You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
One example from the music industry is Taylor Swift, who is currently reverse engineering her own old masters, to which she does not own the rights (just the composition copyright), and re-creating *as identical as possible* versions, to which she will.
At *best* all that stands between the original versions and her re-creations is a human ear trying to remake them as closely as possible. But, for all we know, it could be more technical: using spectrograms to match EQ curves and such. (This is, incidentally, a hobby of mine)pic.twitter.com/EKABSipg03
So you can "hand-decompile" a song like that and be in the clear as long as you don't copy any audio directly. Cloning all the details of the original recording (mix, instrumentation, mastering, etc) is OK; it is not a derivative work of the recording, only of the composition.
How come we assume that reverse engineering some binary and writing some code that is somewhat similar would be copyright infringement? Obviously straight copy and paste from a decompiler would be a derivative work... but why do we obsess over a *human* accidentally "copying"?
(FWIW, in the above video, only the voices were ripped from the original, the rest is re-created from scratch. Also, all the synths are instances of Helm.)
@PrinceSamlet is doing something similar with the DKC trilogy OST, but using the original source samples, resulting in a remaster without the constraints and artifacts of the SNES sound processor.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
