Tornevall Networks

“Shampoo” is a track written out of pure frustration, much like my earlier releases Anger Management and Managed Anger. It’s about scents and how they can affect mood and desire – sometimes in ways that feel intrusive or even disturbing. The whole idea started when my partner bought a cedar-scented shampoo. That smell completely messed with my head and even kept me awake an entire night. It was such a strong and strange experience that I turned it into music.

The song was released on SoundCloud on 3 September 2025 (that’s the export date of the wav-file), and a slightly extended Tech House edit followed two days later, since I realized that the original edit could’ve been longer. On SoundCloud, it is described how the shampoo’s smell overwhelmed me, and on Facebook, I noted as a joke (since I just recently released a bunch of ballades) that it wasn’t “just a ballade” but still something – reminding me “a little bit too much” of Jessica, my partner.

Table of Contents
Toggle
Motion till riksdagenFörslag till riksdagsbeslutMotiveringStockholm, 2025
Motion till riksdagen

2025/26:0009av Korpral Åkesson, Bredängsmaffian

Förslag till riksdagsbeslut

Riksdagen ställer sig bakom det som anförs i motionen om att London ska utses till Sveriges nya huvudstad och tillkännager detta för regeringen.

Riksdagen ställer sig bakom det som anförs i motionen om att New York ska bli en officiell förort till Göteborg och tillkännager detta för regeringen.

Riksdagen ställer sig bakom det som anförs i motionen om att Australien ska ges en ny roll som ”världsreservat för gemensamma resurser” där mänsklighetens långsiktiga överlevnad kan tryggas, och tillkännager detta för regeringen.

Riksdagen ställer sig bakom det som anförs i motionen om att Sverige ska driva dessa förslag i internationella forum som FN, EU och WTO, samt tillkännager detta för regeringen.

Motivering

Sverige står inför en tid av förändring där våra internationella samarbeten, vår kulturella position och våra globala ambitioner behöver förnyas.

Att göra London till Sveriges huvudstad stärker vår närvaro i Europa, underlättar internationella samarbeten och förflyttar det politiska centrumet närmare världens finans- och kulturhubbar. Big Ben skall därför målas om i blå-gul färg.

New York som förort till Göteborg är en nyskapande idé som suddar ut gränser mellan kontinenter och förstärker Sveriges ställning som ledande inom urban innovation. Göteborg kommer därmed att få en unik roll som global knutpunkt för kultur, näringsliv och demokrati.

Australien som världsreservat innebär att kontinenten ska ges en särskild status, där världens gemensamma resurser – biodiversitet, vatten, klimatinnovationer och långsiktiga överlevnadsprojekt – samordnas under internationell förvaltning. På så vis kan Australien bli hela mänsklighetens framtidslaboratorium.

Sammantaget representerar dessa reformer en ny vision för Sveriges roll i världen: djärv, global och präglad av både humor och allvar i strävan efter hållbar utveckling.

Stockholm, 2025

Korpral ÅkessonBredängsmaffian

Tornevall’s Neural Ensemble presenterar stolt – Ballader För Det Bruna Sverige – ett litet projekt som växte fram ur något helt annat (som vanligt). Det började med en text om Joakim Lamotte – där vi gjorde narr av ännu ett av hans självförvållade vansinnes-utspel – och det eskalerade snabbt till att bli en “ballad”. Samtidigt växte det fram en annan text om Jimmie Åkesson, med temat att han i grund och botten inte vet någonting. Alls.

Grundstommen i projektet byggdes ursprungligen på Lisa Ekdahls låt Vem vet (inte jag), omformad till en reggae-färgad ram snarare än en direkt klon av originalet. Naturligtvis stannade det inte där. Med tiden utvecklades det till något betydligt “mer” – en riktad musikalisk motvikt mot Sveriges Tidöregering. Problemet: Lamotte må vara “brun” i bildlig mening, men han är inte tekniskt sett en del av Tidö. Den insikten är orsaken till att spellistan (och kommande album) fått ett annat namn, och varför den nu förbereds, eventuellt, för att släppas som ett fullständigt album på Spotify.

Normalt sett bearbetar jag alltid varje låt som genererats med AI i extern mjukvara. Jag gör om, processar och arrangerar tills de syntetiska kanterna slipats ner innan de hamnar på SoundCloud eller i distribution. Detta kan ibland betyda att melodier plockas bort och ersätts med egna eftersom skärpan i musiken stärks, genom att ha riktiga samplingar och instrument hanterade utan AI.

Denna gång har jag dock valt att låta dem förbli helt AI-genererade, endast bearbetade tillräckligt för att mildra de mest smärtsamma artefakterna från AI. Vem vet-motivet fungerade inledningsvis som den strukturella basen, men resultatet blev något helt annat – satir insvept i reggae, vässad till politisk kommentar. Mycket även för att vi inte ska behöva trampa Ekdahl på tårna.

Table of Contents
Toggle
Motion till riksdagenFörslag till riksdagsbeslutSammanfattningBakgrund och nulägeVillkorlig frigivning i dagFöreslagna skärpningarDen omvända principen – ny säkerhetspolicyArbetsliv och samhällsserviceHederliga medborgare i förvarFrigivna intagnaFördjupad genomförandestrategiOmedelbar frigivning och platsbyteNationellt sökuppdragArbetsfördelningTeknisk infrastrukturSäkerhets- och legitimitetsproblemKonsekvenserIkraftträdandeAvslutningKällor (urval)
Motion till riksdagen

2025/26:0008Undertecknad: Ledamot ”Klara Berg”, Partiet Civila Friheter (PCF)Ärendetyp: Allmän motionDatum: 27 augusti 2025

Förslag till riksdagsbeslut

Riksdagen beslutar att införa en omvänd frihetsreform där laglydiga hederliga medborgare placeras i särskilda trygghetszoner med frihetsberövande, medan dömda omedelbart friges under kontrollerade former. Reformen ska förberedas under hösten 2025 och träda i kraft senast jul samma år.

Riksdagen uppdrar åt regeringen att snarast genomföra den logistiska och rättsliga anpassning som krävs för att särskilda trygghetszoner ska kunna etableras i varje län.

Riksdagen beslutar att frigivningen av intagna ska ske med omedelbar verkan från beslutsdatum och att frigivna placeras i arbetsprogram och samhällsserviceuppdrag.

Riksdagen fastslår att arbetsföra hederliga medborgare i trygghetszonerna ska arbeta via distans eller under kontrollerade slussningar enligt regler som fastställs av Kriminalvården och Arbetsmiljöverket.

Riksdagen beslutar att så snart en dömd har avtjänat sitt straff i frihet ska denne omedelbart överföras till trygghetszon för att skyddas från andra kriminella, under fortsatt tillsyn. Ett nationellt sökuppdrag upprättas för att säkerställa att frigivna lokaliseras och återförs till sina skyddszoner.

Riksdagen ger regeringen i uppdrag att inrätta ett nationellt samordningskontor för ”Omvänd frihetspolicy” med uppgift att övervaka, kontrollera och rapportera till riksdagen om reformens genomförande.

Riksdagen tillkännager att denna reform ska ses som ett permanent system, och att nödvändiga författningsändringar ska föreläggas riksdagen senast våren 2026.

Sammanfattning

Regeringen har presenterat förslag som innebär senarelagd villkorlig frigivning, utökade möjligheter att skjuta upp frigivning samt hyra av fängelseplatser i Estland. Denna motion lägger i stället fram den principiella motsatsen: en omvänd säkerhetspolicy där de hederliga placeras i förvar för att skyddas från samhällsrisker, medan dömda friges och sätts i arbete. Frigivningen ska ske omedelbart för att möjliggöra platsbytet. Samtidigt införs principen att den som avtjänat sitt straff i frihet därefter överförs till trygghetszon för att skyddas från andra kriminella. Denna ordning innebär en kraftfull förändring av samhällskontraktet och syftar till att genomföras med full styrka till jul 2025.

Bakgrund och nuläge

Villkorlig frigivning i dag

Nuvarande huvudregel är att intagna friges villkorligt efter två tredjedelar av strafftiden, om inte särskilda skäl talar emot. Efter frigivningen löper prövotid motsvarande återstående strafftid, minst ett år. Ordningen är en bärande del av svensk kriminalvård.

Föreslagna skärpningar

Regeringen vill senarelägga frigivning, hyra platser i Estland och vidga möjligheten att skjuta upp frigivning. Denna motion föreslår i stället en total omläggning: omvänd frihetspolicy.

Den omvända principen – ny säkerhetspolicy

Från och med hösten 2025 ska hederliga medborgare frihetsberövas i statliga trygghetszoner. Därmed skapas ett samhälle där de som tidigare betraktats som laglydiga skyddas från risker genom inlåsning, medan dömda ges frigång och arbetsuppgifter. Detta kräver:

Trygghetszoner i varje län. Tidigare anstalter och nya moduler används för inlåsning av hederliga.

Frigivning av dömda. Samhällsservice, lokalvård, byggnation och äldreomsorg bemannas av frigivna intagna. Frigivningen sker med omedelbar verkan.

Återföring efter avtjänat straff. När en dömd avslutat sitt straff i frihet ska denne därefter föras tillbaka till trygghetszon för att skyddas från kriminalitet. Ett särskilt nationellt sökuppdrag ska säkra att detta sker i praktiken.

Nationell samordning. En ny myndighet för omvänd frihetspolicy ansvarar för logistik, arbetsfördelning och rapportering.

Arbetsliv och samhällsservice

Hederliga medborgare i förvar

Cellarbete. Distansarbete i celler blir norm; arbetsgivare ansvarar för leverans av utrustning.

Hybridarbete. Slussning två gånger per vecka för arbetsplatser som kräver fysisk närvaro.

Serviceyrken. Städning och vård sköts av frigivna; där detta inte räcker används robotisering.

Frigivna intagna

Samhällstjänst. Dömd arbetskraft används i välfärdssektorn, med elektronisk övervakning.

Integration. Arbetsprogram kombineras med utbildning, missbruksvård och övervakning.

Efter strafftiden. Så snart en dömd avtjänat sitt straff i frihet förs denne in i trygghetszon för skydd mot andra kriminella.

Fördjupad genomförandestrategi

Den omvända frihetspolicyn kräver en stegvis men kraftfull implementering. Nedan redovisas centrala idéer, lösningar och problem som måste hanteras:

Omedelbar frigivning och platsbyte

Från dag ett efter riksdagens beslut ska samtliga intagna friges. Kriminalvården ges i uppdrag att genomföra platsbytet logistiskt: frigivna lämnar sina anstalter i samlad transport, samtidigt som hederliga successivt förs in i de tomställda cellerna. Detta är en omvänd process mot regeringens plan om senare frigivning och illustrerar med all tydlighet hur felaktigt det är att hålla fast vid SD:s repressiva linje.

Nationellt sökuppdrag

Ett av de största praktiska problemen är att frigivna, efter avtjänat straff i frihet, ska återföras till trygghetszon för skydd mot andra kriminella. Därför måste ett nationellt sökuppdrag organiseras. Polisen och Kronofogden får särskilt mandat att lokalisera personer som “försvinner” efter sin strafftid. Detta blir en gigantisk apparat av byråkrati, resursslöseri och registrering – något som blottlägger hur ihålig regeringens syn på effektivitet är.

Arbetsfördelning

Frigivna används i välfärd, service och omsorg. Kommuner rapporterar dock redan nu risk för kaos: arbetsmiljö, försäkring och patientsäkerhet blir akuta frågor. Arbetsgivarorganisationer har varnat för “administrativ härdsmälta”. Regeringens tro på enkla lösningar framstår därmed som naiv.

Teknisk infrastruktur

Cellarbete kräver bredband, ergonomi och övervakningssystem i varje cell. För att detta ska fungera behöver staten investera miljardbelopp i digitalisering av fängelser som nu görs om till trygghetszoner. Det ironiska är att dessa pengar motsvarar vad som hade krävts för fungerande rehabilitering i den nuvarande ordningen – en poäng som visar hur blåögt SD:s kriminalpolitik är.

Säkerhets- och legitimitetsproblem

Genom att hederliga låses in och dömda friges uppstår en dubbel legitimitetskris: dels för medborgarnas tilltro till staten, dels för rättsstatens kärna. Denna ordning visar i sin absurditet hur skadlig regeringens logik är om den dras till sin spets.

Konsekvenser

Ekonomiskt: Hög initial kostnad för zoner, men frigivna skapar arbetskraftsöverskott i välfärden.

Socialt: Tilliten i samhället omformas, då hederliga skyddas genom inlåsning och frigivna tar över samhällsbärande funktioner.

Rättssäkerhet: Reformen kräver grundlagsändringar, men betraktas som nödvändig för samhällsskydd.

Ikraftträdande

Förberedelser påbörjas omedelbart hösten 2025. Frigivning sker med omedelbar verkan och överföringen av hederliga till trygghetszoner fullbordas senast jul 2025.

Avslutning

Den omvända frihetsreformen är inte ett experiment utan en säkerhetspolicy för ett nytt samhällskontrakt. Genom att låsa in de hederliga och frigöra de dömda – samt återföra frigivna till trygghetszon efter avtjänat straff – skapas en konsekvent logik som ska genomföras med full kraft och startas inom månader.

Källor (urval)

Regeringskansliet: Utkast till lagrådsremiss – Skärpta regler för villkorlig frigivning (7 maj 2025).

Regeringskansliet: Sverige och Estland överens/undertecknar avtal om att hyra fängelseplatser (4 och 18 juni 2025).

Kriminalvården: Villkorlig frigivning – information till dömda och allmänheten (löpande uppdaterad).

SVT/TV4/TT: Rapportering om förslag om senarelagd frigivning och möjlig uppskjuten frigivning (2025).

Institutet för mänskliga rättigheter: Remissvar – Utkast till lagrådsremiss: Skärpta regler för villkorlig frigivning (17 juni 2025).

Lagen.nu: Prop. 1965:159 – historisk reglering av villkorlig frigivning.

Table of Contents
Toggle
UpdatesLatest changesNew external pages to readAbout this documentContentHow do I know what’s copyrighted and what’s in “Public Domain”?Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What’s the Difference?How Much Change is Too Much? (Covers vs Derivatives in Practice)Licensing Requirements and CostsMechanical Licenses for CoversComparison TableNote on AILegal Definitions (Sweden, EU, US): What the Law SaysSweden (and EU context)United StatesEU Copyright FrameworkSo…Remixes and Sampling: Clearing Master and Composition RightsMaster (Sound Recording) RightsComposition Rights in RemixesTranslation Rights and Foreign Language CoversHow Metadata for Public Domain Works (Classical Repertoire)1. Work vs Recording vs Arrangement2. Track Titles for Public Domain Works3. Main Artist vs Composer Credits4. DistroKid and Public Domain Metadata5. When Is It a Remix vs a New Recording?5.1. New Recording of a Public Domain Work5.2. Remix of a Modern Master (Not Public Domain)6. Credit ExamplesExample A – Straight Classical RecordingExample B – Electronic Adaptation of a Public Domain Work7. Quick Checklist for Public Domain MetadataWho Does What: Music Licensing Bodies and Societies DirectorySTIM (Sweden)NCB (Nordic Copyright Bureau)PRS for Music (UK)ICE (EU multi-territory)GEMA (Germany)SACEM (France)HFA (Harry Fox Agency, USA)The MLC (USA)SoundExchange (USA)ASCAP / BMI (USA PROs)So…Appendix: Licensing Request TemplatesAppendix: Document ChangelogReferencesAll Sources (Summary List)
Updates

This document is very much alive and is continuously updated. See below in the appendixes what’s been changed. The document is getting bigger, so I’m currently considering splitting it up in smaller parts.

Latest changes

2025-12-15 – Added a dedicated section on Film & TV dialogue copyright in musical works.

2025-12-17 – Page has grown too big, so we’re splitting the content! Also updated the page specifially, to cover some new questions (I’ve been working with Splice for a while and needed to clarify some stuff).

New external pages to read

The respective sections are referred to, but to find it quicker, this is the list of the new pages created:

Global Licensing Guide: Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What’s the Difference?

Global Licensing Guide: How Much Change is Too Much? (Covers vs Derivatives in Practice)

About this document

Covering or reimagining a song can be creatively rewarding – but it also raises complex licensing questions. This guide breaks down the global licensing rules for cover songs, remixes, derivative works (including translations), and even AI-generated adaptations. I’ve been struggling with this for a long time, and more than once I felt like giving up. However, I realized it was better to gather the knowledge I already had and simply write it down. This is my first attempt at creating a structured document about music licensing.

Content

This is the result of deep research and many months of digging manually in global licensing documents. I have also manually reviewed material from OpenAI to ensure that it is primarily written by me, in my own tone. This page has grown too big, so I’ve splitted out some sections to make them smaller (like the differences between covers, remixes, etc). Licensing, costs, who decides stuff, record companies are however left intact on this page by purpose.

My goal has been to cover:

Remixes.

Covers.

Derivative clearances.

Legal definitions under Swedish, EU, and US law – since rules differ across countries.

Real-world examples of what is (and isn’t) allowed.

Issues with AI music (the pitfalls and misconceptions), as AI creators often believe they can release tracks just because they rearranged a melody from their favorite cover.

Typical licensing costs, with an overview of key organizations.

An appendix including email templates for contacting publishers and rights societies when permission is needed.

Whether you’re an artist planning a cover release or a label navigating remix rights, this article is meant to clarify the steps required to stay legal while making music.

How do I know what’s copyrighted and what’s in “Public Domain”?

A common question among music creators is whether the material they build on is public domain or still protected by copyright. Sometimes, this question is not asked due to lack of awareness or simply because people have not familiarised themselves with copyright facts..

There is a general rule that copyright applies for 70 years after the death of the author. After that the work becomes public domain. This means that a lot of classical music can be recreated freely without stepping on anyones toes. The exception is modern recordings or derivative works of those pieces which can still be copyrighted. This is why fingerprinting detection can be a bad idea when distributing music.

To solve this matter, I use a specialized ChatGPT based tool that helps me identify if a work is public domain, who owns the rights today and where to direct licensing requests. To solve this matter, I use a specialized ChatGPT based tool that helps me identify if a work is public domain, who owns the rights today and where to direct licensing requests.

In the bottom of this page, there’s an addon of how you use metadata on public domain music, when publishing them.

Click here to open it! It is available from the ChatGPT Store!

Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What’s the Difference?

Read full chapter – https://www.tornevalls.se/global-licensing-guide-cover-vs-remix-vs-derivative-work-whats-the-difference/

This section provides a consolidated overview of how covers, remixes, and derivative works/adaptations are treated in music licensing. It reflects both legal definitions and real-world licensing practice, and is intended to sit alongside the more detailed chapter linked above.

The key distinction is not genre, production quality, or creative intent, but which rights are used and which protected elements of the original work are changed.

CoverA cover is a new performance and recording of an existing song where the underlying composition (melody and lyrics) remains intact. Tempo, key, genre, instrumentation, sound design, and ordinary arrangement choices may change, but the recognisable melody and lyrics stay the same, and no audio from the original master recording is reused.

In practice, covers are treated as new recordings of the same song and are normally handled through mechanical and performance licensing systems rather than direct permission from the original songwriter or publisher. Streaming-only covers are typically licensed through platform blanket agreements, while downloads and physical formats may require mechanical licensing per territory. Accurate songwriter and publisher metadata is essential.

RemixA remix involves reuse of the original sound recording (the master), in whole or in part. This includes vocals, stems, loops, samples, or any recognisable audio taken from the original release. Because copyrighted audio from the master is reused, remixes require explicit permission from the master rights holder, typically the label or the artist.

There is no automatic or compulsory remix licence. If the remix also alters protected elements of the composition (for example by adding new lyrics, new melodic sections, or heavy restructuring), additional approval from the publisher or songwriter may be required.

Derivative work / adaptationA derivative work or adaptation occurs when protected elements of the composition itself are changed. Common examples include translating lyrics into another language, writing new lyrics to the same melody, rewriting melodic material, adding new central hooks that redefine recognition, creating mashups or medleys, or restructuring the song so heavily that its fundamental musical character is altered.

Derivative works are not covered by standard cover licensing mechanisms and generally require explicit, written permission from the rights holder (usually the publisher, sometimes together with the original artist or label). In many EU jurisdictions, moral rights may also limit how far an adaptation can go, even with a licence.

Mashups, medleys, and parodyMashups and medleys are usually treated as derivative uses in practice because they combine multiple protected works and often involve changes to composition and structure. Each underlying work may require clearance.

Parody and satire may, in limited cases, be permitted without permission under narrow legal exceptions (for example U.S. fair use or specific EU parody exceptions), but these are highly context-dependent and not a general shortcut for altered-lyrics versions.

Legal theory vs licensing practiceEspecially in Sweden and the EU, there is a gap between strict legal theory and how covers are handled in practice. Formally, any change to a protected work can be classified as an adaptation. In reality, collecting societies and publishers tolerate ordinary stylistic interpretation and arrangement variance as covers, provided the melody and lyrics remain unchanged and no master audio is reused. The practical boundary between acceptable covers and licensable adaptations is explored in detail in the full chapter.

AI does not change the categoriesAcross all categories, the use of AI does not change the legal analysis. What matters is the result: whether the original master recording was reused and whether the composition was altered. The licensing assessment follows the output and the rights involved, not the tool used to create it.

New chapter page also includes license agreement information with Splice – what and what not.

Global Licensing Guide: Cover vs Remix vs Derivative Work: What’s the Difference?

How Much Change is Too Much? (Covers vs Derivatives in Practice)

Read full chapter here!

This section summarizes how the cover-vs-derivative line is applied in practice. The core rule is simple: stylistic interpretation is usually acceptable as a cover, but changes to protected composition elements generally require explicit permission.

In Sweden/EU, the strict legal framing is that changes to a protected work can be treated as an adaptation, yet real-world licensing practice tolerates ordinary arrangement and performance variance. In practical terms, guidance from collecting societies and publishers tends to converge on a workable rule of thumb:

You can usually change tempo, key, genre, instrumentation, sound design, and make standard arrangement edits (intros/outros, breakdowns, repeats, minor trimming) as long as the melody and lyrics remain intact and the song stays recognisably the same work.

You typically cross into derivative/adaptation territory if you change or translate lyrics, rewrite melody, add new central melodic hooks, or restructure/recompose so heavily that the original musical identity is materially altered.

If you use any audio from the original master (samples, stems, acapella, recognisable fragments), the issue is no longer “how much change” in a cover. You are in remix/sampling territory and must clear master rights separately (and composition rights as needed).

Additional practical notes covered in the full chapter:

Performing in a different style or key remains a cover if the composition is unchanged.

Shortening or looping sections is usually acceptable as an arrangement choice, but adding new verses or altering lyrics generally creates a derivative work.

Parody exceptions exist in some jurisdictions but are narrow and fact-dependent.

AI does not move the boundary: the output is evaluated the same way (master reuse vs none, composition unchanged vs adapted).

https://www.tornevalls.se/global-licensing-guide-how-much-change-is-too-much-covers-vs-derivatives-in-practice/

Licensing Requirements and Costs

Now that we know what category our use falls into, what licenses do we actually need to legally release the music, and what will it cost? This section provides an overview of the key music licenses for covers, remixes, and derivatives, typical royalty rates or fees, and how different distributors handle licensing in various regions.

Mechanical Licenses for Covers

Whenever you record and distribute a cover song, you need a mechanical license for the composition. This gives you the right to reproduce and distribute the musical work (notes and lyrics) in your new recording. It applies to physical formats (CDs, vinyl), digital downloads, and interactive streams.

United States (Compulsory Mechanical License): Once a song has been released, anyone may cover it by obtaining a mechanical license – either directly from the publisher or via the compulsory process under 17 U.S.C. §115. The compulsory license means you don’t need the publisher’s express permission as long as you: file notice, pay the statutory royalty, and do not alter the fundamental character of the song. The U.S. statutory rate (2024) is about 12¢ per copy for songs ≤5 minutes, or 2.31¢ per minute for longer works. Streaming services handle mechanical royalties via the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC). Distributors like DistroKid ($12/yr per cover) or Soundrop ($0.99 one-time fee) offer simplified cover licensing. Agencies like Easy Song Licensing or HFA’s Songfile also provide licenses (~$15-$20 per track).

Sweden & EU: There is no statutory license; instead, collective societies manage mechanical rights. In Sweden and the Nordics, NCB (Nordisk Copyright Bureau) administers mechanicals. In the UK, MCPS handles them, while Germany uses GEMA. Fees are typically calculated as a percentage (about 8-9% of the wholesale price). For streaming, platforms often pay mechanicals under blanket licenses with societies, so as an independent artist you may not need to handle it directly unless you sell downloads or physicals yourself. Distributors often report usage automatically. The cost is broadly equivalent to U.S. rates (roughly 8-10% of sales value).

Territory Considerations: Mechanical licenses are territorial. A U.S. license only covers U.S. usage. If you distribute globally, you need clearance in each region. Many distributors coordinate with societies or use blanket licenses, but for physical CDs sold abroad you must clear locally (often via the pressing plant). Easy Song Licensing offers international licensing services. Soundrop licenses cover U.S. only. DistroKid and CD Baby typically cover multiple territories by reporting to societies worldwide.

Comparison Table

License TypeWhat is LicensedHow to ObtainTypical CostTerritoriesMechanical License (cover, unchanged composition)The composition (music & lyrics). Right to record and distribute your own version.US: via HFA Songfile, MLC (streams), or distributor’s service. EU: via societies (NCB, MCPS, GEMA).US: Statutory ~12¢ per copy, or distributor fee ($12/yr, $0.99 track, etc.). EU: ~8-9% of wholesale.U.S. license covers U.S. only. Must clear internationally via societies or services.Master Use License (remix/sample original audio)The original sound recording.Must contact the label/master owner directly. Negotiated case-by-case.No set rate. Small samples may be cheap; big ones tens of thousands.Territorial or worldwide, depending on agreement.Derivative Work License (adapt composition – translation, new lyrics, arrangement)Altered composition (translation, parody, added melody).Request permission from publisher. Usually requires written agreement and approval of lyrics/arrangement.Negotiated. Often no upfront fee, but royalties split with original writer.Territorial or worldwide depending on contract.

Note on AI

Using AI does not remove these requirements. If the output is a cover, remix, or derivative work, the same licenses apply. Some rights holders are beginning to add AI-specific clauses (e.g. disclosure of AI use or bans on cloned voices), but fundamentally, licensing obligations are identical.

Legal Definitions (Sweden, EU, US): What the Law Says

Copyright laws in different countries converge on one core principle: the songwriter or rights holder controls adaptations of their work. Performing or reproducing a song (even in a cover) implicates the composer’s rights, and altering the song (derivative works) adds another layer of rights. Here is how Swedish, EU, and U.S. law frame this issue:

Sweden (and EU context)

Under the Swedish Copyright Act, the author’s exclusive rights include the right to make the work available “in original or changed form, in translation or adaptation.” (§2 and §4). Swedish law explicitly states that if I translate or bearbeta (adapt/arrange) a protected work, I gain copyright in the new version, but I may not use it in a way that conflicts with the original author’s rights. In other words, I own my contribution, but I must have permission from the original rights holder to publish or exploit the adaptation. This is rooted in the Berne Convention, which Sweden and all EU countries follow.

Swedish law also introduces the concept of fri anslutning (“free adaptation”). If someone creates a truly independent work merely inspired by another, without copying protected expression, then the new work is not considered a derivative and does not require permission. But this bar is extremely high – small changes won’t qualify. In practice, any recognizable use of melody or lyrics from a protected song will be treated as a bearbetning (adaptation) requiring a license. In short: Swedish/EU law protects covers (mere performances) through mechanical licensing, while translations and new arrangements are treated as adaptations requiring the author’s consent.

United States

U.S. Copyright law grants authors control over derivative works. According to 17 U.S.C. §101, a derivative work is a creation based on one or more existing works, including translations and musical arrangements. 17 U.S.C. §103 clarifies that copyright in a derivative extends only to the new material added and does not override the original copyright. Importantly, if a derivative is made without permission, the new material may not be protected at all. For example, an unauthorized translation cannot be copyrighted by the translator because it unlawfully uses the original.

The U.S. has a compulsory licensing system for audio-only covers once a song has been released. This allows anyone to record a cover by paying the statutory mechanical royalty and meeting requirements. However, the license does not allow changes to the “basic melody or fundamental character” of the work – so translations or other adaptations are excluded. Covers can be licensed this way, but derivatives require direct permission. In addition, U.S. law grants performers a separate “right of publicity” in their voice/likeness, which is relevant for AI voice cloning.

EU Copyright Framework

The EU aligns with the Berne Convention’s adaptation rules. The EU InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC) doesn’t spell out “adaptation” in the same way, but member states uniformly require permission for adaptations. For example, Germany’s copyright law and France’s Code of Intellectual Property both explicitly grant authors rights over adaptations and arrangements. The EU has no equivalent of the U.S. cover license statute. Instead, mechanical reproduction rights are managed collectively. In practice, pressing a CD cover requires contacting local mechanical rights societies (NCB in the Nordics, MCPS in the UK, GEMA in Germany) to pay fees.

EU countries also recognize moral rights, allowing authors to object to derogatory distortions of their works. An extreme remix or parody could, in some countries, violate these moral rights. However, there are exceptions: many EU states recognize a parody exception, allowing parody without permission, and some countries allow limited sampling or quotation rights. Still, the general rule is clear: if I adapt lyrics or melody in the EU, I need a license from the copyright owner. Using a recording for a remix also requires permission from the producer/label, since EU law grants them exclusive rights in sound recordings.

So…

Sweden/EU: Covers are handled by mechanical licenses. Translations and adaptations require the original author’s explicit consent. “Free adaptation” exists but is a rare exception.

U.S.: Covers can be made via compulsory licensing, but translations or other changes require permission. Derivatives made without authorization may lose protection entirely. The right of publicity applies to voices and likenesses, including AI clones.

EU: No statutory cover license. Adaptations need approval, and moral rights play a larger role. Collective societies manage mechanicals.

Together, these frameworks agree: covers are usually licensable with standard processes, while remixes and derivatives require explicit permissions. The use of AI does not change this – the same rules apply, although some jurisdictions are beginning to add specific transparency or voice-rights exceptions.

Remixes and Sampling: Clearing Master and Composition Rights

If you are creating a remix, mashup, or any new track that uses pre-existing audio from someone else’s recording, you have two layers of copyright to think about: the sound recording and the musical work.

Master (Sound Recording) Rights

The owner of the sound recording (usually the record label or the independent artist who recorded it) has the exclusive right to license remixes, samples, and other uses of that recording. There is no compulsory license for using an existing recording – you must obtain a Master Use License directly. For example, remixing Ariana Grande’s studio track requires her label’s permission to use the vocals/instrumental. Labels often commission official remixes or refuse permission for unofficial ones. Some provide stems for remix contests (e.g. non-commercial use on SoundCloud), but this is case by case.

Legally, even a short sample without permission is infringement (in the U.S. since Bridgeport courts have rejected a broad de minimis rule). In Europe, limited quotation exceptions exist but are narrow. Costs vary: from free/non-commercial permissions, to hundreds or thousands of dollars plus royalties for commercial use. To clear a master: identify the owner (via liner notes or databases like Discogs), then send a request describing your remix and intended release.

Composition Rights in Remixes

If your remix doesn’t change the underlying song’s structure or lyrics, you usually only need to ensure mechanical royalties are paid (as with covers). Example: a dance remix that loops the chorus and adds beats still uses the original composition – songwriters are paid via mechanicals. But if you add new lyrics, melodies, or make extensive structural changes, it becomes a derivative work, requiring the publisher’s permission (like a translation would). Mashups are even trickier: blending two compositions (vocals from Song A over instrumental of Song B) requires permission from both publishers. Services like Soundrop stress that mashups are not covered under cover licenses.

In summary: a remix requires clearing the master recording and ensuring the composition is licensed (mechanicals at minimum, derivative license if changed). Distributors (DistroKid, CD Baby, etc.) will ask if your track contains samples – they will not clear it for you and may block unlicensed remixes. Soundrop explicitly says: “cover song licensing does not extend to sampling and remixing work from other artists… Direct permission from both the composition owner and the sound recording owner… is required” (Soundrop FAQ).

Translation Rights and Foreign Language Covers

Translations are derivative works. A lyrics translation is a creative adaptation, not a mere performance. The original lyricist retains the exclusive right to authorize translations. Publishing a translation without permission is infringement.

U.S. law: As explained on Avvo, you cannot legally translate lyrics without permission from the rights holder. Compulsory licenses do not cover lyric translations (Soundrop).

Swedish law: Treats translations (“översättning”) as adaptations requiring consent (Lawline, Riksdagen).

How to get permission: Contact the publisher. In Sweden, STIM can help identify them. Publishers may require you to provide the translated lyrics for approval. They typically insist that original writers receive credit, and may ask that the new lyrics’ copyright be assigned or shared. Often, no large upfront fee is involved – you simply pay mechanicals and share royalties.

Alternatives: If the song is public domain (author died over 70 years ago), you can freely translate it. Beware of copyrighted existing translations – best to work from the original text.

Example: You want to release a Spanish version of an English pop song. Steps: (1) Identify publisher (via ASCAP/BMI or STIM databases). (2) Request permission with details (title, writers, language, release format). (3) Provide draft translation. (4) Await approval. (5) Once licensed, record and release with proper credits.

How Metadata for Public Domain Works (Classical Repertoire)

Public domain does not mean that metadata can be assigned freely. The underlying composition may be free to use, but distributors and streaming platforms still expect accurate, non‑misleading credits. This section explains how to correctly tag recordings of public domain works (such as Liszt, Bach, Mozart) on platforms like DistroKid, Spotify, Apple Music, and others.

1. Work vs Recording vs Arrangement

When releasing a recording of a public domain piece, three separate layers are involved:

The work (composition)The melody, harmony, and structure – for example, “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2” by Franz Liszt. The copyright for the composition has expired, placing it in the public domain.

The arrangement or adaptationAny added structure, reharmonisation, new instrumentation, sound design, extended sections, or orchestration. These elements may constitute a new protectable adaptation, provided it does not copy a modern copyrighted edition or arrangement.

The sound recording (master)The audio file you distribute. This is always a new copyright‑protected work.

Only the composition layer (1) is public domain. Your arrangement (2) and your recording (3) are newly protected works.

2. Track Titles for Public Domain Works

It is both correct and expected to use the original work title when releasing classical or public domain repertoire. Examples include:

“Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 in C‑sharp minor”

“Liebestraum No. 3”

“Nocturne in E‑flat major, Op. 9 No. 2”

Listeners search by the canonical title and composer, not by alternative or clever new names.

To clarify your version, you may optionally add a descriptive tag:

“Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Tornevall Remix)”

“Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 – Liszt, arr. Tornevall”

“Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Electronic Orchestral Version)”

What matters is not presenting your recording as a historical original or as a newly authored Liszt composition.

3. Main Artist vs Composer Credits

Modern distributors follow a straightforward rule:

Primary artist = the performer(s) heard on the recording.

Composer = the creator of the underlying musical work.

For public domain recordings, this means:

Primary artist: your artist name (e.g., “Tornevalls Sonic Syndicate”, “Tornevalls Neural Ensemble”).

Composer / songwriter: Franz Liszt.

Public domain composers should not be listed as primary or featured artists. They do not perform on the recording, and assigning them as artists may be flagged as misleading metadata. It also unnecessarily consumes additional artist slots on some distributors.

4. DistroKid and Public Domain Metadata

DistroKid (and similar distributors) distinguish between:

Covers or remixes of modern tracks – where the original artist may need to appear as primary artist when the master recording is used.

Recordings of public domain works – where the composer should be credited only in the composer field.

For public domain recordings:

Primary artist: your artist name.

Additional artists (feat/remixer/producer): used only for people who actively participate in the recording.

Composer: Franz Liszt, Bach, Mozart, etc.

Arranger / Adaptor: add yourself if the distributor provides such a field.

Do not spend an additional DistroKid artist slot on “Franz Liszt” as a primary or featured artist. He is the composer, not a performer.

5. When Is It a Remix vs a New Recording?

The term “remix” is often used casually, but distributors use a strict definition.

5.1. New Recording of a Public Domain Work

Example: You program and record the entire “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2” using your own instruments, synths, and sound design, without using any other artist’s recording.

Legally: a new recording of a public domain composition.

Metadata:

Title: e.g., “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Tornevall Version)”

Primary artist: you

Composer: Franz Liszt

Arranger: you (if applicable)

In many cases, this is better described as a new arrangement or version than a “remix”, because no copyrighted master has been used.

5.2. Remix of a Modern Master (Not Public Domain)

Example: You receive stems from a modern artist and create “Artist – Song Title (Tornevall Remix)”.

Legally: this uses the original master recording and requires approval from the master owner (label/artist) and often the publisher.

Metadata (DistroKid logic):

Primary artist: the original artist

Remixer: your name (set as “Remixer” in metadata)

Composer: the original songwriters

This is not the same situation as a public domain recording.

6. Credit Examples

Example A – Straight Classical Recording

Track title: “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 in C‑sharp minor”

Primary artist: “Tornevalls Neural Ensemble”

Composer: “Franz Liszt”

Arranger: left empty if following an older public domain edition closely.

Example B – Electronic Adaptation of a Public Domain Work

Track title: “Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (Electronic Orchestral Remix)”

Primary artist: “Tornevalls Sonic Syndicate”

Composer: “Franz Liszt”

Arranger / Adaptor: “Thomas Tornevall”

Genre: “Electronic”, “House”, “Drum & Bass”, etc.

Distributor forms:

Do not mark the track as a “cover” of a modern artist – the composition is public domain and has no master owner.

Do not use the “remix” submission form unless a modern master is actually used.

7. Quick Checklist for Public Domain Metadata

When releasing music based on public domain works, verify:

Is the work truly public domain?Confirm the composer and year of death. Once 70 years have passed (EU/Sweden), the composition is normally free.

Are you using a modern edition or arrangement?Modern editions may still be copyrighted. Prefer an edition that is confirmed public domain, or create your own arrangement.

Are you using another artist’s master recording?

No → it is a new recording of a public domain work.

Yes → it is a remix or sampling situation that requires proper licensing.

Is the primary artist field correct?Only performers or aliases who actually participate should appear as primary or featured artists.

Is the composer in the correct field?Public domain composers should appear in the composer/songwriter field – never as performing artists.

Is the title clear and non‑misleading?You may use the original title. When appropriate, add a version tag (“Remix”, “EDM Version”, “Tornevall Edit”, etc.).

By following this structure, you can release recordings and adaptations of public domain works cleanly – without misleading credits, without unnecessary metadata conflicts, and without wasting distributor artist slots.

Who Does What: Music Licensing Bodies and Societies Directory

Navigating music rights often means dealing with various organizations. Here’s a directory of key licensing organizations and collecting societies worldwide, and what they do:

STIM (Sweden)

STIM (Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå) is Sweden’s collecting society for songwriters, composers, and publishers. It administers public performance and broadcasting rights – licensing music on radio, TV, concerts, streaming, etc., and pays royalties to authors. STIM also co-owns NCB, which handles mechanical licensing. If you perform a cover in Sweden, STIM collects and pays the songwriter’s share from streams or live plays.

NCB (Nordic Copyright Bureau)

NCB covers the Nordics and Baltics, managing mechanical reproduction rights. It’s co-owned by STIM (Sweden), KODA (Denmark), Teosto (Finland), TONO (Norway), and STEF (Iceland). Example: pressing 500 CDs in Sweden with covers requires applying via NCB’s portal, declaring copies and price, then paying the calculated fee.

PRS for Music (UK)

PRS for Music combines PRS (performance rights) and MCPS (mechanical rights). PRS licenses live performance, broadcasts, and streaming. MCPS licenses recordings (CDs, vinyl, downloads). Typical UK mechanical rate: 8.5% of wholesale price (Sentric). Cover artists pressing records must pay MCPS. PRS covers venues’ blanket licenses for performances.

ICE (EU multi-territory)

ICE is a hub formed by PRS, STIM, and GEMA to license multi-territorial online rights. Platforms like Spotify obtain ICE Core licenses for performance + mechanicals across Europe. Artists don’t deal directly with ICE – but their works are licensed through it if they’re PRS/STIM/GEMA members.

GEMA (Germany)

GEMA manages both performance and mechanical rights in Germany. It represents over 70,000 members. GEMA famously clashed with YouTube in the 2010s, blocking videos. For covers released in Germany, GEMA ensures royalties flow to songwriters. Bars and venues also pay GEMA blanket fees to allow performances.

SACEM (France)

SACEM licenses performances and reproductions in France. SDRM (managed by SACEM) covers mechanicals. Cover artists pressing CDs in France must declare and pay SACEM/SDRM. Streaming platforms already have SACEM agreements.

HFA (Harry Fox Agency, USA)

HFA specializes in mechanical rights in the U.S. Publishers authorize HFA to license and collect royalties. Their Songfile tool lets artists buy mechanical licenses for covers (e.g., 500 downloads). Rates follow U.S. statutory levels. Since the Music Modernization Act, streaming mechanicals moved to The MLC, but HFA still handles downloads/physicals.

The MLC (USA)

The Mechanical Licensing Collective (launched 2021) issues blanket licenses for digital streaming/downloads under the Music Modernization Act. Platforms like Spotify report usage and pay MLC, which pays publishers/songwriters. Cover artists don’t apply directly – distributors and services handle it. Songwriters must register with MLC to receive royalties.

SoundExchange (USA)

SoundExchange collects and distributes U.S. digital performance royalties for sound recordings (non-interactive streams like Pandora radio, SiriusXM). It pays 50% to the label, 45% to the featured artist, 5% to session musicians. Cover artists who own their masters should register to claim their share.

ASCAP / BMI (USA PROs)

ASCAP and BMI are U.S. Performance Rights Organizations, licensing public performance rights (radio, live, streaming, restaurants). Cover artists don’t clear these rights – venues or platforms do via blanket licenses. Songwriters register with ASCAP/BMI to collect performance royalties worldwide. SESAC and GMR are smaller U.S. PROs.

So…

STIM/NCB (Nordics): Handle performance + mechanicals locally.

PRS/MCPS (UK): PRS for performance, MCPS for mechanicals.

ICE (EU): Hub for multi-territorial online licenses.

GEMA (Germany) / SACEM (France): National societies managing both rights.

HFA/MLC (USA): HFA for downloads/physicals, MLC for digital streams.

SoundExchange (USA): Pays artists/labels for digital sound recording use.

ASCAP/BMI (USA): Songwriter performance royalties.

Together, these organizations ensure royalties flow to the right holders for covers, remixes, and adaptations across regions.

Appendix: Licensing Request Templates

Releasing cover songs or creative reworks can be a fantastic way to engage audiences and pay homage to influences – but it must be done with respect for the original creators’ rights. Copyright law provides avenues (like mechanical licenses) to make covers relatively easy to do legally, while also protecting creators by requiring permission for more transformative derivatives. In today’s landscape, with global distribution and AI technology in the mix, it’s more important than ever to navigate these rules diligently. Always determine what category your music use falls into – cover, remix, adaptation, etc. – and follow the appropriate licensing steps. When in doubt, seek advice from the music publisher or a licensing professional. Fortunately, services and societies exist to help independent musicians with these tasks, from Easy Song Licensing for clearance to PRS/ASCAP for royalty collection.

By understanding the differences between a legal cover and an infringing derivative, and by utilizing the proper channels to license and credit original artists, you can release music with peace of mind and ensure that everyone gets their fair share – including you, as you transform old songs into something new.

On the URL below, we provide an appendix with practical templates for reaching out to rights holders and agencies when you need permissions for translations, remixes, or physical releases.

Go here instead!

Appendix: Document Changelog

2025-09-10: Updated text about covers regarding streaming-only covers, that have some exceptions for which you eventually don’t need any licensing due to its form.

2025-09-29: Called STIM in Sweden, to clarify how covers needs to be structure to be considered covers. This also includes tempo change, key changes and genre shifting: All those elements means adaptations and is not considered covers. More info can be found below.

2025-11-03: Added a link to a specialized GPT, that digs up copyright information about the tracks you want to recreate.

2025-11-20: Scanned the interwebz for information about– “Unofficial Remixes” (Added in the bottom of the page) – describing why they are still not allowed even when they are unofficial.– How to handle metadata on music you create in the public domain and how you tag the original artist.– Also considering dividing this document to make it human readable again (moved out template examples to here).

2025-12-09: Clarified additional information about covers and explicitly defined what changes are allowed (tempo, key, genre, structure) under cover licensing rules, reflecting updated STIM guidance and international practice.

2025-12-15: Added a dedicated section on Film & TV dialogue copyright in musical works, covering quotes, re-voicing, AI voices, and EU/Swedish quotation rules. Also reorganised related explanatory text and moved practical clearance material toward the licensing request templates for better structure.

2025-12-17: Page has grown too big, so to avoid long load times and editing lag, the page has been splitted up.

References

Guides & Overviews

How to Release a Cover Song Legally: A Step-by-Step Guide for 2024 – Lalal.ai

Song Licensing: What Do We Cover? – Soundrop

Why Am I Required to Purchase My Cover Song License Through DistroKid? – DistroKid

Do You Have to Pay for Cover Songs on DistroKid? – SoundOn

Can I Distribute Internationally If I Use Custom Licensing? – Easy Song Licensing

Legal References

17 U.S.C. §101 – Definitions – Justia

17 U.S.C. §103 – Compilations and Derivative Works – USCode.ecfr

Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk – Riksdagen

Bearbetning eller ett nytt verk? – Lawline

I have an interest in writing English language versions of foreign songs – Avvo

AI & Emerging Law

The ELVIS Act: Tennessee Law Addresses AI’s Impact – MSBA

AI Laws Passed by Tennessee Government and EU – iMusician

EU AI Act Explained – MusicTech

Collecting Societies & Rights Bodies

STIM – Wikipedia

NCB (Nordisk Copyright Bureau) – Wikipedia

PRS for Music / MCPS – Songtrust

PRS and ICE Services – PRS for Music

GEMA – Music Business Worldwide

SACEM – Wikipedia

HFA (Harry Fox Agency) – Wikipedia

MLC (Mechanical Licensing Collective) – Wikipedia

SoundExchange FAQ – SoundExchange

ASCAP – Songtrust

BMI – Songtrust

Royalty & Licensing Resources

Mechanical Royalties Overview – Sentric

Music Publishing Pay Sources (UK) – Songtrust

Music Publishing Pay Sources (US) – Songtrust

All Sources (Summary List)

lalal.ai

support.soundrop.com

support.distrokid.com

soundon.global

riksdagen.se

lawline.se

law.justia.com

uscode.ecfr.io

avvo.com

en.wikipedia.org

sentric.com

support.easysong.com

msba.org

imusician.pro

musictech.com

blog.songtrust.com

prsformusic.com

musicbusinessworldwide.com

soundexchange.com

On the morning of August 25th, I noticed an email that initially slipped past filters and remained in my inbox – it had already been flagged and moved to the spam folder, but on the webmail server it was only marked as deleted. The message claimed to originate from the U.S. law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, supposedly acting on behalf of Universal Music Group in a copyright case. In reality, the sender address was a random Gmail account.

This is the classic red flag: a high‑profile law firm does not send legal notices from free email services. Cravath is indeed a legitimate international law firm, but any official communication would come from their own domain (@cravath.com), not from cly01584@gmail.com.

As a musician, I tend to be extra vigilant with certain types of messages – especially those mentioning copyright or infringement. I frequently deal with licensing requests for works I release myself, so I am familiar with what legitimate claims look like. In fact, I recently received a genuine copyright notice regarding an image I had apparently not used correctly. The settlement amount there was reasonable – around 3000 SEK (or approximately $315) – and nothing like the inflated figures scammers throw around. Most genuine copyright enforcement outfits are relatively straightforward to deal with, with the exception of aggressive lobbyist-driven actors. These lobbying groups often blur the line between genuine rights protection and predatory tactics, making them far harder to trust compared to the professional rights holders and agencies that handle matters fairly.

This is a scam campaign masquerading as a legal takedown notice. Do not click any links, do not log in through their redirects, and do not respond. Mark it as phishing in your email client and delete it. If in doubt, verify directly with the law firm via their official website, never through contact details in the suspicious email.

Several pages of mine have, since this post, received warnings. One of them has just recently started up and the page is practically empty, which makes this way more apparent than normal. This is a screen dump from that mail.

Table of Contents
Toggle
Update 2025-09-04The content of the emailWhy this is a scamCommunity reportsMail server stuff
Update 2025-09-04

Just for global knowledge, I’ve just noticed that the fake emails are currently hitting large.

The content of the email

The email was titled Final Legal Notice Prior to International Litigation – Copyright Violation. It referred to Lewis Capaldi’s track “Someone You Loved”, ISRC GBUM71905951, claiming that 45 seconds of the recording had been used without permission in a Facebook video. It threatened statutory damages of up to $50,000, DMCA takedown requests, and litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York if the content was not removed within 72 hours.

Attached below is a portion of the email header, clearly exposing the fraudulent source:

Return-Path: <cly01584@gmail.com>
From: "Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP" <cly01584@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-yb1-xb4e.google.com (IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b4e)
Authentication-Results: dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com

No trace of Cravath’s own domain. The DKIM shows Gmail signed the message – meaning it originated directly from Google’s infrastructure, not from any corporate mail system.

Why this is a scam

Sender mismatch: Real law firms use their own domains. Gmail/Yahoo/Hotmail are immediate red flags.

Copy‑pasted template: The same wording and even the same bogus Facebook link segment (R33FameTQPSeGrrlAK7/1061735...) appear in multiple reports.

Overblown legal threats: U.S. copyright law does not use $50,000 as a statutory damages cap; the numbers in the email are fabricated.

Phishing link: The provided t.ly short link leads through Cloudflare challenges but does not resolve to any legitimate Facebook content. It is designed to trick users into logging in and handing over credentials. Also, the link to t.ly currently gives a 403 Permission Denied, so it has been removed by the authors of t.ly.

Community reports

This is not an isolated incident. Users on Reddit have been reporting identical emails since spring 2025, always referencing the same Capaldi track, the same timing marker (0:15), and the same fake legal representation. See the active discussion here: Reddit – r/COPYRIGHT

Several recipients confirmed with Cravath directly that these emails are fraudulent. The firm itself has issued acknowledgements that they do not send notices of this nature via Gmail.

Mail server stuff

Running the headers through SpamAssassin triggered hits such as LOTS_OF_MONEY, RCVD_IN_S5HBL, and URI_FIREBASEAPP, all consistent with phishing attempts. The URLs were already blocked by t.co and flagged by browsers as suspicious.

I maintain a Swedish DNSBL/blacklist and will investigate whether the sending hosts can be listed. The complication is that since the distribution leverages Gmail, broad blacklisting could impact legitimate traffic as well – meaning it must be handled with caution and precision.

Some people on the internet, especially Facebook that very much took over from IRC (not entirely, but enough to rewrite history) know me by the name TMM. Switching up to Facebook, adding IRCers as friends there, also revealed a lot of names of the people I only knew as MegaHal and such. However, some of the people, through projects like Big Brother and Masterplan (swedish reality shows) also made me know people in person (except for those who knew me from school). This is the story about TMM. A project started as a “fun thing” on IRC, very much also known as the Anti-Ragging culture of the 90s.

Table of Contents
Toggle
1997: Inititation2007: From IRC to FacebookTeam Maktmissbruk and real lifeThe person behind the lettersProject Anti-RaggA short half accurate timeline of the developmentClosing – why I’m writing this now
1997: Inititation

I didn’t wake up one morning and decide that I’d become an acronym. TMM happened the way most internet things did back then – accidentally, half as a joke, half as a reflex to nonsense around me. In the earliest days I used the nicknames TM and TT. It took me painfully long to realise how stupid short abbreviations were – people reuse them, misread them, or simply snatch them because they look cool (or they didn’t even know about me and took it for other reasons).

That’s how I ended up with TMM, and on cranky days TMM-TT, when TMM started to mutate into everything – like a Quake clan idea somewhere around 1998-1999 (Multiteket, with Olofsson Brotherhood). Most notably, and where it mostly began, was through the kickscripts I wrote that threw out “raggarna” (the flirters), where TM/Team Maktmissbruk appeared as part of the kick reasons. Regular use of TMM faded out around August 2017; after that I mostly used my own name.

What followed was not planned branding. It was a way to show that I wanted to do something – to change, improve, make things more efficient, and throw out what didn’t belong. IRC had a problem – the raggar‑swine that wandered from channel to channel to harass women and DM them like it was a sport. Anti‑ragg, in my terms, meant writing triggers and small modules that could throw people out before they turned a room toxic. Whether that was jealousy, irritation, or early feminism – I’ll let that remain unsaid. I was pissed off. And I wasn’t alone.

2007: From IRC to Facebook

IRC was a perfect mask. You could be MegaHal one day and three other personalities the next. The move to Facebook happened gradually – many of us stayed on IRC, but at some point I realised it could be fun to add a few IRC contacts on Facebook (not just to see who they really were, but because I cared since many of us carried the same values of the society). That also revealed their real names and lives, but these were not people I ever really fought with. Some familiar handles from #sverige showed up with profile pictures, families, politics. It was disorienting and clarifying at once. That pivot exposed a truth about TMM – it was never a mysterious team. It was me, trying to protect rooms where conversations mattered.

Big Brother and Masterplan (2003-2005) bridged the gap between alias and person, even though the very early start was with Baren, 2002. What had been chat ops and bot scripts grew into chat servers and forums that tied into actual TV productions. Suddenly I wasn’t just the guy with a quirky nickname and a short fuse – I was the person people called when their community tech caught fire. I met people face to face. Some put a real name to TMM. Some never did. Both versions of me existed in parallel for a long time.

Team Maktmissbruk and real life

The phrase Team Maktmissbruk started as a tongue‑in‑cheek label on how I moderated – a wink that said I knew I was heavy‑handed, and I did it anyway because the alternative was letting the room rot. The stamp stuck. If someone flooded, targeted, or kept nagging women, they learned very quickly what the triggers did. ircII/Epic aliases and Eggdrop modules – two lines of code culture, one goal. Keep the chat usable without turning it into a police state. Absolute RAGG was never a polished product – it was a kit. It lived in headers, triggers, and comments, and it travelled between shells and servers with me.

Did everyone love it? No. Did it work? Often enough to turn Anti-ragg into a shared habit. A few friends started to adopt the theme. The moniker bled into gaming during lunch breaks in 1998–1999 at the Multiteket education programme – a higher-level sibling to Datorteket – where we learned to make multimedia presentations. For me, Quake was a daytime diversion there, and to play more I cleverly made a presentation about Quake and the participants at Multiteket, that shared space with Datorteket.

The person behind the letters

Currently I really don’t actively use the terms of TMM anymore, except as an invisible artist name that still lingers on SoundCloud (it’s currently not even on Spotify anymore, which may be the plan to reinstate at least as a verified artist). The alias was phased out. I don’t remember exactly when but after 2007, when starting to use Facebook as “Tomas Tornevall” on Facebook (instead of Thomas Tornevall), i started to flag “TMM” as a kind of extra addon-handle only (to let people from the past that it’s me). What happened during that time were music releases under the TMM name – but in practice the alias had become invisible. In 2009 a few tracks were released via RecordUnion, but they collided with another TMM out there. A lot of things started and stopped around then, but the real change of name and the artist identity took even longer. The Facebook page Tornevall (later also DJ Tornevall) was not created until 13 March 2021, right in the middle of an ongoing pandemic.

Between 2003 and 2006, a lot of us learned that community is infrastructure. But community is not only infrastructure. Personal involvements also matter – and we learned the hard way how much they can damage relationships. Sometime after May 2006 and before December 2006, a serious conflict erupted between a handful of people, some with key roles over IRC servers connected to Big Brother. That conflict eventually led to TMM ending the relationship with what was then m-irc.net (m-sys), by simply withdrawing the entire server network from the shared constellation and continuing to run what was left of Big Brother’s chat servers. I still haven’t been able to pin down the exact date.

In the 1990s, music for me meant trackers and shitty software. I composed with a keyboard, mouse clicks and weird notes, not a piano. FastTracker made sense to a brain that thought in if‑statements and labels. Around 2009 I hauled the alias out of the server room and into distribution experiments. TMM went to Spotify – and the result was honest and rough. I had help from friends, I moved back to Skåne and absorbed a ton of bass‑forward electronica from the web radio era. Out of that came Bloodline – a track built like a sprint, borrowing a line from a 2007 film merely because it fit the mood. Freakshow landed as a mini‑album beside it. Neither were masterpieces. I continued producing more tracks offline, even though I tried to get more content online. But I wasn’t ready.

Then came the naming problem – again. There were other TMMs out there. Some with catalogues I wouldn’t touch with a bargepole. My releases were conflated with somebody else’s profile, and there was no clean way to fix it without detonating more than I intended. So I pulled it. Reluctantly. Later, the nostalgia grew louder than pride, and the material began to return – under my own name where it belongs. Psychopath has already surfaced with another artist name than TMM, but Bloodline will come back with proper data. And with this, maybe other creations that never seen the light before.

Project Anti-Ragg

Here’s the unromantic version. Anti‑ragg meant: build a barrier to make life livable for the people you want to keep. The scripts looked for patterns – the public “hey girl” opener, the instant PM after a single public line, the persistence after a very clear no. Throttle. Time‑out. Kick. Ban. Repeat.

I wrote those scripts because good people were leaving rooms and the idiots were staying, happily unaware that most of the users on IRCNet had always been men. Trying to be flirtatious on IRC was like looking for female prisoners in a male prison (not literally, but it paints the picture). The dominance on chats was always men, even if many women were also drawn in. But the golden days are probably over – except perhaps if you count DreamHack. If the price of keeping decent company was that some troll called me a maktmissbrukare – fine. Wear the stamp. In hindsight, Anti-ragg was early content moderation with the edges exposed. Today’s platforms wrap the same logic in policy decks and machine learning. Back then we had shell accounts and a will.

The long arc from TM to TMM to TMM-TT to Thomas Tornevall is a lesson in ownership. Initials are cheap. Craft takes time. But initials also dilute (sometimes) – when the music collided with a different TMM, it wasn’t a legal problem – it was an identity problem, since nicknames and artist names are not very well protected with trademarks. The solution was to just let it go. Besides, TMM wasn’t really a clever thing to run on.

Today, TMM is not a team, a bot, or a clan. It’s a footnote that still makes friends smile. The person remains. If you were there – in #sverige, in late‑night chat rooms that felt like kitchen tables, in forums that exploded when a show went live – you already know the punchline. TMM was never a myth. TMM was a mask I wore to keep the lights on while I figured myself out

A short half accurate timeline of the development

Mid‑1990s – lived in the trackers. Music meant modules, not studios.

1997 – TM becomes TMM, and Anti‑ragg goes from an idea to scripts that actually kick.

1998-1999 – Quake shows up as a lunch break diversion at Multiteket, where it became part of a multimedia presentation project – a very local phenomenon, not a clan.

2000s – chat servers, forums, and the broadcast era take over my calendar.

2006-2007 – conflicts lead to leaving m-irc.net/m-sys and continuing Big Brother chat servers independently.

2009 – Bloodline arrives as proof that curiosity outruns perfection. A few tracks are also released via RecordUnion under the TMM name.

2017-08 – last regular use of TMM on IRC; the alias retires from daily use while the person keeps building.

2021-03-13 – the Tornevall Facebook page (later DJ Tornevall) is created in the middle of the pandemic.

2022-2023 – early seeds of a restart are planted, with experiments under my own name and the rebuilding of a presence as DJ Tornevall.

2024-10 – the remaining TMM catalogue is revoked from Spotify due to the naming circumstances around TMM.

2020s – the music returns under my name, and the old tracks find their permanent home.

Closing – why I’m writing this now

Most of this story is quite irrelevant for most of the people I know. The reason I’m writing this is because the whole TMM artistry went wrong when another so‑called powerdick shifted things and my songs ended up under an unknown artist profile. Nostalgia however plays a big part – people don’t know what TMM is or was, but some still do. So this is my way of setting it straight: not just for me, but for future questions. I have kids thay may find their way, or some day wonders what the hell this is all about. TMM was a phase, a mask, a habit – sometimes misunderstood, sometimes abused and sometimes extremely hated.

#sonaar_music_41 .iron-audioplayer:not(.sonaar-no-artwork) .srp_player_grid { grid-template-columns: 160px 1fr;} #sonaar_music_41 .srp_player_boxed .album-art { width: 160px; max-width: 160px;} #sonaar_music_41 .srp_player_boxed .sonaar-Artwort-box { min-width: 160px;} #sonaar_music_41 .album .album-art img { border-radius: 0px;} #sonaar_music_41 .sonaar-grid .album { padding: 0px;} #sonaar_music_41 .srp_player_boxed .srp-play-button-label-container { padding: 7px 7px;} #sonaar_music_41 .playlist li .sr_track_cover { width: 45px; min-width: 45px;} #sonaar_music_41 .sonaar-grid { justify-content: center; } #sonaar_music_41 .sr_playlist_below_artwork_auto .sonaar-grid { align-items: center; } #sonaar_music_41 .playlist, #sonaar_music_41 .buttons-block { width: 100%; } #sonaar_music_41 .playlist { margin: 0px; } #sonaar_music_41 .srp_tracklist { margin: 0px; } #sonaar_music_41 .sr_it-playlist-title, #sonaar_music_41 .sr_it-playlist-artists, #sonaar_music_41 .srp_subtitle { text-align: left; } #sonaar_music_41 .sr_it-playlist-title, #sonaar_music_41 .sr_it-playlist-artists, #sonaar_music_41 .srp_subtitle { margin-left: 0px; } #sonaar_music_41 .playlist li { padding-top: 8px; padding-bottom: 8px; } #sonaar_music_41 .sr-playlist-item .sricon-play:before{ font-size: 12px; } #sonaar_music_41 .track-number { padding-left: calc( 12px + 12px ); }@media (max-width: 767px){ #sonaar_music_41 .iron-audioplayer .srp_tracklist-item-date { padding-left: calc( 12px + 12px ); }} #sonaar_music_41 .ctnButton-block { justify-content: center; align-items: center; } #sonaar_music_41 .buttons-block { justify-content: center; align-items: center; } #sonaar_music_41 .buttons-block .store-list li .button { border-style: none; } #sonaar_music_41 .show-playlist .ctnButton-block { margin: 22px; } #sonaar_music_41 .album-player .control { top: 0px; position: relative; } #sonaar_music_41 .srp-play-button .sricon-play { font-size: 19px; } #sonaar_music_41 .srp-play-circle { height: 68px; width: 68px; border-radius: 68px; } #sonaar_music_41 .srp-play-circle { border-width: 6px; } #sonaar_music_41 .srp_search_container .srp_search { padding: 15px 15px; }














00:00



























var srp_player_params_69849a91e2bf3 = {"title":"","store_title_text":"Available now on:","albums":"37399","hide_artwork":"","sticky_player":"1","show_album_market":"1","show_track_market":"1","hide_timeline":"","titletag_soundwave":"div","titletag_playlist":"h3","show_playlist":"1","wave_color":"","wave_progress_color":"","shuffle":"","reverse_tracklist":"","searchbar":"","show_cat_description":"","track_desc_lenght":"55","strip_html_track_desc":"true","player_layout":"skin_boxed_tracklist","show_track_publish_date":"default","show_volume_bt":"default","show_miniplayer_note_bt":"default","show_speed_bt":"default","show_shuffle_bt":"default","show_repeat_bt":"default","show_skip_bt":"default","post_link":"default","cta_track_show_label":"default","show_publish_date":"default","show_tracks_count":"default","show_meta_duration":"default","hide_progressbar":"false","use_play_label":"false","use_play_label_with_icon":"false","orderby":"date","order":"DESC","main_settings":"||"}
var srp_player_params_args_69849a91e2bf3 = {"before_widget":"","after_widget":"","before_title":"","after_title":"","widget_id":"arbitrary-instance-69849a91e2bf3"}
if(typeof setIronAudioplayers !== "undefined"){ setIronAudioplayers("arbitrary-instance-69849a91e2bf3"); }

In 2009, TMM began his first experiments with Spotify and digital music releases. For him, music production was still very much in its infancy. During the 1990s, he had worked exclusively with FastTracker (versions 1 and 2), but with support from Kristian “Miazma” Olofsson he eventually transitioned to Cakewalk and on the long road also acquired a Yamaha synth.

After moving back home to Scania (Skåne) a few years earlier, he had been inspired by what he believed to be Digitally Imported. The idea was to recreate the type of music he had heard there, with its specific, rapid basslines. The outcome was mixed, but from these efforts the track Bloodline emerged, drawing on a quote from the 2007 film The Last Legion. Released over a three-month period in 2009, Bloodline stood alongside a few other tracks as an early experiment. Freakshow, a small mini-album, was released simultaneously and may have been intended as the foundation of a larger project, even though the music at that point was far from polished. Truth be told, Bloodline was never particularly good either, but it still marked a starting point. It also became the last track from TMM’s early catalog to find its way onto multiple streaming platforms.

Later, TMM’s releases were removed after being confused with another artist (Spotify link) whose catalog contained dubious titles, such as “Enjoy my power dick”. Keeping the material online under those circumstances was out of the question. Filing a claim was not a real option either, since it could have led to hijacking the entire artist profile.

Although the takedown was reluctant, it became reality on October 10, 2024 – around the same time Psychopath was re-released. Contrary to how it might look, the tracks had not been offline for 16 years, but closer to 15. Now, with the relaunch underway, the idea is that this time the artist will finally find his rightful place. The re-release is motivated less by expectations of success and more by nostalgia, by the idea of giving TMM’s early works a new, permanent home.

As my personal development alongside ChatGPT has progressed, there have been moments when it felt easier to create a “personalized” AI that goes somewhat beyond my own profile criteria on OpenAI. I’ve kept most of these GPTs open, but only accessible via direct link from me. Now, however, I’ve made a change that allows more people to access the GPTs I use myself (often on a daily basis). After organizing the logos for all of them, they are now available in the GPT Store online at OpenAI.

Click here to see the full “product” list!

#sonaar_music_68 .iron-audioplayer:not(.sonaar-no-artwork) .srp_player_grid { grid-template-columns: 160px 1fr;} #sonaar_music_68 .srp_player_boxed .album-art { width: 160px; max-width: 160px;} #sonaar_music_68 .srp_player_boxed .sonaar-Artwort-box { min-width: 160px;} #sonaar_music_68 .album .album-art img { border-radius: 0px;} #sonaar_music_68 .sonaar-grid .album { padding: 0px;} #sonaar_music_68 .srp_player_boxed .srp-play-button-label-container { padding: 7px 7px;} #sonaar_music_68 .playlist li .sr_track_cover { width: 45px; min-width: 45px;} #sonaar_music_68 .sonaar-grid { justify-content: center; } #sonaar_music_68 .sr_playlist_below_artwork_auto .sonaar-grid { align-items: center; } #sonaar_music_68 .playlist, #sonaar_music_68 .buttons-block { width: 100%; } #sonaar_music_68 .playlist { margin: 0px; } #sonaar_music_68 .srp_tracklist { margin: 0px; } #sonaar_music_68 .sr_it-playlist-title, #sonaar_music_68 .sr_it-playlist-artists, #sonaar_music_68 .srp_subtitle { text-align: left; } #sonaar_music_68 .sr_it-playlist-title, #sonaar_music_68 .sr_it-playlist-artists, #sonaar_music_68 .srp_subtitle { margin-left: 0px; } #sonaar_music_68 .playlist li { padding-top: 8px; padding-bottom: 8px; } #sonaar_music_68 .sr-playlist-item .sricon-play:before{ font-size: 12px; } #sonaar_music_68 .track-number { padding-left: calc( 12px + 12px ); }@media (max-width: 767px){ #sonaar_music_68 .iron-audioplayer .srp_tracklist-item-date { padding-left: calc( 12px + 12px ); }} #sonaar_music_68 .ctnButton-block { justify-content: center; align-items: center; } #sonaar_music_68 .buttons-block { justify-content: center; align-items: center; } #sonaar_music_68 .buttons-block .store-list li .button { border-style: none; } #sonaar_music_68 .show-playlist .ctnButton-block { margin: 22px; } #sonaar_music_68 .album-player .control { top: 0px; position: relative; } #sonaar_music_68 .srp-play-button .sricon-play { font-size: 19px; } #sonaar_music_68 .srp-play-circle { height: 68px; width: 68px; border-radius: 68px; } #sonaar_music_68 .srp-play-circle { border-width: 6px; } #sonaar_music_68 .srp_search_container .srp_search { padding: 15px 15px; }














00:00



























var srp_player_params_69849a91e7eaa = {"title":"","store_title_text":"Available now on:","albums":"37370","hide_artwork":"","sticky_player":"1","show_album_market":"1","show_track_market":"1","hide_timeline":"","titletag_soundwave":"div","titletag_playlist":"h3","show_playlist":"1","wave_color":"","wave_progress_color":"","shuffle":"","reverse_tracklist":"","searchbar":"","show_cat_description":"","track_desc_lenght":"55","strip_html_track_desc":"true","player_layout":"skin_boxed_tracklist","show_track_publish_date":"default","show_volume_bt":"default","show_miniplayer_note_bt":"default","show_speed_bt":"default","show_shuffle_bt":"default","show_repeat_bt":"default","show_skip_bt":"default","post_link":"default","cta_track_show_label":"default","show_publish_date":"default","show_tracks_count":"default","show_meta_duration":"default","hide_progressbar":"false","use_play_label":"false","use_play_label_with_icon":"false","orderby":"date","order":"DESC","main_settings":"||"}
var srp_player_params_args_69849a91e7eaa = {"before_widget":"","after_widget":"","before_title":"","after_title":"","widget_id":"arbitrary-instance-69849a91e7eaa"}
if(typeof setIronAudioplayers !== "undefined"){ setIronAudioplayers("arbitrary-instance-69849a91e7eaa"); }

This is one of the lost mixtracks that was originally meant to welcome the new year 2024. For some reason, both the DJ set and the tracklist mysteriously disappeared from the internet. Now I’ve managed to restore the actual performance and make it available as a stream here on the website! This also marks the beginning of continuous streaming of all future mixtracks, since very few platforms allow this type of material to be uploaded on their domains. Usually it gets moderated, or the audio gets muted. That is NOT the case on this website.



Track list

TidArtist(er)TitelVersion/Mix00:00Dale MoveKassiraExtended Mix01:30Tim Hox, East & Young & Sofiya NzauDaciOriginal Mix, Clean CK Cut02:263DGerogy PorgyArmand Van Helden Remix03:43Tom & Collins, Mr. Pig, Minow, GabsyPa Lantefeat Gabsy04:43CrazibizaAlegresRadio Mix05:43Blake StrangeCraveOriginal Mix07:27Andrea CasulaTrompettes Du JugementSaxotik Mix08:28AOTONIf I Can’tRemix09:58Harry RomeroTaniaRiva Starr Remix12:12Davina Moss Feat. Luna Ramirez & Andrea CarolinaCantamos–14:00AndinoBeats On Fire–15:27CaittoTakeExtended Mix17:11AltamiranoBokongoFabian Argomedo Remix18:04Belier & RibassVA A Caer–19:03Davide ToschiDark SideLucas Rotela Remix19:48Adam OwensExoticJustin Malone Dub Mix20:48Babes on the RunBabieCrazibiza Edit22:01Roger Shah & Sian EvansHide UJerome Isma-Ae 2022 Remix22:45DJ SnakeDisco Maghreb–24:15PluvioRenaissanceHudat Remix25:15Block & CrownDangerous Beast–26:30Chaka Boom Bang (Klubbheads)Tossin’ & Turnin’Extended Ultimate Club Mix27:14FynutzuNo Turning BackExtended Mix30:11MarloHoogenbanger–30:41Novem VivitTransitOriginal Mix31:55The Cube Guys, Juan Diaz, Alexandra PrinceTurn It UpVocal Mix33:25BelcastroPressureOriginal Mix34:24Frankie Steel, Earth n DaysLove Me BetterExtended36:08EeemusYunzjah–36:57ChipuMadagascarExtended Mix39:40RebūkeAlong Came PollyOriginal Mix42:54Boye & SigvardtVoyage–44:00David Morales, Scott Paynter & DeltaParty in De GhettoExtended Mix46:00OTIOT, EL WavesTonguese(Oops: 128 kbps)