yeh bu in the letter posted above (if it ias an actual letter and it is telling the truth) they tried to settle out of court... It also could be the case of an overzealous lawyer as well.
So are most lawyers and alot of them are... I fail to see how the two stories are related. And I hihgly doubt you will see Mr. newton's Lawyer championing any causes outside of making his pockets fatter, being that most of these types of lawyers are paid on contingency...
PS- Im not comparing Alan Korn to Thurgood Marshall. However, the case for desegregation was a stretch--using rudimentary psychological studies with black dolls.
To say this case has no merits because it could open a flood of similar cases is sad.
To say that when Mr. Newton signed his publishing deal with ECM he should have predicted mergers with Warner Bros and the onset of sample ba$ed hip hop is even more absurd.
To say that some white crackers like the Cookie Boys couldn???t have worked harder to appease some lil free jazz bama is super duper sad.
PS- Im not comparing Alan Korn to Thurgood Marshall. However, the case for desegregation was a stretch--using rudimentary psychological studies with black dolls.
To say this case has no merits because it could open a flood of similar cases is sad.
To say that when Mr. Newton signed his publishing deal with ECM he should have predicted mergers with Warner Bros and the onset of sample ba$ed hip hop is even more absurd.
To say that some white crackers like the Cookie Boys couldn???t have worked harder to appease some lil free jazz bama is super duper sad.
Sorry to throw in on this side Frank, but it sounded like the Beasties tried many times to settle with Newton, to no avail. My take after reading Newton's side was that he was way less interested from a greed/opportunistic perspective(I am pretty sure his lawyers were ok on that level, tho) and more driven by ego and a certainty that his position was the righteous one. Doesn't mean he was right, or completely wrong, just that the law did not back up his claim. And I think in the end he was pretty much pissing up a rope.
As in most lawsuits, the only winners here looks like all the lawyers.
PS- Im not comparing Alan Korn to Thurgood Marshall. However, the case for desegregation was a stretch--using rudimentary psychological studies with black dolls.
To say this case has no merits because it could open a flood of similar cases is sad.
To say that when Mr. Newton signed his publishing deal with ECM he should have predicted mergers with Warner Bros and the onset of sample ba$ed hip hop is even more absurd.
To say that some white crackers like the Cookie Boys couldn???t have worked harder to appease some lil free jazz bama is super duper sad.
How about to dumb the situation down to the "white crackers" vs. "free jazz bama" is super duper sad? Get past the knee-jerk reaction. This is not colonialism. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Plus this case is really old news. The deeper Newton gets the less likely he wants to pull out of it. It's consumed him. As uppity as I sometimes find the beastie boys, I gotta agree that he got some terrible legal advice.
If they didn't clear through ECM, he might have a case. If ECM didn't have rights to liscence Newton's music, he might have a case. But as it stands he doesn't have much of anything.
This is about a form of record keeping that is traditionally African against a European set of laws.
I'm sure this was first and foremost on James Newton's mind. Perhaps he was confused because of his African decendants... 200 years ago. Come the fuck on.
To say that some white crackers like the Cookie Boys couldn???t have worked harder to appease some lil free jazz bama is super duper sad.
From the Yauch explanation poster earlier:
Before spending a lot of money on the case we contacted Mr. Newton and offered him a generous out of court settlement in hopes of avoiding further legal fees. He responded by telling us that the offer was ???insulting??? and said that he wanted ???millions??? of dollars. In addition he told us that he wanted 50% ownership and control of our song, ???Pass the Mic.??? But because Mr. Newton???s flute sound is just one of hundreds of sounds in our song giving him 50% ownership of our song seemed unfair. That kind of split is sometimes done if one party writes all of the music and the other writes all of the lyrics. Newton by no stretch of the imagination wrote all of the music in ???Pass the Mic.???[/b]
So let me get this straight:
The Beasties clear the sound recording through the label, Newton decides to sue anyway, claimg some incidental sounds that were used in "Pass the Mic" are a composition (if he deserves 50% ownership of "Pass the Mic", then the Bad Brains deserve %2000), they offer dude money to settle out of court (was it $100k? I can't remember) and he says hell no.
It really doesn't matter to me what your opinion of the Beasties' music is, but to say that they were purposely trying to get over on this guy is just wrong.
It sounds like more of a case of Industry Rule 4080: Newton lets ECM handle the rights to this particular sound recording, and when the Beasties licensed the sample, ECM most likely kept the majority of the loot, and Newton decided to go for his, legally, with the only stance he could take, which is as the composer.
Just because he probably has a crap deal with ECM doesn't mean the Beastie dogpile should begin.
How about to dumb the situation down to the "white crackers" vs. "free jazz bama" is super duper sad? Get past the knee-jerk reaction. This is not colonialism. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Plus this case is really old news. The deeper Newton gets the less likely he wants to pull out of it. It's consumed him. As uppity as I sometimes find the beastie boys, I gotta agree that he got some terrible legal advice.
If they didn't clear through ECM, he might have a case. If ECM didn't have rights to liscence Newton's music, he might have a case. But as it stands he doesn't have much of anything.
You mean dumb it up? And colonialism? What the fuck are you talking about?
Old news? The Supreme Court ruled on it yesterday.
Listen here, dude is in uncharted legal territory no doubt. But this issue is worthy of discussion.
This is about a form of record keeping that is traditionally African against a European set of laws.
I'm sure this was first and foremost on James Newton's mind. Perhaps he was confused because of his African decendants... 200 years ago. Come the fuck on.
You come the fuck on. Oh wait, sorry, becuase YOU know what is first and foremost on Newton's mind. Do tell?
This is about a form of record keeping that is traditionally African against a European set of laws.
I'm sure this was first and foremost on James Newton's mind. Perhaps he was confused because of his African decendants... 200 years ago. Come the fuck on.
You come the fuck on. Oh wait, sorry, becuase YOU know what is first and foremost on Newton's mind. Do tell?
Actually Frank, the concept of owning music at all is a European one.
This is about a form of record keeping that is traditionally African against a European set of laws.
I'm sure this was first and foremost on James Newton's mind. Perhaps he was confused because of his African decendants... 200 years ago. Come the fuck on.
You come the fuck on. Oh wait, sorry, becuase YOU know what is first and foremost on Newton's mind. Do tell?
Common sense would dictate that he's probably familiar with whatever he's been around. And unless he's an African immigrant...
Newton's solo flute pieces are as important as some of Chs. Parker's solos on Dial 78s.
Ok, I'm not here to argue about the main topic, BUT...
Charlie Parker's Dial material influenced 50+ years of jazz music. How can these two even be remotely compared?
They can't...
Bullshit. Outside the work of Dolphy and Kirk on flute, Newton is the most important. Esp since he plays only flute. Others were multi-instrumentalists. And Axum is his Donna Lee/St.Thomas/Impressions.
Here we are again arguing about a record I would bet 95% of you fuckers haven't listened to. (dropping on your portable or listening station doesn't count.)
This is about a form of record keeping that is traditionally African against a European set of laws.
I'm sure this was first and foremost on James Newton's mind. Perhaps he was confused because of his African decendants... 200 years ago. Come the fuck on.
You come the fuck on. Oh wait, sorry, becuase YOU know what is first and foremost on Newton's mind. Do tell?
Common sense would dictate that he's probably familiar with whatever he's been around. And unless he's an African immigrant...
I refuse to accept common sense as evidence. You gots to do better.
and JP, we're not talking about printed music here.
To say this case has no merits because it could open a flood of similar cases is sad.
I know you're not talking about me, Frank.
Here's what I said:
A decision for Newton would have been legally untenable and[/b] would have resulted in a flood of absurd[/b] litigation.
The case's lack of merit is independent of its precedential value--it's just a bullsh!t claim.
And believe me, I would not argue for squashing a valid claim because recognizing it could result in a flood of litigation; but I will argue for denying a ridiculous claim because finding for the plaintiff would open the door to a wave of similarly ridiculous litigation.
No disrespect, but you need to do some more homework before we can have this argument.
You mean dumb it up? And colonialism? What the fuck are you talking about?
You're insinuating that the "crackers" are taking advantage of the "free jazz bama", and Newton is playing up his african heritage to full effect. Which accentuates the racial overtones of the suit. He is trying to make it sound like he was exploited. That's exactly what colonialism means. So that is WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT.
Old news? The Supreme Court ruled on it yesterday.
....and it's been in litigation of one form or another for at least the last 5. Even just on this board it's been brought up a few times. Late pass?
Listen here, dude is in uncharted legal territory no doubt. But this issue is worthy of discussion.
I'm all up for discussion. But you're not making much sense. Your responses don't have anything to do with the legality of the suit, and you fire off substance-less, incindiary one-liners. Par for the course for an internet discussion board, but don't try to paint it as you being the only person who's willing to have this kind of discussion, and everybody else isn't listening. We are. In fact I bet most of us are sympathetic to Newton.
and JP, we're not talking about printed music here.
But we are - this is the substance of his lawsuit.
And moreover, I was making the academic point that Frank's argument - ownership of improvisational composition, as opposed to written composition - is inherently a European idea.
Comments
This is about a form of record keeping that is traditionally African against a European set of laws.
It???s really about respect for your elders vs. what you are " legally required" to do to stay out of court.
Bitch Mutherfuckin Crackers Hippies.
Wiffle Ball bat
he was called that...
So are most lawyers and alot of them are... I fail to see how the two stories are related. And I hihgly doubt you will see Mr. newton's Lawyer championing any causes outside of making his pockets fatter, being that most of these types of lawyers are paid on contingency...
http://www.alankorn.com/bio.html
To say this case has no merits because it could open a flood of similar cases is sad.
To say that when Mr. Newton signed his publishing deal with ECM he should have predicted mergers with Warner Bros and the onset of sample ba$ed hip hop is even more absurd.
To say that some white crackers like the Cookie Boys couldn???t have worked harder to appease some lil free jazz bama is super duper sad.
HAH!!
Sorry to throw in on this side Frank, but it sounded like the Beasties tried many times to settle with Newton, to no avail. My take after reading Newton's side was that he was way less interested from a greed/opportunistic perspective(I am pretty sure his lawyers were ok on that level, tho) and more driven by ego and a certainty that his position was the righteous one. Doesn't mean he was right, or completely wrong, just that the law did not back up his claim. And I think in the end he was pretty much pissing up a rope.
As in most lawsuits, the only winners here looks like all the lawyers.
How about to dumb the situation down to the "white crackers" vs. "free jazz bama" is super duper sad? Get past the knee-jerk reaction. This is not colonialism. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Plus this case is really old news. The deeper Newton gets the less likely he wants to pull out of it. It's consumed him. As uppity as I sometimes find the beastie boys, I gotta agree that he got some terrible legal advice.
If they didn't clear through ECM, he might have a case.
If ECM didn't have rights to liscence Newton's music, he might have a case.
But as it stands he doesn't have much of anything.
"white crackers?"
Ok, I'm not here to argue about the main topic, BUT...
Charlie Parker's Dial material influenced 50+ years of jazz music. How can these two even be remotely compared?
I'm sure this was first and foremost on James Newton's mind. Perhaps he was confused because of his African decendants... 200 years ago. Come the fuck on.
From the Yauch explanation poster earlier:
So let me get this straight:
The Beasties clear the sound recording through the label, Newton decides to sue anyway, claimg some incidental sounds that were used in "Pass the Mic" are a composition (if he deserves 50% ownership of "Pass the Mic", then the Bad Brains deserve %2000), they offer dude money to settle out of court (was it $100k? I can't remember) and he says hell no.
It really doesn't matter to me what your opinion of the Beasties' music is, but to say that they were purposely trying to get over on this guy is just wrong.
It sounds like more of a case of Industry Rule 4080: Newton lets ECM handle the rights to this particular sound recording, and when the Beasties licensed the sample, ECM most likely kept the majority of the loot, and Newton decided to go for his, legally, with the only stance he could take, which is as the composer.
Just because he probably has a crap deal with ECM doesn't mean the Beastie dogpile should begin.
You mean dumb it up? And colonialism? What the fuck are you talking about?
Old news? The Supreme Court ruled on it yesterday.
Listen here, dude is in uncharted legal territory no doubt. But this issue is worthy of discussion.
have you heard the record?
You come the fuck on. Oh wait, sorry, becuase YOU know what is first and foremost on Newton's mind. Do tell?
They can't...
Actually Frank, the concept of owning music at all is a European one.
Common sense would dictate that he's probably familiar with whatever he's been around. And unless he's an African immigrant...
Bullshit. Outside the work of Dolphy and Kirk on flute, Newton is the most important. Esp since he plays only flute. Others were multi-instrumentalists. And Axum is his Donna Lee/St.Thomas/Impressions.
Here we are again arguing about a record I would bet 95% of you fuckers haven't listened to. (dropping on your portable or listening station doesn't count.)
I refuse to accept common sense as evidence. You gots to do better.
and JP, we're not talking about printed music here.
I know you're not talking about me, Frank.
Here's what I said:
The case's lack of merit is independent of its precedential value--it's just a bullsh!t claim.
And believe me, I would not argue for squashing a valid claim because recognizing it could result in a flood of litigation; but I will argue for denying a ridiculous claim because finding for the plaintiff would open the door to a wave of similarly ridiculous litigation.
No disrespect, but you need to do some more homework before we can have this argument.
But we are - this is the substance of his lawsuit.
You're insinuating that the "crackers" are taking advantage of the "free jazz bama", and Newton is playing up his african heritage to full effect. Which accentuates the racial overtones of the suit. He is trying to make it sound like he was exploited. That's exactly what colonialism means. So that is WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT.
....and it's been in litigation of one form or another for at least the last 5. Even just on this board it's been brought up a few times. Late pass?
I'm all up for discussion. But you're not making much sense. Your responses don't have anything to do with the legality of the suit, and you fire off substance-less, incindiary one-liners. Par for the course for an internet discussion board, but don't try to paint it as you being the only person who's willing to have this kind of discussion, and everybody else isn't listening. We are. In fact I bet most of us are sympathetic to Newton.
And moreover, I was making the academic point that Frank's argument - ownership of improvisational composition, as opposed to written composition - is inherently a European idea.
Also: the Supreme Court didn't rule on anything--they just denied certiorari.