KVR Audio

tERMoBLUe · Post by **tERMoBLUe** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:01 pm

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:09 pm

I can't say I'm too upset for the multi-millionaire BT.

On the other hand it does raise the debate about whether copyright is about how much money you have to squash lawsuits vs actual intellectual property ownership.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:17 pm

Umm.. if he loses the case he wont be multimillionare any more. No matter how much money he has or how much of an arrogant prick he is sometimes, still wrong is wrong. I think the US will have some serious problems in the future when the market/buying power tilts east. It's only a matter of time when the legal system will have to be thoroughly owerhauled. Or actually, maybe they should finally start following their own rather cool constitution and the true morale behind it?

Anyways, I definately feel for BT on this one.

Cheers!
bManic

VicDiesel · Post by **VicDiesel** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:21 pm

I thought the democratic party was in the pockets of the lawyers. With a republican president & houses, why hasn't there been any tort reform in the last 6 years?

Victor.

tee boy · Post by **tee boy** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:33 pm

Paul_FX wrote: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?

Thats very true. We arent sure that BT didnt steal the loop in question.

But I think it is fair to assume this, given the givens. As he says in his blog, the sample is merely a 5 minute Reason knock up. There are hundreds of Reason loops on that CD, so it seems insane that would steal one intentionally. I guess its possible that one got in by accident, but it would seem unlikely.

TB

tee boy · Post by **tee boy** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:36 pm

BertKoor wrote: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.

Haha, well I guess Im safe then!

TB

tee boy · Post by **tee boy** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:39 pm

munchkin wrote:I can't say I'm too upset for the multi-millionaire BT.

On the other hand it does raise the debate about whether copyright is about how much money you have to squash lawsuits vs actual intellectual property ownership.

He reckons these lawsuits could lead to his bankruptcy.

So while Im sure Mr T is not short of a quid or two, he is no Gates!

TB

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:46 pm

tee boy wrote:
BertKoor wrote: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.
Haha, well I guess Im safe then!

TB

Anyone reading your posts Tee Boy would think you spend time hacking out lumps from copy written stuff in the hope you will never be found out - I mean its not just the odd post is it where you write this stuff.

Personally I think if someone is stupid enough to try it on - then they for sure going to get what's coming to them - surely the point is to 'Play it safe' - rather than run around trying to justify doing the current 'wrong thing' in the eyes of the law?

Reverse Engineer · Post by **Reverse Engineer** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:49 pm

I'm with BT on this one...i hope the case falls on its arse. Far too much good music would have to be taken out of circulation if bullshit like this were allowed.

Imagine if every company that made a product that produced sound sued you if you included said sounds in your work...some of those mixing desk companies would be in for a massive windfall.

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:54 pm

Reverse Engineer wrote:I'm with BT on this one...i hope the case falls on its arse. Far too much good music would have to be taken out of circulation if bullshit like this were allowed.

In the mean time its costing him a fortune (that he wont get back) and (that he could have avoided in the first place) = Stupid to me

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:55 pm

tee boy wrote:But I think it is fair to assume this, given the givens.

It's generally unfair to assume anything in a legal matter. A blog description is a far cry from evidence in court, so no givens have really been given with court documents to back it.

But with the case at hand, there is fundamentally no way a loop sample warrants damages of $10 million. Any way you slice it that is ridiculous. Even if the allegations are true, $10 million asking is just someone out to make a buck by misusing the legal system.

BERFAB · Post by **BERFAB** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:10 pm

toddyjoe wrote: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.

toddyjoe-
I'm not sure what your legal background is (though it sounds like you may be an attorney), and technically you are correct about there being remedies available for recovery of fees and costs. However, the American system (as opposed to the British system) trends toward no recovery of fees or costs to the winner of a lawsuit. There are exceptions, but this is not the American rule. There is a fairly high legal standard regarding the recovery of fees and costs in the US, and just winning the suit does not usually meet that standard. Part of the problem is the interpretation of the word "frivolous" which is actually a legal term of art in this context. Just winning does not make a suit frivolous.

Also, from what was on BT's website, it sounds like he was saying (in lay terms) that a summary judgment motion was presented and lost.

All of this, however, is speculation as there are simply not enough details available on this suit to accurately comment on whether the system has failed him.

-B

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:21 pm

If BT didn't take whatever action is typically done in the UK or wherever he is to limit his personal liability for his business, it's his own fault.

If he did incorporate or whatever they do in the UK, his exposure should not be as great as the breathless reports we're reading.

liars&ashes · Post by **liars&ashes** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:30 pm

----Just to inject some fiscal reality here, say East West paid $20,000 for the sample cd, which is a LOT for that kind of product (by way of comparison, M-Audio currently pays 1/8th that much for a cd of material, which also must be in rex format as well as Acidized .wav, not just plain old un-Acidized .wav like the BT loop samples are) then let's divide $20,000 by the number of samples on that cd. I have 436 loop samples in that folder (yes, I admit it, I bought the dang thing ha-ha) so that's $45.87 per loop sample. I say write the wanker a check for $45.87 then forget about it. If the claimant wants more than the actual value of the damages, he would have to prove that it somehow "hurt" his career and/or life, and since no one knows the guy, I can't see how it really did him anything but good, seeing as how he'll then have sold a sample loop worth as much as BT's

If he wants more than the actual value of the supposed stolen sample loop, then he ought to be going after East West, since they may very well have made more than $20,000 or whatever ungodly amount they paid BT for the samples to begin with, and thusly, a court would most likely award him more than the princely sum of $45.87

Jeff

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:37 pm

liars&ashes wrote:----Just to inject some fiscal reality here, say East West paid $20,000 for the sample cd ((eidt))((edit))If he wants more than the actual value of the supposed stolen sample loop, then he ought to be going after East West, since they may very well have made more than $20,000 or whatever ungodly amount they paid BT for the samples to begin with, and thusly, a court would most likely award him more than the princely sum of $45.87

Jeff

'IF' that's the case I could see East West also suing BT of causing harm to the East West name for providing the 'possible, yet to be proven, or has it been proven, being proven' samples

Sample Copyright / BT Lawsuit