Search options (Page 55 of 121)

The bass line in Roundabout is sooooo cool.  Those dudes are absolute monsters.

The worst that can happen is considerably worse than that.  If the copyright holder decides to pursue it, the law provides not only an injunction, but the court can impound any of the copies (that means they can impound your computer), any actual damages they've taken, or they can collect statutory damages up to $30,000 *per violation.*  That means if she used 10 images she could be liable for $300,000 in damages.   If the court finds that the violation was "willful" then the damages bump up to $150,000.    And then she will get to pay for the infringed parties attorney's costs.  And in certain circumstances, there may be a criminal complaint as well.

So that's the worst case.  Youtube yanking it is the best case.

Everything that has been recorded or written down since the mid-80s in tangible form has a copyright attached to it, so those pictures belong to someone.  The songs also belong to the people that wrote it.  Copyright provides absolute control to the copy holder the right to control distribution, reproduction, and performance of their work.  That control is then constrained a bit by what is called "fair use" doctrine, but what you're doing isn't going to be part of that.

So, to the letter of the law, yes, you have committed a tort (as opposed to a crime) and could be liable to the copyright owner.  In a practical sense, I doubt you have much to worry about.  If you get a cease and deist letter then simply apologize and then cease and desist.   Damages have to be shown in order to win a monetary award, so unless you are raking in the big bucks and the copyright holder can demonstrate actual damages (I lost X amount of business as a result of these YouTube videos) then I'd guess the most that will come out of a courtroom is an injunction against you to prohibit the use of the work.

YouTube (and any service dealing with user generated content) are particular about copyright infringement.  If they don't take active steps to prevent it, then they are contributors to it and are also liable for your tort.  And they have deep pockets that draw lawsuits like flies to old meat.  I'd bet that if there is a problem with what you're doing, you'll hear from YouTube about it long before you hear from the copyright owner.

This is the answer.  A "slash chord" is really just a way to notate an inversion of a major chord.  The chord fingering for "CaddG" is simply adding the 5th on top of the chord, rather than inverting it on the bottom.

C inversion = G C E

CaddG = C E G ...... G

That ended how a Superbowl should end.  Great game.  I like both teams, so would have been happy either way.

If Rogers plays like he did against Atlanta, Green Bay wins it.   He's got what it takes.

That thing is beautiful.  I'm sure you had to sacrifice those Cohibas for something.

I've always assumed sus4, but I don't know.  I second Selso's observation.

You're gonna be hugely disappointed when you figure out why all those songs are masterpieces.    Most of those songs are three or four chords, tops.  The reason they sound awesome is because the guys playing them know their way around those three or four chords.  Red House, for example, is a simple 12 bar blues.  Jimi just knew how to play a 12 bar blues.  Point being, most songs, period, are three or four chords, tops.

What makes a masterpiece is the painter, not the paint. 

That's a good way to learn the fretboard.  Just one thing, though.  Minor and major apply to chords.  Sharps and flats apply to notes.

So from e

E F F# G G# A etc...

Or alternatively.

E F Gb G Ab A Bb etc...