> It's not necessarily fair use. Please elaborate, "no u" is not an argument. > Unless the venue you are at has paid for the performance rights of that song t

> It's not necessarily fair use. Please elaborate, "no u" is not an argument. > Unless the venue you are at has paid for the performance rights of that song that is copyright infringement. That "venue" is my home. The instrumental mix was included on the CD for the sole purpose of torturing my cohabitants with my awful singing. Why else would you include an incomplete mix? It doesn't add to the listening experience. As an artist, you could have released an "alternative version" as a bonus track (e.g. with a guest singer, or acoustic instead of electric guitars), but instead you intended to let the listener play the artist. It's not just fair use to use the track in that way, the entire intention for its existence is fair use. > Considering removing ads hurts monetarily [...] Money changed hands as a part of a deal, and I was not a side in that transaction, even though the subject of that transaction was my attention - something that I have a very limited amount of, and something I should have full authority over. You never asked me if you can redirect my attention in that way, not until you have already showed me the ad. If it hurts you monetarily when I use your service and then not look at the ads, then don't provide me with the service. I'll move on, thank you.