Timbaland stiehlt Chiptune (Sidsong) Einstellungen

[Derrick S]

sampling nimmt eine neue Form an, der gute hat hier gleich das komplette thema in den neuen Nelly Furtado Song eingebaut

Timbaland Sued for Alleged SID Song Stealing
Here at CM we've keenly followed the case of the alleged similarities between Janne Suni's SID-chip slammer (and winner of the Assembly 2000 Old Skool Music Competition) "Acidjazzed Evening" and the Timbaland-produced "Do It" by Nelly Furtado, which was released in 2006.


In a recent development, Timbaland and Furtado are being sued by the label Kernel Records Oy, who acquired the rights to "Acidjazzed Evening" in 2007. For more details, see the full story on Music Radar.

http://www.computermusic.co.uk/page/comput...for_alleged_mod

Der Beitrag wurde von Derrick S bearbeitet: 30 Jun 2009, 10:23

[Loge]

und? wird dem timbaland was passieren? also so richtige konsequenzen?

nein, natürlich nicht.

aber umgekehrt wird man wegen uploads von der industrie auf fast 2 mille verklagt womit eine existenz zerstört wird.
(thread)


pffff.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

[Derrick S]

Timbaland denied he had "stolen" extracts from 2000 computer demo Acidjazzed Evening by Finnish artist Janne Suni, or the remixed 2002 version by Norwegian musician Glenn Rune Gallefoss.
Gallefoss subsequently filed legal action against Furtado's Universal Finland record company bosses, but the case was dismissed by Helsinki District Court. It is currently being dealt with by an appeals court.
And the case against Furtado and Timbaland refuses to go away - officials at Finland's Kernel Records, the company which owns the original sound recordings of Acidjazzed Evening, have now filed suit in Florida.
Papers filed at the Miami-Dade District Court last Thursday (11Jun09) suggest Timbaland used a computer programme to "knowingly and willfully steal" Gallefoss' tune as he created the beat for Do It, according to Allhiphop.com.
And the record company bosses are planning to use Timbaland's own words against him by quoting him in their lawsuit.
They claim the producer gave two radio interviews after the first accusations of plagiarism arose, and spoke about the allegations. He also attempted to explain his take on sampling a song and stealing it.

He reportedly told one interviewer, "Sample and stole is two different things. Stole is like I walked in your house, watched you make it... went to my house and told Nelly, 'Hey, I got a great song for you.' Sample is like you heard it somewhere, and you just sampled. Maybe you didn't know who it was by because it don't have the credits listed (sic)."


The fighting Fins are claiming copyright infringement and request an injunction prohibiting the further release, reprinting, performance and sale of the song Do It.

Quelle: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/artic...er-song_1106759

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) also wie ich eingangs schon erwähnte die neue art des samplings

Der Beitrag wurde von Derrick S bearbeitet: 30 Jun 2009, 10:59

[eigengrau]

Siehe auch den Thread von 2007: http://www.technoboard.at/index.php?showtopic=33367

(nicht sicher ob bei einem so alten Thread ein Merge Sinn macht).

[Derrick S]

jo, plz verschmelzen

Der Beitrag wurde von Derrick S bearbeitet: 30 Jun 2009, 12:07

[Derrick S]

hierzu auch intressant:

The Legalities of Sampling
(IMG:http://www.remixin.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/profile-thumb-horizontal/pictures/picture-163.jpg) Posted Sat, 03/21/2009 - 22:08 by efcarrasco

Thought about sampling the latest Dedmau5 single? Think again.

Thousands of songs using samples from previous works are abound on the internet, with remixes of Top 40 hits making the rounds as fast a new single hitting iTunes. But sampling could get you in hot water—think legal action by record companies, including cease and desist orders, removal of content from host sites and hefty lawsuits.

What stands in the way of many who sample and remix music are two important measures designed to staunch this flow. First, copyright law in the United States gives exclusive rights to the owner for the performance or use of their works, even though the "fair use" clause gives ambiguous use of works for others without permission. Some record companies such as Warner have used those exclusive rights to crack down on those who use their works without permission, even going as far as suing individuals for infringement.
Second, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act signed in 1996 criminalizes the production and distribution of technology, devices or services that would flout measures to protect copyrighted works. This means that an amateur musician basing his work from a previous effort without permission could be seen—in the eyes of the law—as a criminal.

While most that sample or use music from previous works without written consent are amateurs, some professional artists bank on using a few, if not hundreds, of unlicensed samples as part of their musical work. Gregg Gillis, known professionally as Girl Talk, takes sampling to a whole other level by mashing-up multiple artists in his songs ranging from Kanye West to The Carpenters using Audio-Mulch. His latest album, Feed the Animals, takes more than 200 samples of other artists' music—all without permission.
In a recent interview with Aural States, Girl Talk argues that his sampling isn't criminal, but rather appreciative of the works, which hasn't seen common ground with record companies and iTunes, which has not sold his because of infringement issues.

"I can't think of anything less superficial," he said. "I'm not trying to be subversive with my work. I am celebrating the Top 40 soundtrack to many peoples' lives."

While Girl Talk claims to not be subversive through its liberal use of sampling, other artists have used sampling as a way to criticize the definition of intellectual property. In the 1980s, Canadian John Oswald used "Plunderphonics" as a way to "borrow" popular music and redefine its sound, which has fueled the ire of many record labels and artists, including Michael Jackson, to the point where he was forced to take his music out of commission. He argues that all popular music "essentially, if not legally, exists in the public domain" despite threats of lawsuits.

"The property metaphor used to illustrate an artist's rights is difficult to pursue through publication and mass dissemination," Oswald writes in his essay titled "Plunderphonics, or Audio Piracy as a Compositional Prerogrative."

As the internet progresses the proliferation of new ways to digitize creativity, some have argued for a loosening of the copyright laws, which they perceive as outdated. One of the major advocates of copyright reform is Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford University and the founder of Creative Commons, a non-profit organization dedicated to expanding creative works such as music for others to legally remix and share. Licenses made by Creative Commons give creators which rights they reserve and which rights they waive for others to create or share.

In his latest book, Remix, Lessig argues that while copyright has regulated culture and creativity in America, he doesn't believe that copyright should be abolished. Instead, copyright needs to fit with the times.

"Copyright law must be changed," he stresses in his book. "Neither RW (Read-Write) nor RO (Read-Only) culture can truly flourish without copyright. But the form and reach of copyright law today are radically out of date."

As Lessig and other have called for a change in the copyright law, artists can find a place where their legal works could be distributed without penalty. A haven for remixers and samplers in this copyright-controlled culture could be found on both Remixin and in ccMixter. Both use Creative Commons to promote and share the remix culture to the public. Remixin uses Creative Commons licensing for artists to remix or sample others' works in a simplified manner.

http://www.remixin.com/agrenade/legalities-sampling.html

Der Beitrag wurde von Derrick S bearbeitet: 30 Jun 2009, 13:15