Sample Copyright / BT Lawsuit

[ugo]

from the sounds of it, it does seem like BT is getting the shaft on this one, and that sucks. seems like that guy is taking a legal procedure that ought to be for protecting people's rights and just using it to profit from. yet another person trying to rip someone off, just in the opposite direction from what we were first discussing. an interesting turn of events for this conversation.

it is true that you can bring a lawsuit against anyone for nearly anything here, and the legal expenses can be a killer. but it doesnt mean that BT will loose (or cant try to take the case to a higher court if it does.) but he is stuck having to fork out for a lot of legal fees. who knows, depending on what they bring out on the other guy by the end of it, BT might even be able to counter sue...if he feels like spending more money and loosing more time over a single sample. yup, it is rediculous.

edit: der_gary kinda beat me to it on that one.

[tee boy]

Are you sure some sounds are from the redrum library? If so, i'm suprised to hear it because i thought due to copyright infringements, BT would stick to using his own samples. I didnt know you could even use other software samples in your own sample CD. Or perhaps, he got permission from propellerheads folks to do it?

Most likely something like that.

What you have to remember is that most of the Redrum samples are rips off old vinyl. And when you consider that BT mentions Reason in the promotional material for the CD, I dont think there were to many hurt feelings.

Having studied the library in question, I can say with a fair degree of conviction that he uses pretty much every type of drum sound there is - classic drum machines and synths, computer drum synths, live acoustic beats, sampled vinyl etc. Quite often its all mixed up in Reason, with say, a live loop layered on top of an electronic back beat.

TB

[tee boy]

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 2nd, 2006

"We have done FFT analysis of the loop, showed the judge waveforms, etc…..does not matter. In America, you can sue anyone for anything. Here's the kicker: I have to pay for my own defense, and this guy has some ambulance chaser attorney working on a percentage with nothing better to do than try to force a settlement ...."

... The essence of it. And why it can potentially "bring down" - anyone.

YOU have pay, to prove your 'innocence'. The Courts don't have any "screening mechanism" which pre-empts FALSE claims against anyone, for anything.

There are alot of people here, who literally make their "living" - sueing people... They should be euthanized -(IMO)

g.

Funnily enough I actually followed quite closely a recent US lawsuit. Basically, a doctor was using some online support groups to blackmail private practicioners in the speciality. He was essentially saying "pay me for referals or I'l; make sure you never get another patient".

A few members uncovered his little scam and set up a website to spill the beans, as it were. The doctor took them to caught and they have to pay legal fees that nearly crippled them. Fortunately they won the case and were able to get their fees back in a counter claim.

But it just goes to show. Even during the deposition when it was clear that the doctor's case was insane, it still got took before the judge.

TB

[tee boy]

So what would happen if someone simply couldnt afford the legal fees?

Would they be forced to defend themselves?

TB

[BertKoor]

So what would happen if someone simply couldnt afford the legal fees? Would they be forced to defend themselves?

USA or UK? I hear these sentences all the time on TV when someone gets arrested and is read out his rights:
"You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

There are a number of legal aid offices around the state that help people who need legal assistance in civil matters but cannot afford a lawyer. In addition, there are programs that recruit lawyers to take cases "pro bono" or "pro deo". These services are for civil cases only not criminal cases. Persons who are charged with serious criminal offenses and cannot afford an attorney are entitled to court-appointed counsel at state expense.

In general: you get what you pay for.

More specificly: if a "work" is published that is an infringement to other's rights (copyright or any other) then the publisher should seek legal aid. Well, the sample should be cleared before it were published! Publishing companies ("labels") have their own legal staff taking care of that. All the more reasons not to publish "indy" but go for a large label.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/le ... ep01.shtml

[rockstar_not]

Paying to prove your innocence is why tort reform is needed in the USA.

Plain and simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform

I work for the world's largest automotive company. We are the target of a boatload of frivolous lawsuits each and every day. Money that we could spend on research to improve safety, fuel efficiency, etc. gets spent to prove innocence in case after case after case.

It's really a shame. But it's nothing new in the USA.

-Scott

[tee boy]

Absolutely.

I mean, surely any muppet lawyer could translate before a judge the tech lingo that would prove without doubt that the sample was original (or more to the point, that its NOT this other guys).

I find it hard to believe that, even in obvious innocence, one still requires a good lawyer to prone ones innocence. But that said, nothing would surprise me these days!

If that really is the case, then I feel desperately sorry for BT. Seriously, the guy has been blessed in some ways, but doesnt he have the worst luck in others???

TB

[beej]

BT, like a lot of successful people, seems to be the target for a huge amount of vitriol, jealousy and other forms of generally negative vibes, which does kinda surprise me.

I mean, the guy is talented, passionate about what he does, passionate about audio and gear, and has managed to make something of a name for himself in pop, electronica, dance and film circles.

Good on him, I say, it's not like he doesn't work hard, or anything...

Sucks about the legal stuff, but I guess if you're perceived as rich/successfull, at least in America (or much of the western world), somebody somewhere is going to try and claim that some of it should be theirs...

I'll stick to relative anonyminity and an adequate financial status, thanks very much, it's *way* simpler...

[eduardo_b]

I'll stick to relative anonyminity and an adequate financial status, thanks very much, it's *way* simpler...

The current legal issues regarding samples are at least partially because of an erosion of fair use over the last dozen years both via legislation and some poorly conceived court decisions. The result is an obscene number of lawsuits over samples so short and so unrecognizable that the standards for what is orginal and what is obvious copyright infringement have all but disappeared. Once there's money to be had, it's just a matter of time before anyone perceived as having deep pockets becomes the target of frivolous lawsuits. You're right -- being anonymous can be a good thing.

[Paul_FX]

I notice there is an assumptioin here that BT didnt steal the loop/s. For all we know (as in we arent BT, nor are we any of his close colaborators, engineers or even friends) he might actually be guilty of copyright theft.....

Paul

/edit

Just wanted to say i have nothing against BT, i havent even heard the loop in question. It just seems that a lot of people came down on BT's side and im interested why?

[3*s]

Anyone know what became of this btw? That announcement was from half a year ago. Did the guy finally give up?

[beej]

I notice there is an assumptioin here that BT didnt steal the loop/s. For all we know (as in we arent BT, nor are we any of his close colaborators, engineers or even friends) he might actually be guilty of copyright theft.....

Of course, I have no idea of the details of the case, and as such my comments were more general in nature given my perception of BT and the fact that I respect the guy and the work he does, coupled with the generally litigious nature of the US.

My guess would be from my knowledge of the guy, that he'd not be terribly interested in ripping of a known loop deliberately and doing very little and getting away with it. If there is uncleared material on there, I think it's more likely to be accidental than anything deliberate, but nobody really knows, until the details of the case are publicised.

[BertKoor]

Well, the details were quoted in this thread on page one which I also overlooked.

The sample in question, supposedly worth $10.000.000, was a drum loop which is taught as drums lesson one and created with Reason. I believe that. The suit is very frivolous indeed. That's a very sick country you people have to live in...

So back to TB's question: what if you can't afford an attourney? In that case noone will sue you in the first place No shit for the flies to be attracked to.

[toddyjoe]

For the benefit of those without a legal background, there are in fact remedies for a person who has to spend money defending a baseless lawsuit. In both federal and state courts, one can seek the recovery of attorney fees and legal expenses incurred in defending a "frivolous" lawsuit from the person who filed the lawsuit. There are also ways to put an early end to weak cases before too much money is spent, including motions for summary judgment, dismissal and declaratory judgment. However, none of these options help if the lawsuit may have some merit to it. They also do not help if you cannot make a convincing case for your defense (for instance, if you cannot sufficiently explain your technical FFT analysis effectively to a non-technical judge or jury). The "system" is not always the bad guy and not always ineffective if people know their legal rights and remedies.

[beej]

Well, the details were quoted in this thread on page one which I also overlooked.

The sample in question, supposedly worth $10.000.000, was a drum loop which is taught as drums lesson one and created with Reason.

Well, one guy claiming a drum loop is his is not really the details of the case, with all due respect!
As for the drum pattern that's in a book - well yeah, there are hundreds of common drum patterns printed in books. Like, er four on the four kicks with snares on two and four, or the pattern they use on "Walk This Way" etc. Drum patterns are not really copywritable, and if it was from a book then it's not a recording thing.

So I'm not sure how the claimant suggests BT used "his" loop. Was it a factory preset in Reason? Did BT download it from the claimant's website, or sample it off his record? Was it an audio sample as part of this "book"? None of that is mentioned. Like I say, the details of the case, where all these things would be discussed, would be interesting reading.

Well, perhaps not the most interesting case, but you get my meaning...