Sample Copyright / BT Lawsuit

[tee boy]

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?

Peter,

You'll be hearing from the lawyers in the morning.

No seriously, I just find it a crazy situation. I mean, we make samples, but there is no real clear regulation on what is acceptable and what is not. Its a f**king crooked business, where those with the balls to risk violation get the rewards.

Its fascinating to me, which is why I probably talk about it alot.

TB

[tee boy]

Incidentally, I' like to think that my work speaks for itself. The SAMPLES (edit) I make are not only copyright free (and that I MEAN) but they are also of a quality that I feel is rare in this business.

Being interested in the very 'grey' legal aspect of this business does not make someone a crook. Imo, someone wanting to make soundware professionally would be insane not to get fully clued up on these issues. I mean, ignorance or disregard of these rules has lead many a small soundware dev into bankruptcy, right?

BB

[tee boy]

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.

Absolutely.

But given that we are unlikely to be given anything more than this morsel, then certain LOOSE assumptions are likely to be made. Firstly, logic would suggest that someone with BT's chops is highly unlikely to sample something that he's unsure about. The fact that his CD contains hundreds of maticulously recording and performed live loops proves that he had no need to sample anything like this off records.

While we can be sure of nothing, I do feel that there is a little room to read between the lines.

I guess what Im saying is, while you cant assume facts, you can assume that sensible and intelligent people will USUALLY behave in sensible and intelligent ways when it comes to such matters as this. People dont just steal what they already have a thousand times over, right? BT must have drumloops in the amount that would fill 50 CD's or more without blinking. It makes no sense at all that he would steal a (probably lower quality) loop that could jepordise his entire carreer and the stability of his family.

TB

[liars&ashes]

The sames I make are not only copyright free (and that I MEAN) but they are also of a quality that I feel is rare in this business.

----Not to be a dick or anything, but that was quite the freudian slip there at the beginning of that sentence
----I don't really feel any need to argue or justify any of my sampling, I just stick to the strictest rules/laws I've heard of, then add 10% for safety. If someone ever thinks I stole a sample, well, that'll just be a compliment in a way then, because I'll already know I didn't, and have enough project files to show how I made most of them anyways.
----The whole point/question is kind of moot if yer not blipping on the radio/tv/sample cd radar anyways. No one is going to bother to sue you for sampling something in some unheard track that you post on yer myspace page, so I'd say don't sweat it if that's all you do.

Jeff

[tee boy]

Jeff,

Mate if you ever read my posts to any great degree you'll find some of the most f**ked up typos ever! Probably because Im usually working while Im scooting around this forums.

Lol, its getting to be a bit of a calling card though, so hesitant to improve my posting style!

TB

[liars&ashes]

----I'm sure I make some bad spelling/grammar blunders too, I just hadda poke fun at that one really quick

Jeff

[toddyjoe]

This thread is certainly an interesting read for anyone touching a sampler or samples, whether you are a BT fan or not. No matter how you slice it, I think it is pretty clear the days of "Paul's Boutique" are gone. Somewhere along the way, "making your own beats" became less important than "making your own bucks."

[eduardo_b]

Being interested in the very 'grey' legal aspect of this business does not make someone a crook. Imo, someone wanting to make soundware professionally would be insane not to get fully clued up on these issues. I mean, ignorance or disregard of these rules has lead many a small soundware dev into bankruptcy, right?
BB

The problem is that the boundaries between what's copyrighted and what's okay to use has been moved so many times in the last half-dozen years, it's questionable that it's possible to absolutely avoid having someone lay claim to whatever they want to. Be it samples, story ideas or other creative endeavors, if there's money to be had, there are those who will seek to exploit the edges of the law.

What is particularly irksome in the samples category is how exceedingly short samples, even when highly modified, are now considered infringement by definition. The arts have always been about borrowing and reusing, but this becomes exceedingly difficult and expensive in today's culture -- either pay ridiculous licensing fees up front or pay damages and legal fees later when someone decides you have enough money to make it worth their while to sue.

[munchkin]

But what if BT did do a sneaky bit of borrowing? Considering the number of so-called 'original' sample CD's on sale I wonder how much borrowing does go on?

It's not been an uncommon practice in the music industry to 'borrow' music from other musicians as long as you have enough financial clout to prevent them from sueing you effectively.

I'm not claiming that BT is guilty but there is the possibility. So many struggling musicians are ripped off and find there is nothing they can do about it.

As with software copyright, the moral highground does not automatically grant you favour in the eyes of the courts or the public. Litigation is a PR game and the best player will win.

9/10ths of the law is about protecting property and where property is involved the truth is a purchaceable item.

[munchkin]

I used to sample but can't be bothered any more because eveyone's doing it and it's boring. Sampled sounds are everywhere and the ubiquitous beat that goes with them has become another musical cliche. It goes well with car ad's so it keeps business ticking over.

[tee boy]

Being interested in the very 'grey' legal aspect of this business does not make someone a crook. Imo, someone wanting to make soundware professionally would be insane not to get fully clued up on these issues. I mean, ignorance or disregard of these rules has lead many a small soundware dev into bankruptcy, right?
BB

The problem is that the boundaries between what's copyrighted and what's okay to use has been moved so many times in the last half-dozen years, it's questionable that it's possible to absolutely avoid having someone lay claim to whatever they want to. Be it samples, story ideas or other creative endeavors, if there's money to be had, there are those who will seek to exploit the edges of the law.

What is particularly irksome in the samples category is how exceedingly short samples, even when highly modified, are now considered infringement by definition. The arts have always been about borrowing and reusing, but this becomes exceedingly difficult and expensive in today's culture -- either pay ridiculous licensing fees up front or pay damages and legal fees later when someone decides you have enough money to make it worth their while to sue.

Precisely mate. I once used the analogy of an artist using tiny pieces of cut up magazines to make a collage. While the magazine pieces are part of copyrighted material, no one would argue that when used in this context there is no infringement.

This is how I consider the use of audio sampling. If someone wants to take a vinyl hi hat and use it way out of context in an original work, then imo there is no issue. I mean, entire genres of music have risen from the art of creative sampling. But Iv gone into this in length many times before any wont bore you with my opinions again!

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that nowadays, sampling ANYTHING puts you in violation, stiffling creative and leading the musical art further down the commercial track. A great shame imo.

TB

[fabi]

one or more of your sentences says the opposite of what you're trying to say (no one would argue there is no infringement ) , but i agree with you.

sorry 'bout yesterday. i usually tend to see the best in people, too, but yeah. peace.

[xander]

As I recall some relevant history, one of the New York/Chicago 'Familias' had a racket set up involving a few crooked attorneys and judges. They got greedy and simply sued too many of the wrong people & got big-time busted. This was in the sixties I think.

Out of this was born 'Harassment Suits', as they are sometimes called, and are usually not intended to win an actual judgement, but merely lodged to coerce pre-trial settlement money from the 'victims' -- victims who often find it more financially viable to award a smaller, more amenable figure than that originally sued for.

The mechanism is thus: A person/company who has an outstanding lawsuit against them must claim this on their financial statement. A whopping big figure, like 20 million, looks pretty bad to your banks/creditors/etc. If you need a loan or a line of credit, whatever, this negative figure on your books creates a way big impetus to settle. Lawyers know this and use such suits ruthlessly in the profoundly litigious USA with some making a tidy living off of this sort of thing almost exclusively.

In the USA, one can sue anyone for virtually any reason. Obviously, this does no good unless the target is wealthy enough. Big corps and so on often settle out of court for such claims as: "I walked by your office/house and slipped on the pavement that got wet by your lawn sprinklers. I now have a permanent and ceaseless pain in my L5. Please pay me forty million dollars at once."

Although 40 million is the official figure, the settlement may well be 20 thousand plus attorney's fees. Thousands of such suits are filed every day.

It's insane, but true in the land of 'Greedom'.

Will tort reform ever happen in the USA Scotty? When the large majority of senators and congressmen are lawyers?

[tee boy]

Yep, my posts are full of typos. But hopefully people can extract the jist, if only in the vaugest sense.

"sorry 'bout yesterday. i usually tend to see the best in people, too, but yeah. peace."

No problem Fab me ole mucker.

TB

[tee boy]

As I recall some relevant history, one of the New York/Chicago 'Familias' had a racket set up involving a few crooked attorneys and judges. They got greedy and simply sued too many of the wrong people & got big-time busted. This was in the sixties I think.

Out of this was born 'Harassment Suits', as they are sometimes called, and are usually not intended to win an actual judgement, but merely lodged to coerce pre-trial settlement money from the 'victims' -- victims who often find it more financially viable to award a smaller, more amenable figure than that originally sued for.

The mechanism is thus: A person/company who has an outstanding lawsuit against them must claim this on their financial statement. A whopping big figure, like 20 million, looks pretty bad to your banks/creditors/etc. If you need a loan or a line of credit, whatever, this negative figure on your books creates a way big impetus to settle. Lawyers know this and use such suits ruthlessly in the profoundly litigious USA with some making a tidy living off of this sort of thing almost exclusively.

In the USA, one can sue anyone for virtually any reason. Obviously, this does no good unless the target is wealthy enough. Big corps and so on often settle out of court for such claims as: "I walked by your office/house and slipped on the pavement that got wet by your lawn sprinklers. I now have a permanent and ceaseless pain in my L5. Please pay me forty million dollars at once."

Although 40 million is the official figure, the settlement may well be 20 thousand plus attorney's fees. Thousands of such suits are filed every day.

It's insane, but true in the land of 'Greedom'.

Will tort reform ever happen in the USA Scotty? When the large majority of senators and congressmen are lawyers?

Reminds me of when I got food poisoning from KFC. I started going back there everyday to get it again, so that I could sue them for a mint

Lol, not really, but the thought did cross my mind!

TB