KVR Audio

chaosWyrM · Post by **chaosWyrM** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:17 pm

soooo.....i guess kraftwerk should sue afrika bambaabtaa and every 80's and 90's freestyle artist?

silly.

xNiMiNx · Post by **xNiMiNx** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:56 pm

I say we all get together and create a new genre called Psylence, all our music can be pure silence, and then we can go and sue everyone who has silence before, in, or after their songs.

NER · Post by **NER** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:06 pm

Robin Thicke (and his producer Pharrell) shouldn't (and won't) lose a lawsuit against them. But they deserve to be ridiculed and lambasted for having the nerve to essentially rip-off a song.

How has this become respectable? If they wanted to make a song that sounds just like that Marvin Gaye song, they should have just done a cover.

sjm · Post by **sjm** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:23 pm

xNiMiNx wrote:I say we all get together and create a new genre called Psylence, all our music can be pure silence, and then we can go and sue everyone who has silence before, in, or after their songs.

You might find you're a little late to the party.

http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/88

skitchy · Post by **skitchy** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:44 pm

xNiMiNx wrote:I say we all get together and create a new genre called Psylence, all our music can be pure silence, and then we can go and sue everyone who has silence before, in, or after their songs.

Careful - you don't want to infringe on this product :
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt4r94 ... shortfilms

remedy · Post by **remedy** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:53 pm

I have to agree with the family in this case, the first thought that crossed my mind when I first heard the song was "That is so Gaye".

Ch00rD · Post by **Ch00rD** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:10 pm

rifftrax wrote:Actually, this is a perfectly logical legal maneuver. Essentially what it does is allow you to bring any potential lawsuit into the jurisdiction of where-ever the plantiff (in this case, that's a bit of a misnomer but essentially the person or group actually filing the case) resides or primarily does business in. You can only do it (however) if another party has threatened to sue or has intimates that they intent to do so at some time. It's a bit like home court advantage. I remember reading about it in a law book I had.

Yes indeed, asking a court for a declaratory judgment is perfectly legal, also as a defensive strategy. But it is also an avenue of potential abuse - for example, you can ask a notoriously slow acting court to rule on the matter. In intellectual property cases, this is known as 'Italian torpedo' or 'Belgian torpedo'.

rifftrax wrote:Apparently no lawyers here I guess.

Knowledge is power. Anyway.

Well, there's at least one. But he doesn't often feel inclined to discuss legal matters in much depth on this forum.

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:23 pm

awol9000 wrote:I don't know how Blurred lines DOESN"T infringe. The beat is exactly the same as Gayes.

Come on Music label - get the clearance before release!

Clearance on a "beat." What are you smoking? If copying a beat was enough there would only be one house record. If Thicke didn't sample Gaye, then the bright line rule doesn't apply. The songs are quite different. Oh, and George Harrison was robbed, there I've said it.

bob bobwood · Post by **bob bobwood** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:49 pm

ghettosynth wrote:Oh, and George Harrison was robbed, there I've said it.

No George Harrison was stabbed, it was Yaeger Shoes that was robbed.

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:09 pm

Ch00rD wrote:Yes indeed, asking a court for a declaratory judgment is perfectly legal, also as a defensive strategy.

Of course it's legal - the question is what SENSE does it make FOR THE ARTIST (not for the lawyer, every lawyer is pleased about as many paying clients as possible!)

Concretely, how much money can the artist save with this "preemptive strike" compared to being sued by the Gaye family (given that the Gaye family would have sued him in any case)?

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:27 pm

Tricky-Loops wrote:
Ch00rD wrote:Yes indeed, asking a court for a declaratory judgment is perfectly legal, also as a defensive strategy.
Of course it's legal - the question is what SENSE does it make FOR THE ARTIST (not for the lawyer, every lawyer is pleased about as many paying clients as possible!)

Concretely, how much money can the artist save with this "preemptive strike" compared to being sued by the Gaye family (given that the Gaye family would have sued him in any case)?

publicity.
id never heard of him till now

Ch00rD · Post by **Ch00rD** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:17 pm

Tricky-Loops wrote:
Ch00rD wrote:Yes indeed, asking a court for a declaratory judgment is perfectly legal, also as a defensive strategy.
Of course it's legal - the question is what SENSE does it make FOR THE ARTIST (not for the lawyer, every lawyer is pleased about as many paying clients as possible!)

Concretely, how much money can the artist save with this "preemptive strike" compared to being sued by the Gaye family (given that the Gaye family would have sued him in any case)?

It's not always easy to put a price tag on that. As vurt already noted, in showbiz, of course, there are many cases where publicity is worth quite a lot, no matter whether its good or bad publicity. (Fwiw, I had only heard of Robin Thicke because I helped my 6 year old niece to make a playlist recently.

)

But still, if you think they will sue you anyway, and are already spending money on lawyer's fees for representing you in the pre-trial stage (back and forth bluffing, threats, whatever), you cut down on lawyer's fees by cutting down the time spent waiting for them to finally sue you.

And, let's say that you think there's a very significant chance you could lose and have to pay some sum of money as a result, then there's that 'Italian / Belgian torpedo': if you take the initiative, you can e.g. strategically choose a notoriously slow jurisdiction, which in effect can delay a judgement against you by at least a couple of years, and that may well allow you to survive (financially or otherwise), whereas getting more or less the same judgement next week already may not.

dalor · Post by **dalor** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:36 pm

Only possible in America, the land where lawyers run free in the wild and live in harmony with super rich unicorns.

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:43 pm

dalor wrote:Only possible in America, the land where lawyers run free in the wild and live in harmony with super rich unicorns.

Lawyers in Germany aren't poor, either. They have the biggest cars and houses...

But if I would sue someone, I'd do it in the USA - such big sums of money for compensation you won't get in Germany.

BMoore · Post by **BMoore** » Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:11 pm

ghettosynth wrote:
awol9000 wrote:I don't know how Blurred lines DOESN"T infringe. The beat is exactly the same as Gayes.

Come on Music label - get the clearance before release!
Clearance on a "beat." What are you smoking? If copying a beat was enough there would only be one house record. If Thicke didn't sample Gaye, then the bright line rule doesn't apply. The songs are quite different. Oh, and George Harrison was robbed, there I've said it.

A house beat is a genre, not a blatant copy of a song.

Try also Robin Thicke's Million Bollar Baby, and compare it to Marvin Gaye's Trouble Man.

Just "inspired"?

Honestly...You Can't Make This Up!!!