/energy drink marketer named "QT".

I thought the intro added a lot to the song, really expanded the concept.

 

Anyway make ha a thread

[PrettyBaby 2,213]

That is not Fair Use. Fair Use is when you reproduce someone's intellectual property for educational, parody, or commentary purposes.

 

 

Not to stir shit up again, but just for clarification: Fair Use doctrine is actually something of a gray area. What you have provided is a non-exclusive list of examples of fair use.

 

Actually Copyright law is constantly evolving, which is as it should be. In the internet age, there are many issues left to be tested. For now it would seem the pendulum is swinging in favor of big business. But what the law is supposed to do is advance artistic creativity, not necessarily protect privacy (there are other laws for that) or maximize profits.

 

So it's an open question what should happen regarding leaked music that is not available for purchase.

 

If you download a leaked song that is going to be sold or could have been sold, you are doing harm. That means you won't be buying the song when it's officially available. You might not think that some of the songs will be sold, but someone leaked songs that Charli was thinking about shopping to other artists. Even if Charli has no plans to make a song available, it is unethical to invade her privacy by obtaining a song she doesn't want leaked. You're also providing a market for the leaked music. People wouldn't leak music if they didn't get some kind of monetary or personal gratification.

 

You make some good points here. Yes, it is harmful to download for free a song available for purchase... unless you go on to purchase it. Yes, it is harmful to dilute the market for a song actively being shopped to other artists.

 

But it's difficult to see the harm in appreciating unreleased songs that would otherwise never see the light of day. In fact, I would argue that such activity benefits the artist by providing an audience for what in some cases is their better material, as well as serving as free promotion for their released material. But it's complex, especially when the songs in question could be released in the future or could be shopped around.

 

The point to keep in mind is that Fair Use doctrine is a gray area of Copyright law. Not my legal opinion and the usual disclaimers, etc.

[comeintomybedroom 8,567]

Anyway make ha a thread

You do it!

[heartbreakhigh 735]

Charli's performance last night was so great! All of the new songs sound amazing in person, but Famous is still my favorite of the new ones. I think my favorite song of the night was Stay Away. She sang with so much emotion it was so beautiful. Also, when Charli was soundchecking, they played the backing track/normal track? of Sucker and god it sounds sooo fucking good I took about a minute long video of Money, idk if anyone wants me to post it its kinda short so its probably not worth it....

 

It was actually so shocking the amount of people in there that didnt know the words to any of Charlis songs. The girl that was next to me on my right, who was directly in front of Charli's mic, didnt even know the words to Grins OR Lock You Up. Most of the crowd didnt know the words to anything but Boom Clap and Fancy either. So weird....

 

Anyways, sorry for the long post but everyone who is seeing Charli anytime soon should get excited! She put on a great show. Of course this was my first time seeing her live.... but in videos of her performing a while ago she would sometimes look very disconnected from the crowd. She definitely got way better with that! She engaged everyone and got people jumping. and side note pls dont kill me but Charli's choreography with her bassist and guitarist during Caught in the Middle is very cute.

[Sitar 22,177]

I took about a minute long video of Money, idk if anyone wants me to post it its kinda short so its probably not worth it....

 

I just need to know if it's a cover. No Gold Coins again?

[iseeyouupsidedown 930]

I just need to know if it's a cover. No Gold Coins again?

It is a cover, the last video posted of it confirms. (And I'm actually really happy it's a cover because I don't think I would be down with Charli's own song called "Money". Plus I love the original, it's so much fun)

[Sitar 22,177]

It is a cover, the last video posted of it confirms. (And I'm actually really happy it's a cover because I don't think I would be down with Charli's own song called "Money". Plus I love the original, it's so much fun)

 

I'll only be satisfied if we get a decent quality live session like all her other covers...She's spoiled us

[Adrift 4,778]

I wish I was seeing her tonight, she'd come out and be like "HELLO, CHARLOTTE!" and I would be like "HELLO, CHARLOTTE!"

[drewby 9,222]

Saw a @ doppelganger walking across campus today

[Plastic Rainbow 32]

Is anyone on here going to her Philly or NYC show? This will be my 4th time seeing her live on Friday and I'm so nervous/excited to hear her new songs. I really wish that she'd sing What I Like but seeing the setlists I doubt that's going to happen. 

[Adrift 4,778]

Is anyone on here going to her Philly or NYC show? This will be my 4th time seeing her live on Friday and I'm so nervous/excited to hear her new songs. I really wish that she'd sing What I Like but seeing the setlists I doubt that's going to happen.

I'll be at that show on Friday!

[782anonymous 220]

Not to stir shit up again, but just for clarification: Fair Use doctrine is actually something of a gray area. What you have provided is a non-exclusive list of examples of fair use.

 

Actually Copyright law is constantly evolving, which is as it should be. In the internet age, there are many issues left to be tested. For now it would seem the pendulum is swinging in favor of big business. But what the law is supposed to do is advance artistic creativity, not necessarily protect privacy (there are other laws for that) or maximize profits.

 

So it's an open question what should happen regarding leaked music that is not available for purchase.

 

 

You make some good points here. Yes, it is harmful to download for free a song available for purchase... unless you go on to purchase it. Yes, it is harmful to dilute the market for a song actively being shopped to other artists.

 

But it's difficult to see the harm in appreciating unreleased songs that would otherwise never see the light of day. In fact, I would argue that such activity benefits the artist by providing an audience for what in some cases is their better material, as well as serving as free promotion for their released material. But it's complex, especially when the songs in question could be released in the future or could be shopped around.

 

The point to keep in mind is that Fair Use doctrine is a gray area of Copyright law. Not my legal opinion and the usual disclaimers, etc.

It is a legal gray area, but the courts are not going to side with someone reproducing music for personal enjoyment. If they were to do that, then that would lead to legalizing peer 2 peer sharing of music. There has to be some clear, non-profit purpose for reproducing the music. Peer 2 peer file sharing is non-profit, but people have been fined and lost lawsuits for doing this because its purpose is to avoid paying for music, movies, software, etc.

 

The copyright laws are there to protect intellectual property and to give artists control over their property. If people are reproducing their works without their consent, then they have lost control. For artists who want to give consumers more flexibility in reproducing their works, there is the Creative Commons License.

 

Edit: Why was my name mentioned in another thread?

[drewby 9,222]

It is a legal gray area, but the courts are not going to side with someone reproducing music for personal enjoyment. If they were to do that, then that would lead to legalizing peer 2 peer sharing of music. There has to be some clear, non-profit purpose for reproducing the music. Peer 2 peer file sharing is non-profit, but people have been fined and lost lawsuits for doing this because its purpose is to avoid paying for music, movies, software, etc.

 

The copyright laws are there to protect intellectual property and to give artists control over their property. If people are reproducing their works without their consent, then they have lost control. For artists who want to give consumers more flexibility in reproducing their works, there is the Creative Commons License.

 

Edit: Why was my name mentioned in another thread?

 

No one ~reproduced it~ only about 8 of us had a direct WAV rip of the album and no converting and selling on our end occurred

 

the person who sold the promo disc when it was free in the first place should be the one in trouble, once it was out of their hands it was free reign and the person who also leaked it would face the repercussions

[PrettyBaby 2,213]

It is a legal gray area, but the courts are not going to side with someone reproducing music for personal enjoyment. If they were to do that, then that would lead to legalizing peer 2 peer sharing of music. There has to be some clear, non-profit purpose for reproducing the music. Peer 2 peer file sharing is non-profit, but people have been fined and lost lawsuits for doing this because its purpose is to avoid paying for music, movies, software, etc.

 

The copyright laws are there to protect intellectual property and to give artists control over their property. If people are reproducing their works without their consent, then they have lost control. For artists who want to give consumers more flexibility in reproducing their works, there is the Creative Commons License.

 

It's not about maximizing control; it's about maximizing creativity. I would like to see the artists benefit from their works, though. I'm hoping some new form of licensing (or other economic model) evolves to cover specifically music not available for purchase (in which case, the purpose is not to avoid paying).

[782anonymous 220]

It's not about maximizing control; it's about maximizing creativity. I would like to see the artists benefit from their works, though. I'm hoping some new form of licensing (or other economic model) evolves to cover specifically music not available for purchase (in which case, the purpose is not to avoid paying).

It encourages the creation of artistic works by giving people rights to their works. You can download a paper on the history of copyright law in the U.S. Authors argued for the passage of copyright laws because of widespread piracy. Instead of the authors, printing presses controlled the reproduction of literary works.

 

This study argues that the campaign for copyright legislation in the immediate post-Revolutionary period was an attempt by leading American intellectuals to wrest a significant measure of control over that cultural process away from the largely unregulated printers...These early American nationalists perceived the unregulated press to be a threat to national unity, but not in the way we might initially expect. They thought of copyright not as a form of censorship, but as a form of encouragement. By securing to authors the exclusive right of publicationof their own works, and thus a certain degree of control over the industry rather than allowing printers their continued free reign over the content and distribution of print they expected that copyrights would give American intellectuals an incentive to produce reputable literature.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1941506

[PrettyBaby 2,213]

And Copyright law has helped provide artists with incentive to create. Some argue that going beyond this creates an unfair burden on the public to enforce an artificial monopoly. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_music

 

And I can see their point. Some seem to think Copyright law has outlived its usefulness and seem ready to abolish it. I just want to see it evolve. (I think )

[heartbreakhigh 735]

heres a snippet of gold coins. sorry its so short and low quality

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHc-WL2CG6I&feature=youtu.be

 

and money

 

[782anonymous 220]

And Copyright law has helped provide artists with incentive to create. Some argue that going beyond this creates an unfair burden on the public to enforce an artificial monopoly. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_music

 

And I can see their point. Some seem to think Copyright law has outlived its usefulness and seem ready to abolish it. I just want to see it evolve. (I think )

I already brought up the Creative Commons License. Any artist has a choice to use it. I see no problem with it. If an artist wants to make unreleased music available for free, then there is always SoundClick, Bandcamp, SoundCloud, and similar websites. They can even put the music up on their own website. Many artists already do this. I don't see why people feel like they're entitled to someone's unreleased music. As someone who has made music in the past, I feel like I should have absolute control over something I created.

[drewby 9,222]

I already brought up the Creative Commons License. Any artist has a choice to use it. I see no problem with it. If an artist wants to make unreleased music available for free, then there is always SoundClick, Bandcamp, SoundCloud, and similar websites. They can even put the music up on their own website. Many artists already do this. I don't see why people feel like they're entitled to someone's unreleased music. As someone who has made music in the past, I feel like I should have absolute control over something I created.

She lost control of it the second it was given in the form of a promo disc to people who turned around and sold it :roll:

 

You shouldn't be in music if you're that concerned about losing control of your work when you make money by releasing it to billions

[Atom Heart 1,928]

@, I wanted to make that joke at the show but I didn't get to go.