C3's question thread

[raynebc]

With similar twisted logic one could claim the recipe for Coca Cola isn't as valuable as a bottle of it, because otherwise you'd have to make it yourself...

[TrojanNemo]

If you can't accept the facts then I don't know what to tell you man. :)

I really don't see how it took you so long to realize this, unless you didn't read the posts that preceded yours. I gave up a long time ago. He's not looking for an answer. He's repeating the same thing over and over until, he hopes, someone will agree with him.

Now, I REALLY don't want to start a political thing about anti vaxxers, but this picture seemed very relevant.

[rambomhtri]

With similar twisted logic one could claim the recipe for Coca Cola isn't as valuable as a bottle of it, because otherwise you'd have to make it yourself...

Yeah, that's a good example if you don't read it carefully. As I said before, you can't compare music with pretty much anything, cause it's very different to all the material stuff.

If you know the recipe of the Coca-Cola drink, and you can get the exact same drink, you can sell your own labeled drink and claim that it tastes just like Coca-Cola, and it wouldn't be illegal to copy (I guess), cause recipes don't have copyright. Imagine only one restaurant in the whole world could do fried chicken, lol.

Now, if you get the recipe of a song (master tracks I guess?), you won't be able to sell it or use it in any way for your own benefit. It will only be useful for self-teaching purposes or, simply, curiosity.

If labels where selling CD's with master tracks to the public market, then I would understand all of this.

The point that has been made is that original recording sessions are far more valuable and guarded by the music industry than anything else.

Well, that's the point I don't understand. You say they care a lot about something they are not even selling, but they are OK and don't give a fish about millions and millions of pages with their products uploaded and being shared for free, actual products they are selling in the market.

That's what makes no sense to me.

[Micicle]

Ive got a C3 question. What exactly is the difference between a normal and 2X bass track? Is it something to do with using the second pedal as a hi-hat?

Edit: The reason why master tracks are more important to recording companies is because of the risk of unliscensed use of samples. If the master tracks get out they can easily be used to make high quality samples for use in other peoples work. The recording company/original artist should have the right to decide what theyre recordings are used for.

[BombDude24]

It's the difference between Expert and Expert+ on drums, basically. So double bass songs normally only have 1 pedal charted for Expert, for people who don't have 2 pedals, and 2x bass is for 2 pedals.

The reason they're separate is because Rock Band doesn't have an Expert+ difficulty, they have the versions separate for RBN releases, and by extension, customs.

[Micicle]

Thanks for the quick reply.

[warhol]

I'm late to the party, so I don't think this'll be read, but I'll try to provide different insight on rambomhtri's question about multitracks vs. "final mix"'s

First I'll point out the fallacies in your arguments.
-It's a good example, with money involved, but this only happens like 1 time each 10 years.
If you're going to make a sweeping statement like this, back it up with research. Multitrack stealing happens on a daily basis, as far as I know. djtopcat just posted a major incident of multitrack stealing.
- But notice that most of the people interested in multi-tracks are musicians that wanna listen to that guitar part it's inaudible in the final mix". I believe most users that look for multi-tracks are musicians that just wanna enjoy a little more the tracks he or she loves. That's it.
False. You're working under the assumption that you're correct, when you should emphasize the fact that you said "I think." In this case, I am aware that a good part of the population, even most of the population, would listen to multitracks or isolated tracks because they just want to hear it, in which case is harmless. The problem lies in the minority who actually can and do use multitracks in order to produce their own music which they can claim is their own.
-But seriously, c'mon, no musician would ever do that. And if any musician does it, drum tracks are not as memorable as guitar tracks, but still, you can totally recognize it.
No. Musicians do actually do that. I've seen it happen that minor parts of songs are exact copies of other artists songs. Improper sampling is actually a big issue. As an example, let's say you hear this new pop song which you find incredibly awesome and addictive. You end up buying the song on iTunes as a means of supporting the band in question. Later on, you find out that the guitar track you heard is actually ripped from the efforts of another band from 2005. It sucks, but you just supported a band that stole a track from another.

The one aspect of multitracks that makes it so much more dangerous from "final mixes" is the fact that it's so easy to take the tracks and claim them as your own if you are smart enough to cover your tracks and numb it up. I mean, apparently the guys who do it on a regular basis are able to elude you to the point that you think that it's not a frequent ocurrence.

One other issue with your replies is the fact that you seem to claim a lot of "not the same thing" or calling false analogies on other people:
-If you know the recipe of the Coca-Cola drink, and you can get the exact same drink, you can sell your own labeled drink and claim that it tastes just like Coca-Cola, and it wouldn't be illegal to copy (I guess), cause recipes don't have copyright.
It would be illegal only if they can prove that the entire recipe is stolen from them. The reason why copyright for food doesn't exist is because there is almost no way to catch someone who copies a recipe. Your succeeding statement makes a false analogy.
-Imagine only one restaurant in the whole world could do fried chicken, lol.
That's stupid. But imagine if restaurants all over the world would start to make exact replicas of KFC chicken and then sell it at lower prices. The KFC recipe is so heavily guarded because their is nothing in the legal system that protects them from recipe-stealing, nor is there a way to apprehend such people if such a thing happens. So yes, to an extent, you can compare Coke to Music.

[farottone]

You are all focusing on what could be done with the multitracks when in fact it's inconsequential. The issue here is that company A acquires rights to distribute material from artist B in a specific format on a specific platform. If said material finds its way on other platforms and/or in other formats, either artist B can rescind the deal or company A can change model making it impossible to use said material in a different format/platform. Either way it's bad: what was once available to use in a different context disappears or is not available for that context anymore. For that reason we make it so that the content can't be easily redistributed.

[rambomhtri]

I'm late to the party, so I don't think this'll be read, but I'll try to provide different insight on rambomhtri's question about multitracks vs. "final mix"'s

It's never late to discuss, lol.

First I'll point out the fallacies in your arguments.
-It's a good example, with money involved, but this only happens like 1 time each 10 years.
If you're going to make a sweeping statement like this, back it up with research. Multitrack stealing happens on a daily basis, as far as I know. djtopcat just posted a major incident of multitrack stealing.

Well, sorry, I don't have any information about that cause I'm not a producer or something like that, but still, it sounds really weird, rare and illogical. And I'm pretty positive 99% of the bands don't have to deal with this issues at all.

- But notice that most of the people interested in multi-tracks are musicians that wanna listen to that guitar part it's inaudible in the final mix". I believe most users that look for multi-tracks are musicians that just wanna enjoy a little more the tracks he or she loves. That's it.
False. You're working under the assumption that you're correct, when you should emphasize the fact that you said "I think." In this case, I am aware that a good part of the population, even most of the population, would listen to multitracks or isolated tracks because they just want to hear it, in which case is harmless.

False, it's really, really bad if you even dare to listen to them.
Well, sorry, it's only really, really bad if you dare to listen to them from your PC. If you're in the game, and play practice mode and listen to each isolated track, then it's right (logic, please ). So... ironically, we just think the same thing about this (why I can't listen to it, nobody loses nothing!!!). We're in the same ship, mate, even though you've written a whole message "against" me, or my arguments.

The problem lies in the minority who actually can and do use multitracks in order to produce their own music which they can claim is their own.

I'd like to know about any famous band that has done this kind of f*cked up thing of stealing other's band EXACT material. Only a really, really, really loser guitarists with no respect at all at music would steal master tracks from a band and claim it's his composition. Of course, I don't even consider this kind of sub-human a musician.

-But seriously, c'mon, no musician would ever do that. And if any musician does it, drum tracks are not as memorable as guitar tracks, but still, you can totally recognize it.
No. Musicians do actually do that. I've seen it happen that minor parts of songs are exact copies of other artists songs. Improper sampling is actually a big issue. As an example, let's say you hear this new pop song which you find incredibly awesome and addictive. You end up buying the song on iTunes as a means of supporting the band in question. Later on, you find out that the guitar track you heard is actually ripped from the efforts of another band from 2005. It sucks, but you just supported a band that stole a track from another.

Well, a guitarists or drummer or vocalist or whatever that steals a master track of other band and claim that it was him that played and recorded that, is not a musician, is a disrespectful piece of sh*t.
You said ripped. That's not the same as copy-paste. Music rip offs has been there always. You can listen to a song and find 2-3 songs that sounds really the same in many parts, specially if you listen to pop or wanna be rock bands. But a completely different story is stealing a master track and use it in your song, and that's what we're talking about.

The one aspect of multitracks that makes it so much more dangerous from "final mixes" is the fact that it's so easy to take the tracks and claim them as your own if you are smart enough to cover your tracks and numb it up. I mean, apparently the guys who do it on a regular basis are able to elude you to the point that you think that it's not a frequent occurrence.

I've already replied to that statement. There are plenty, PLENTY, millions of songs that have some parts of isolated guitar solos, only drums solos, and only one master track playing. So, if that's your logic, these million songs are as dangerous as multi-tracks. A guitar intro could be used, an isolated guitar solo too, a drum solo too, a base line too. So that statement is irrelevant.

One other issue with your replies is the fact that you seem to claim a lot of "not the same thing" or calling false analogies on other people:
-If you know the recipe of the Coca-Cola drink, and you can get the exact same drink, you can sell your own labeled drink and claim that it tastes just like Coca-Cola, and it wouldn't be illegal to copy (I guess), cause recipes don't have copyright.
It would be illegal only if they can prove that the entire recipe is stolen from them. The reason why copyright for food doesn't exist is because there is almost no way to catch someone who copies a recipe. Your succeeding statement makes a false analogy.
-Imagine only one restaurant in the whole world could do fried chicken, lol.
That's stupid. But imagine if restaurants all over the world would start to make exact replicas of KFC chicken and then sell it at lower prices. The KFC recipe is so heavily guarded because their is nothing in the legal system that protects them from recipe-stealing, nor is there a way to apprehend such people if such a thing happens. So yes, to an extent, you can compare Coke to Music.

No, just no. We can't really compare music to anything.
What we consider the final mix: the chicken itself, the recipe?
What are master tracks: ingredients, recipe steps, recipe's exact times and temperatures?

You can't compare them, you can start to make up a story about ingredients being the master tracks, but then I can tell you that master tracks are really the recipe steps, and we would discussing nothing.

[raynebc]

You are all focusing on what could be done with the multitracks when in fact it's inconsequential. The issue here is that company A acquires rights to distribute material from artist B in a specific format on a specific platform. If said material finds its way on other platforms and/or in other formats, either artist B can rescind the deal or company A can change model making it impossible to use said material in a different format/platform. Either way it's bad: what was once available to use in a different context disappears or is not available for that context anymore. For that reason we make it so that the content can't be easily redistributed.

Out of all the reasons given, limiting Harmonix's risk to any existing or future partnerships in the music industry is the simplest reason for C3 to reduce exposure of the master tracks. Still refuse to accept that, rambomhtri?

[rambomhtri]

You are all focusing on what could be done with the multitracks when in fact it's inconsequential. The issue here is that company A acquires rights to distribute material from artist B in a specific format on a specific platform. If said material finds its way on other platforms and/or in other formats, either artist B can rescind the deal or company A can change model making it impossible to use said material in a different format/platform. Either way it's bad: what was once available to use in a different context disappears or is not available for that context anymore. For that reason we make it so that the content can't be easily redistributed.

Out of all the reasons given, limiting Harmonix's risk to any existing or future partnerships in the music industry is the simplest reason for C3 to reduce exposure of the master tracks. Still refuse to accept that, rambomhtri?

Hi, I'm not here to refuse every single point you make. I accept some of them, but I don't understand why listening to these multi tracks from a PC is wrong and really bad, but listening to them in practice mode in the Guitar Hero game is alright. Still not found a single reason for that, and I guess I won't find any reason. Because that's how I use them, and two C3 members have told me that's wrong, that I can't do that, that I'm not supposed to open them from my PC and listen to them.

[raynebc]

I don't understand why listening to these multi tracks from a PC is wrong and really bad, but listening to them in practice mode in the Guitar Hero game is alright. Still not found a single reason for that, and I guess I won't find any reason.

It's been explained, you're just refusing to accept the explanations given. From the music and game companys' perspective, it's wrong for you to use stems outside of official in-game content because they didn't allow you to use it that way. The music industry wants to protect their property and the integrity of their artists' music. C3 is on record as saying they're not going to expose the stems to uncontrolled use and instead lock them down for use in Rock Band 3 and you don't like that so you consider it unjustified.

[rambomhtri]

I don't understand why listening to these multi tracks from a PC is wrong and really bad, but listening to them in practice mode in the Guitar Hero game is alright. Still not found a single reason for that, and I guess I won't find any reason.

It's been explained, you're just refusing to accept the explanations given. From the music and game companys' perspective, it's wrong for you to use stems outside of official in-game content because they didn't allow you to use it that way.

So I say "OK". Then I'd ask WHY?

And you say

"because:"
The music industry wants to protect their property and the integrity of their artists' music. C3 is on record as saying they're not going to expose the stems to uncontrolled use and instead lock them down for use in Rock Band 3 and you don't like that so you consider it unjustified.

OK, I get it, but if I can listen to isolated tracks of each instrument through the game's practice mode, and that does not invade their property and integrity of their artists music, then playing an OGG guitar track through my PC and listen to it neither does that. So, yeah, it's unjustified and illogical, sorry, it's not because I don't like it.

[BombDude24]

I don't represent C3, but I'll say something, anyway.

Look at it this way, and think rationally for this, but honestly, nobody cares how you use the multitracks, nobody also cares how you got the multitracks. You can use the multitracks willy-nilly, to your heart's content, do whatever the hell you want with them. However, the second they leave your computer and are hosted on the internet, now you've got a problem. If C3 got permission to use multitracks from an artist, and they don't want the files being spread, that's both party's prerogative, even if the artist doesn't care, or if C3 doesn't care, someone, record labels or people who have these files on their site and can send them to whomever pleases WILL care.

Please don't equate using multitracks for personal use with releasing them online for anyone to use, or selling them online. It's someone else's property, and you don't have the right to do that. You can use them however you want, as long as you don't share them. Unfortunately, that means that people who want them with the intent of personal use ONLY suffer, but if that removes almost all of the risk of the multitracks going where they're not supposed to, then I think it's worth it, and you're obligated to disagree.

C3 did NOT make the change from multitracks to single track audio out of malice, and they've been polite and understanding to the needs of the individual, but will not change their stance on this, so again, in my mind, there's no reason to argue. I think you should just say "that's that", and try to accept their reasoning. Even if you don't think that it's right, it's their judgment, in the end, and you're not going to change that.

[rambomhtri]

I don't represent C3, but I'll say something, anyway.

Look at it this way, and think rationally for this, but honestly, nobody cares how you use the multitracks, nobody also cares how you got the multitracks. You can use the multitracks willy-nilly, to your heart's content, do whatever the hell you want with them. However, the second they leave your computer and are hosted on the internet, now you've got a problem. If C3 got permission to use multitracks from an artist, and they don't want the files being spread, that's both party's prerogative, even if the artist doesn't care, or if C3 doesn't care, someone, record labels or people who have these files on their site and can send them to whomever pleases WILL care.

Please don't equate using multitracks for personal use with releasing them online for anyone to use, or selling them online. It's someone else's property, and you don't have the right to do that. You can use them however you want, as long as you don't share them. Unfortunately, that means that people who want them with the intent of personal use ONLY suffer, but if that removes almost all of the risk of the multitracks going where they're not supposed to, then I think it's worth it, and you're obligated to disagree.

C3 did NOT make the change from multitracks to single track audio out of malice, and they've been polite and understanding to the needs of the individual, but will not change their stance on this, so again, in my mind, there's no reason to argue. I think you should just say "that's that", and try to accept their reasoning. Even if you don't think that it's right, it's their judgment, in the end, and you're not going to change that.

Well, I agree with you in almost every sentence, but you're missing the key:
They told me I'm not supposed to even listen to the multitracks outside the game, even if it's only for listening purposes, which in this case, are my purposes, of course. I understand all that sharing problems and issues, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about listening to these multitracks in my PC (which is what I do) instead of using the slow, ugly interface (in terms of listening) of Guitar Hero. If I remember correctly, the first part is wrong cause I'm using C3's content for something they don't want to, but the second part is alright. Nevertheless, the result is the same.

That's one thing. The other thing is that I don't understand why multitracks are more dangerous than the mixed mp3. Both are illegal to share, but C3's team seems more confident when sharing the mix, which I don't really understand. And the argument "them musicians can steal easier samples" is quite pointless, cause you can steal samples from any single band out there even using only mixes, cause as you know, many, many mixes have isolated parts, solo parts, that can be used exactly the same as master tracks. But still, 99.99% of the people that downloaded C3's multis when they shared multis were not at all musicians, starving for some master tracks to steal.