DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Bon Vivant said:
keithvanhorn said:
DocMcCoy said:
Like I said at the top, the resources needed to go after Girl Talk would be wildly out of proportion to what there is to be gained from it. Even if he wasn't giving his shit away in the first place, the royalties payable on all those individual uses wouldn't be enough to justify all the work.
agreed. if he didn't give the downloads away for free it would be a different story, especially if he was selling hundreds of thousands of records, which seems likely given his popularity.
This is incorrect. There are statutory penalties that are easy to calculate, and aren't peanuts.
The problem is those statutory penalties aren't really applicable in cases like this. It isn't like counterfeit goods or anything, where you can point to one clear infringement and one plaintiff - there are hundreds of different copyright holders and hundreds of separate rights that have been infringed in something like this. The nature of the infringement may be fairly easy to define, but the extent is a different matter. Getting everyone involved to agree on the best way to deal with it is what complicates things here. Not everybody will want to sue, not everyone will object to their work being sampled, not every writer/artist will have the right of prior approval. Some will want 100% of the royalties no matter whether or not other samples are involved, some will take a buy-out, some might even grant a free use. It's far from straightforward.
Are people in this thread up on Professor Lessig? His work is highly, highly recommended.
It's amazing to have a professor of law at Harvard argue a book titled "Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity." In one chapter, he describes his experience as the lead counsel to Mr. Eldred in his opposition of the Bono Copyright Extension Act in front of the Supreme Court.
[
The problem is those statutory penalties aren't really applicable in cases like this. It isn't like counterfeit goods or anything, where you can point to one clear infringement and one plaintiff - there are hundreds of different copyright holders and hundreds of separate rights that have been infringed in something like this. The nature of the infringement may be fairly easy to define, but the extent is a different matter. Getting everyone involved to agree on the best way to deal with it is what complicates things here. Not everybody will want to sue, not everyone will object to their work being sampled, not every writer/artist will have the right of prior approval. Some will want 100% of the royalties no matter whether or not other samples are involved, some will take a buy-out, some might even grant a free use. It's far from straightforward.
Doc, I'm going to have to respectively disagree here. Anytime you use a sound recording without permission, in the United States, it's infrignement. There's no Fair use defense. I'm gathering that you are from England or around there, becauae of your knowledge on the SUAD case. It's different in the US.
In the US if you use ANY AMOUNT of a sound recording w/o permission, and you get caught, you run the risk of getting screwed. There's no need to discern the "extent" of the infringement; that fact that it occurs is enough to put the infringer at risk.
As to getting everyone to agree to sue, you don't need to. Each artist can sue on their own, there's no need to form a coaltion, or de-facto class. Those that object don't have bring an action. Those that can identify their sound recording being used w/o permission can bring an action.
As to royalties, I don't think there are any because GT gives the album away for free. This is where the statutory penalties in the US code come into play. Even if the infringer is giving away their work for free (which some people assume insulates them from a claim), they can be banged for big money plus attorney's fees and costs.
Again, this is US law I'm speaking on, and it may be different where you are. Assuming you're not in the US.
Cheers.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
[
The problem is those statutory penalties aren't really applicable in cases like this. It isn't like counterfeit goods or anything, where you can point to one clear infringement and one plaintiff - there are hundreds of different copyright holders and hundreds of separate rights that have been infringed in something like this. The nature of the infringement may be fairly easy to define, but the extent is a different matter. Getting everyone involved to agree on the best way to deal with it is what complicates things here. Not everybody will want to sue, not everyone will object to their work being sampled, not every writer/artist will have the right of prior approval. Some will want 100% of the royalties no matter whether or not other samples are involved, some will take a buy-out, some might even grant a free use. It's far from straightforward.
Doc, I'm going to have to respectively disagree here. Anytime you use a sound recording without permission, in the United States, it's infrignement. There's no Fair use defense. I'm gathering that you are from England or around there, becauae of your knowledge on the SUAD case. It's different in the US.
In the US if you use ANY AMOUNT of a sound recording w/o permission, and you get caught, you run the risk of getting screwed. There's no need to discern the "extent" of the infringement; that fact that it occurs is enough to put the infringer at risk.
As to getting everyone to agree to sue, you don't need to. Each artist can sue on their own, there's no need to form a coaltion, or de-facto class. Those that object don't have bring an action. Those that can identify their sound recording being used w/o permission can bring an action.
As to royalties, I don't think there are any because GT gives the album away for free. This is where the statutory penalties in the US code come into play. Even if the infringer is giving away their work for free (which some people assume insulates them from a claim), they can be banged for big money plus attorney's fees and costs.
Again, this is US law I'm speaking on, and it may be different where you are. Assuming you're not in the US.
Cheers.
OK, fair enough. In any event, I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying in the post I was responding to.
And yeah, I am in the UK, and the law over here, while essentially the same, is applied in a different way in cases like this.
Doc, I'm going to have to respectively disagree here. Anytime you use a sound recording without permission, in the United States, it's infrignement. There's no Fair use defense. I'm gathering that you are from England or around there, becauae of your knowledge on the SUAD case. It's different in the US.
In the US if you use ANY AMOUNT of a sound recording w/o permission, and you get caught, you run the risk of getting screwed. There's no need to discern the "extent" of the infringement; that fact that it occurs is enough to put the infringer at risk.
As to getting everyone to agree to sue, you don't need to. Each artist can sue on their own, there's no need to form a coaltion, or de-facto class. Those that object don't have bring an action. Those that can identify their sound recording being used w/o permission can bring an action.
As to royalties, I don't think there are any because GT gives the album away for free. This is where the statutory penalties in the US code come into play. Even if the infringer is giving away their work for free (which some people assume insulates them from a claim), they can be banged for big money plus attorney's fees and costs.
Again, this is US law I'm speaking on, and it may be different where you are. Assuming you're not in the US.
Cheers.
This comes across as a lot more law school than real world.
Just had a buddy hip me to this: Legitmix. A site where sample based music and mixes can be bought and sold without the worry of clearing the samples. You can upload mixes or songs using uncleared samples. The consumer downloads that mix or song and reconstructs it using the Legitmix program using their own copies of the source material! If they don't have said material, they can buy it from Legitmix's on-line store. Turning the copyright world on it's ear. Check out the site at www.legitmix.com
I can't seem to embed the youtube video of this for some reason. So just go to the site and check it out.
Just had a buddy hip me to this: Legitmix. A site where sample based music and mixes can be bought and sold without the worry of clearing the samples. You can upload mixes or songs using uncleared samples. The consumer downloads that mix or song and reconstructs it using the Legitmix program using their own copies of the source material! If they don't have said material, they can buy it from Legitmix's on-line store. Turning the copyright world on it's ear. Check out the site at www.legitmix.com
I can't seem to embed the youtube video of this for some reason. So just go to the site and check it out.
The video was embedded for me a minute ago. Legitmix's concept reminded me of "KLF later released a censored version of the LP with the ABBA samples removed, with instructions on how to recreate the original."
Just had a buddy hip me to this: Legitmix. A site where sample based music and mixes can be bought and sold without the worry of clearing the samples. You can upload mixes or songs using uncleared samples. The consumer downloads that mix or song and reconstructs it using the Legitmix program using their own copies of the source material! If they don't have said material, they can buy it from Legitmix's on-line store. Turning the copyright world on it's ear. Check out the site at www.legitmix.com
I can't seem to embed the youtube video of this for some reason. So just go to the site and check it out.
EL-P has become the first artist to release a single through Legitmix with his latest track "Rush Over Bklyn," which samples Rush's "Tom Sawyer". As Pitchfork points out, Legitmix makes music sampling legal. Yes, you read correctly -- totally legal music sampling. Here's how it works, according to the Legitmix blog :
"When a consumer purchases ???Rush Over Bkyln???, the browser-based Legitmix software searches their computer for the ???Tom Sawyer??? track. If they don???t have it they can purchase it from Legitmix or any online music store. With a few mouse clicks, the Legitmix software recreates on the binary level ???Rush Over Bklyn??? on the consumer???s computer using their copy of ???Tom Sawyer???. The price of ???Rush Over Bklyn is $0.70 plus the retail cost of the ???Tom Sawyer??? track (if the consumer doesn???t have it)."
Comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/magazine/09GirlTalk-t.html
http://alldaysamples.com/
The problem is those statutory penalties aren't really applicable in cases like this. It isn't like counterfeit goods or anything, where you can point to one clear infringement and one plaintiff - there are hundreds of different copyright holders and hundreds of separate rights that have been infringed in something like this. The nature of the infringement may be fairly easy to define, but the extent is a different matter. Getting everyone involved to agree on the best way to deal with it is what complicates things here. Not everybody will want to sue, not everyone will object to their work being sampled, not every writer/artist will have the right of prior approval. Some will want 100% of the royalties no matter whether or not other samples are involved, some will take a buy-out, some might even grant a free use. It's far from straightforward.
Are people in this thread up on Professor Lessig? His work is highly, highly recommended.
It's amazing to have a professor of law at Harvard argue a book titled "Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity." In one chapter, he describes his experience as the lead counsel to Mr. Eldred in his opposition of the Bono Copyright Extension Act in front of the Supreme Court.
http://www.lessig.org/info/bio/
He has a link to articles under "content."
Doc, I'm going to have to respectively disagree here. Anytime you use a sound recording without permission, in the United States, it's infrignement. There's no Fair use defense. I'm gathering that you are from England or around there, becauae of your knowledge on the SUAD case. It's different in the US.
In the US if you use ANY AMOUNT of a sound recording w/o permission, and you get caught, you run the risk of getting screwed. There's no need to discern the "extent" of the infringement; that fact that it occurs is enough to put the infringer at risk.
As to getting everyone to agree to sue, you don't need to. Each artist can sue on their own, there's no need to form a coaltion, or de-facto class. Those that object don't have bring an action. Those that can identify their sound recording being used w/o permission can bring an action.
As to royalties, I don't think there are any because GT gives the album away for free. This is where the statutory penalties in the US code come into play. Even if the infringer is giving away their work for free (which some people assume insulates them from a claim), they can be banged for big money plus attorney's fees and costs.
Again, this is US law I'm speaking on, and it may be different where you are. Assuming you're not in the US.
Cheers.
OK, fair enough. In any event, I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying in the post I was responding to.
And yeah, I am in the UK, and the law over here, while essentially the same, is applied in a different way in cases like this.
This comes across as a lot more law school than real world.
I can't seem to embed the youtube video of this for some reason. So just go to the site and check it out.
The video was embedded for me a minute ago. Legitmix's concept reminded me of "KLF later released a censored version of the LP with the ABBA samples removed, with instructions on how to recreate the original."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/the-british-government-has-endorsed.ars
nothing for free on it, and its never been shut down.
from:http://www.chartattack.com/news/2011/oct/29/mp3-roundup-el-p-asap-rocky-dj-premier-feat-nas-and-an-orchestra