The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
The Ultimate Intellectual and Physical Property Ripoff Electric Guitar Amplification
Old 1 week ago
  #91
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Self smugification.
But that's a given.
Old 1 week ago
  #92
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
But that's a given.
OK, then how's about:

Tis better to have sarcasm'd and have no one notice, than never to have sarcasm'd at all.
Old 1 week ago
  #93
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
OK, then how's about:

Tis better to have sarcasm'd and have no one notice, than never to have sarcasm'd at all.
If no one notices, I think you'd have to call that sarcasturbation. Pretty sure there's a Commandment or something about that.
Old 1 week ago
  #94
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Whaaaa?

You're easily the most professorial among this motley lot here at GS.

Charlie Parker and Thelonious Monk, two of the most brilliant minds in jazz history, never graduated from high school...
I was very fortunate that [after a mostly quite dispiriting passage through a potato-headed suburban high school with just a couple of good teachers] I went to a state college which then had very low student fees and I was even more fortunate still to have been recruited into an interdisciplinary studies program that took a broad, interconnected view of civilization. We studied everything from evolution of ancient religions, origins of systems of laws and political systems, to biology and modern physics. It was an experimental program that took the place of one's general education requirements. There were some very innovative, creative thinkers. (The program was put together in part by one of the American pioneers of comparative literature study, August Coppola, the late brother of Francis Ford. He was a very, very smart, very cool guy.) I finished that program but never matriculated into a major. (As a kid, I'd been deeply impressed by the fact that American writing giant John Steinbeck took a similar approach: taking only the classes he was interested in or thought he should be on top of over a five year period.)

So any education that rubbed off on me isn't my fault.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
OK, then how's about:

Tis better to have sarcasm'd and have no one notice, than never to have sarcasm'd at all.
Old 1 week ago
  #95
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
sarcasturbation
Hey that's a Louis C.K. speciality!
Old 1 week ago
  #96
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
August Coppola
Yeah...just heard very recently an NPR interview, where FFC says his brother was the brilliant one of the family and his inspiration.

Which, must say was one talented bunch, the whole extended family - their dad Carmine Coppola, was a great flautist and played under Arturo Toscanini with the NBC Symphony Orchestra!
Old 1 week ago
  #97
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Hey that's a Louis C.K. speciality!
Not according to my definition. Someone noticed.
Old 1 week ago
  #98
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Yeah...just heard very recently an NPR interview, where FFC says his brother was the brilliant one of the family and his inspiration.

Which, must say was one talented bunch, the whole extended family - their dad Carmine Coppola, was a great flautist and played under Arturo Toscanini with the NBC Symphony Orchestra!
Yeah, heck of a family. August was a very cool, very nice, and, of course, very smart guy.

And I'm probably one of the few people in this forum who can say that Nick Cage has sat in his lap. He would come to the office once in awhile with his dad and brother. One day a couple of coeds thought it would be amusing to see how a couple of 18 year old hippie students handled a five year old in their laps. I was one of the 'lucky' test subjects. (Little Nicky seemed as discomfited by the whole thing as me and the other male student who somehow ended up with the 5 year old tyke pushed into his lap.)

I'd forgotten all about that until sometime in the '90s when one of the coeds (who's now married to the guitarist in a couple of my old bands) reminded me that Nick Cage once sat in my lap. Who else here can say that? (Or would want to, I find myself thinking. )
Old 1 week ago
  #99
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121 View Post
and you thought the vanilla ice thing was bad?! you want disgustingly blatant ripoffs just turn on any "reality", home improvement, docu, scripted tv show of late and listen away. what you'll find is a rampant pathetic display of theft. just the other evening I was chilling and catching up on a few shows (a rare treat for myself).. one after the other what I heard were horrible renditions of, just off of the top of my head, nirvana, hendrix, men at work, sabbath, deadmau5, lennon, daft punk, ... and these are hit songs on VERY popular shows, on the most popular networks. these days clearly nobody is actively monitoring or chasing up this particular area of thieves either. the entire industry is being robbed. but apparently the powers that be are conveniently turning a blind eye or simply dont give a **** about such trivial matters anymore. the lowest of low somehow keeps getting lowered and yet for some select few the profits continue to skyrocket. <-insert gun to head emo here)
Well, there are two factors involved here.

1. Synch licensing for TV shows can be very expensive. Plus even if you get a license it may be the wrong license and then BAM you have yourself a lawsuit.

2. Most reality shows are made on the cheap.

It is not illegal to make a horrible rendition of a song. As long as the melody is slightly changed you are covered from a legal standpoint. In fact, there are many companies that do this. You send in a request and they'll make a song that sounds similar to mainstream music if they don't already have it in their library. It's a lot cheaper than using the real song.

If record companies want to get a slice of the action then they need to lower their licensing costs. But they won't...wish is fine. They prefer that Hollywood budget red carpet cheese.
Old 1 week ago
  #100
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
As long as the melody is slightly changed you are covered from a legal standpoint. In fact, there are many companies that do this. You send in a request and they'll make a song that sounds similar to mainstream music if they don't already have it in their library. It's a lot cheaper than using the real song.
Well, you have to do more than "slightly change the melody" - you have to slightly change a lot of things, but what you can keep is the feel and vibe of the original - ie all the things the audience relates to.

Which, let's face it is what a lot of bands in a "scene" do - you get the trailblazers, and the rest of the pack copying their style. Which is also not illegal - it's just a little less blatant (and is that better or worse?!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
If record companies want to get a slice of the action then they need to lower their licensing costs. But they won't...wish is fine. They prefer that Hollywood budget red carpet cheese.
Actually, this kind of has happened in the sampling arena. Once upon a time, record labels set obscene prices to use part of a master recording. So a bunch of industrious types set up recreation services - you still had to clear the publishing use of the song, but you no longer had to involve the master recording - it was an all-new near-perfect "cover" of that section of the song.

After a few years of that, record labels realised that they were missing out totally - if you could get a close-enough version remade for 5k, why would you pay 50k for the "real thing"? consequently prices dropped.

The example I always use is Panjabi MC - "Mundian To Bach Ke"



Which "samples" Busta Rhymes' "Fire it Up"



Which itself samples the Knight Rider theme.

Except it isn't a sample at all; it's a totally new recreation of the BR song. So no master recording to clear; only the publishing.
Old 1 week ago
  #101
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Actually, this kind of has happened in the sampling arena. Once upon a time, record labels set obscene prices to use part of a master recording. So a bunch of industrious types set up recreation services - you still had to clear the publishing use of the song, but you no longer had to involve the master recording - it was an all-new near-perfect "cover" of that section of the song.

After a few years of that, record labels realised that they were missing out totally - if you could get a close-enough version remade for 5k, why would you pay 50k for the "real thing"? consequently prices dropped.

The example I always use is Panjabi MC - "Mundian To Bach Ke"



Which "samples" Busta Rhymes' "Fire it Up"



Which itself samples the Knight Rider theme.

Except it isn't a sample at all; it's a totally new recreation of the BR song. So no master recording to clear; only the publishing.
The most famous, and probably the earliest example of that was the original Rapper's Delight from Sugar Hill Records, where the studio/record label owner hired a 17 year old kid to lay down Bernard Edward's bassline from Good Times, as well as hiring other musicians to recreate the track.

This was way before all the sample clearance litigation was to occur, and Nile Rodgers and B Edwards settled with them very early on to get writing credits.
Old 1 week ago
  #102
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
I'm going to restate one of my points because I am refining it for myself.

While I think copyright is inherently exploitative to artists, even if you support it, you have to acknowledge that a deal is a deal. The deal of copyright, historically, involves a quid pro quo where the creator gets something - protection for the exclusive marketing of their work - for an amount of time in exchange for loss of their intellectual property rights later.

That protection is supposed to be in the form of laws (which do exist) that are enforced - but that enforcement is not happening. Copyright law is Federal, and violations take place on a massive scale every day, but enforcement is rare in the realm of music and movies.

Clearly, we are not getting what we are supposed to be getting out of this arrangement. That breaks the deal. We shouldn't have to give up the work to public domain without the other side of the bargain being met.
But that would reinforce my point. Copyright claims are fee-bearing, and carry statutory damages that may be many times larger than the actual loss sustained. They are a very nice way to monetize work that is no longer making much money itself. They should be incredibly attractive to rights holders if the use of truly copyrightable elements in other works is nearly as clear cut or common as you indicate.

I don't consider myself anti-artist or anti-copyright. Hell, I still occasionally get a tiny royalty check form things I did in the 80s/90s when some college station finds an old CD or disk in the archives. But the idea that someone who, for example, writes a song using a 2-5-1 progression over a samba beat should have a copyright in anything other than the lyrics and top-line melody, and can copyright the "feel" is, IMO, a completely unwarranted extension of the copyright clause. Can no-one ever write a book again with a whale as an allegory or a murderous Scots king?

As to the idea that copyright should extend indefinitely, that is one of a number of competing views, all of them reasonable in one way or another , but it must be measured against the history that copyright never existed at common law (it began under the English law as a censorship device) and was constitutionally created in the US as a limited timeright with the intent of encouraging new production of artistic works.

As I have said before, I simply don't believe that an artist is more likely to create if the copyright terms is 200 or 500 years instead of 90. While a non-expiring copyright term is a concept that can be argued for, it is neither consistent with the wording of the current law, nor with its stated intent.
Old 1 week ago
  #103
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 121 View Post
right, so the next time I am called for jury duty I'll be sure to inform the judge that I must be excused due to you and crew over at gearslutz having decided personal opinions legally invalid.

in fact, the exact opposite is true. like I said, and the law clearly says, with substantial (or striking) similarity "a work can be found to infringe copyright even if the wording of text has been changed or visual or audible elements are altered and/or that the degree of similarity between the two works is so striking or substantial that the similarity could only have been caused by copying, and not, for example, through coincidence, independent creation, or a prior common source". it is a question of fact determined by a jury.

@Blue1 "You can't protect-by-copyright the ideas behind it, the chord patterns, the vibe, the feel. " - in fact, yes, based on previous court findings, clearly you can.
I defer to your evidently expansive knowledge of both the qualifications for jurors and copyright litigation.

Why are you posting here instead of making percentage deals with the rights owners to pursue statutory damages and fees on these obvious and blatant rip offs? Even if you are not an attorney yourself, these cases are fee-bearing so you can hire one and pay him/her from the fees, leaving a nice big chunk of damages to split with the copyright owners

There is clearly a fortune to be made by an individual like yourself because the IP lawyers who clear this music for use on TV programs don't understand the developments in the law you have mentioned.
Old 1 week ago
  #104
^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
I defer to your evidently expansive knowledge of both the qualifications for jurors and copyright litigation.

Why are you posting here instead of making percentage deals with the rights owners to pursue statutory damages and fees on these obvious and blatant rip offs? Even if you are not an attorney yourself, these cases are fee-bearing so you can hire one and pay him/her from the fees, leaving a nice big chunk of damages to split with the copyright owners

There is clearly a fortune to be made by an individual like yourself because the IP lawyers who clear this music for use on TV programs don't understand the developments in the law you have mentioned.


Hall-of-fame answer.
Old 1 week ago
  #105
121
Gear Nut
 

more like "hall-of-Lame".

again, I am not talking about getting permission and license for the use of a song or sample. substantial (or striking) similarity. selective read, twist things, ridicule others, ego stroke and high five each other as much as you like, it doesn't change a thing. clearly you are not a practicing attorney, otherwise you would know the law and the facts and you would not be spending your days on a gear forum spreading misinformation, personally attacking and unethically encouraging people to chase ambulances. oh wait...


law and facts. substantial (or striking) similarity "a work can be found to infringe copyright even if the wording of text has been changed or visual or audible elements are altered and/or that the degree of similarity between the two works is so striking or substantial that the similarity could only have been caused by copying, and not, for example, through coincidence, independent creation, or a prior common source". it is a question of fact determined by a jury.

as robert plant put it "you only get caught when you're successful."
Old 1 week ago
  #106
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 121 View Post
more like "hall-of-Lame".
Well, if you're going there, I nominate:



Old 6 days ago
  #107
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 121 View Post
more like "hall-of-Lame".

again, I am not talking about getting permission and license for the use of a song or sample. substantial (or striking) similarity. selective read, twist things, ridicule others, ego stroke and high five each other as much as you like, it doesn't change a thing. clearly you are not a practicing attorney, otherwise you would know the law and the facts and you would not be spending your days on a gear forum spreading misinformation, personally attacking and unethically encouraging people to chase ambulances. oh wait...


law and facts. substantial (or striking) similarity "a work can be found to infringe copyright even if the wording of text has been changed or visual or audible elements are altered and/or that the degree of similarity between the two works is so striking or substantial that the similarity could only have been caused by copying, and not, for example, through coincidence, independent creation, or a prior common source". it is a question of fact determined by a jury.

as robert plant put it "you only get caught when you're successful."

[1] I am a practicing attorney

[2] I had formal training in copyright law at UC Berkeley under Professor Pamela Stevenson. (If you don't know who she is, you probably know nothing about IP law)

[3] Prior to my current position, which is with a state court, I served as a law clerk in a federal court handling copyright issues.

By you demeanor and style of argument, I would assume that you are not an attorney of any sort, let alone one practicing in the IP field. Am I correct?

Last edited by norfolk martin; 6 days ago at 09:40 PM.. Reason: Should read Pam Samulseon not Pam Stevenson
Old 6 days ago
  #108
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Well, if you're going there, I nominate:



We might need to move up to platinum lamé for some elements of this thread... perhaps without the accent mark.


I gotta tell you, I for one am getting pretty sick of this whole post-truth business. Without question, certainty is a commodity in limited supply in this complex and chaotically intertwined world of ours -- but all the more reason to cherish what is knowable and to honor the disciplined and dedicated efforts to tease out the truth from uncertainty and ignorance.
Old 6 days ago
  #109
Old 6 days ago
  #110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synth Guru View Post


Coincidence
Hmmm.... how's his "Heart Break Hotel"?
Old 6 days ago
  #111
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Hmmm.... how's his "Heart Break Hotel"?
His tone was never quite the same after they replaced the bottom half of his right leg with a cheap replica from D'Qar...

Alistair
Old 6 days ago
  #112
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synth Guru View Post


Coincidence
Doppelganger (Carter Page)

Old 6 days ago
  #113
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
His tone was never quite the same after they replaced the bottom half of his right leg with a cheap replica from D'Qar...

Alistair
But.....But.... The website said "OEM part, factory color. "
Old 6 days ago
  #114
121
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
[1] I am a practicing attorney

[2] I had formal training in copyright law at UC Berkeley under Professor Pamela Stevenson. (If you don't know who she is, you probably know nothing about IP law)

[3] Prior to my current position, which is with a state court, I served as a law clerk in a federal court handling copyright issues.

By you demeanor and style of argument, I would assume that you are not an attorney of any sort, let alone one practicing in the IP field. Am I correct?
just wow... you certainly are a real treat heh!

once again, none of what you've said here regarding copyright law actually matters in the least. what does actually matter is the actual law and the actual facts. both of which you continue to completely ignore. talk about "demeanor and style of argument".

you're right about one and only one thing, I have never heard of "pamela stevenson". perhaps that would be because a. who she is is entirely irrelevant. and b. no such person exists at berkeley.

seriously, you come on a gear forum posting your <supposed> resume, ridiculing others, encouraging ambulance chasing, spreading misinformation making all sorts of bold claims about copyright law, ignoring the actual written law and historical facts, when you cant even spell your high and mighty professors name correctly?!?

in closing, I encourage everyone questioning copyright law and the facts relating to this issue to contact my attorney mitchell tenzer at ziffren brittenham. a real life attorney, with a real life proven track record in the music industry.

okay well I think that is just about enough laughs for one thread. thank you and the bandwagon for all of the entertainment you've provided the rest of us with! absolutely hilarious.
Old 6 days ago
  #115
Lives for gear
 

Well, it looks like this one is going to run and run.

Paging Dr Dunning and Dr Kruger. Dr Dunning and Dr Kruger to the Moan Zone please.
Old 6 days ago
  #116
Old 6 days ago
  #117
Gear Head
 
jj88's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
after some googling, realized he had typed Stevenson in his comment when he meant Samuelson.
Oops! Now that is funny!

FWIW the Ziffren Brittenham firm in LA is major league.

Keep going guys!
Old 6 days ago
  #118
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
Well, it looks like this one is going to run and run.

Paging Dr Dunning and Dr Kruger. Dr Dunning and Dr Kruger to the Moan Zone please.
Illusory superiority aside, what's more relevant is the relevance of the issue at hand.

That said, it's foolhardy to think any sort of consensus or conclusion can be reached on a single thread here on GS.

Also, the issue in of itself is very very complex, that goes all the way back to the The Statute of Anne, also known as the Copyright Act of 1710, which is the basis of most modern copyright laws.

Suffice it to say, it's been a back and forth since, balancing the needs of the creators of the original thought and the needs of society at large not to be denied progress for the greater good, for the sake of monopolistic or unfair ownership/licensing.

It has to be said, in general, in these rapacious, mercantile driven times, the greater good for mankind to benefit from discovery has pretty much been thrown by the wayside, much to the detriment of everyone, except for the greedy corporate interests that it generally serves...
Old 6 days ago
  #119
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

.
.
Old 6 days ago
  #120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj88 View Post
Oops! Now that is funny!

FWIW the Ziffren Brittenham firm in LA is major league.

Keep going guys!
Thing is, our presumably young friend doesn't appear to know what he's talking about. If, indeed, he has a reason to need, and has, a good lawyer, that's probably a good thing.
Mentioned Products
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump