If i have a track which i have purchased and i legally own am i allowed to create my own remix from it and play it at a gig ?

let's say for example i create a couple of loops in the track to make it longer
Or i add some echo to certain parts,

I record this from ableton live as a Wav and stick it in my music collection.

Is that Illegal ?

No. You cannot make any alterations to any track (including loops, pitch, BPM or even cueing) for public performance until you buy my new MegaProUltraBassDub License. It costs £750 a year but if you buy before 31/12/08 you can get it for only £749.99.

Also if anyone would like to become a licence enforcer, please PM me. The pay is crap but you can shop anyone who has annoyed you recently.

Basically no.

If you make a re-mix of a track, then wish to try and get it released, then you would need clearance from those that hold the copyright...
It can be done, but is a lengthy and sometimes very costly exercise, even to established artistes, for example, Vanilla Ice did not originally get permission for a sample used for Ice Ice Baby (when he used a sample of 'Under Pressure' by Queen).
Even getting permission for re-arrangements of tracks can be a painful exercise, but not impossible. Established re-mixers are usually approached - there are sites out there with re-mixers who can probably advise better and some sites have legally obtained samples and vocals with you to play with and re-mix.
Worth looking into if you have a knack and a good ear.

Ok mitch does rock and the blind barmaid see's again

I presume the recording side of doing this is the illegal bit?

To play a track "live" during a gig and using effects (using echo or looping for example) is Ok?

Er....yes.

Sampling live and working with a track to add effects is 'ok' so long as you don't store the track / sample as a new recording.

So, by example, if you were to sample a riff from a dance record (live) and play that riff in a loop on the night - ok.
But if you were to store the loop and change the arrangement of the track, record it and then play it live, effectively, you are circumventing the original rights of the recording.
Seek permission, that's a different story.

Bedroom DJs are of course 'exempt' from such personal pleasures ( ) unless of course they earn pocket money from performing in front of the annual family gathering which according this statement here would be deemed a public performance:
In music licensing terms, 'public performance', means the playing of any music to a group of people, irrespective of whether the function or event is ‘private’.

Another licensing organisations stance is slightly different and apparently understand the meaning and implications of what a private function is, and the powers of those who can eject the uninvited I guess! Interesting, eh?

To be realistic about this, taking a Track and messing with is what club DJs have been doing with dance music for years...



the problem is your wording here.. you wont own anything apart from a licence to listen to that music..

you never do own the muisc.. only the record company or copyright holder own the muisc...



But as far as a re edit or mash up goes.. do what you like but dont share it arround

Are there any other products that work like this ?

Imagine buying a car and in the paperwork it said "You do not own this car, only the right to drive it, we own the car you fool"

you never own a car...you are only the regested keeper

Wrong. Of course you own it if you have purchased it! The owner is not neccesarily the keeper and vice versa.

ok

As mentioned above, if you do the remix live you are fine. It is the recording of it that is illegal.

But DJ's have been doing this since the 70's. That it how the remix came about, and most big name DJ's today create their own exclusive re-edits to make tracks work better in their sets.

The Building Society own my house - well for 25 years they do, and I'll sell it and move on before that time is up.

If you buy a book you own the physical pages, but not the story. Which I guess is kind of the same.

Although, sticking with that point, I remember in primary school (a long time ago) teachers used to read us stories out of books (public performance). One teacher however used to make slides of the pages and put them on an overhead projector (a format shift?). This must have been an awful lot of work for her, with no financial gain whatsoever. So I hope she was forced to buy a farcical, immoral, overpriced licence to do this. It's the only fair way apparently.

Yes but there isn't some idiotic unelected unaccountable cabal telling people they need vastly over priced licenses just to read them.



I agree, she is clearly a criminal and deserved to get sued. Maybe they should recruit teachers to grass on other teachers perpetuating these evil crimes. I mean what kind of standard does it set for the children, they may grow up actually believing format shifting is acceptable and we can't have that now can we.

Brilliant!!

The food we consume kind of does a format shift before it comes out the other end, I wonder if we'll ever need a license to go to the lav