Quantcast
end of the mixtape? lord finesse 10 mil lawsuit against mac miller - Page 4 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
end of the mixtape? lord finesse 10 mil lawsuit against mac miller
Old 31st January 2013 | Show parent
  #91
Lives for gear
 
DesmondA's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayl ➡️
He's puny, weak looking and not very good looking... you know, awkward and non threatening ..... like most of white America, how could he not find some form of success? He's not without skills though. While much of his lyrical content isn't really my thing, he's put in the work, carved his own awkward white rapper niche and is seeing a fair bit of rewards.

Mixtapes as we know them can die. **** em. Too much trash but realistically that isn't going to change, it's like sampling. Most of the time it isn't worth pursuing anything against the offender even if they make enough noise to be noticed. Maybe a take down notice.
Anyway, the terms of the settlement are withheld which is common but I hope Lord got somewhere. To say that Mac didn't in some form profit from that track is ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmj ➡️
yeah, not very good looking is an understatement. he's totally not cute at all.

WTF?????
Old 31st January 2013 | Show parent
  #92
Lives for gear
 
Dayl's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesmondA ➡️
WTF?????
Just an observation, It's cool if you think he handsome and kinda hot.
Old 31st January 2013
  #93
Lives for gear
 
Dayl's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
LOL! on that Donald Trump ****!
Donald Trump Seeking Compensation From Mac Miller | Fist In The Air
Old 31st January 2013 | Show parent
  #94
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiborg ➡️
I don't think you're understanding the framework here. More than likely, the original composers didn't give permission for their work to be sampled- they were paid as co-writers on the resulting "new work". Read Chris Carter's post again. It's not a matter of opinion here... You're not clear on the facts, and are basing your opinion on the way that thing's aren't.
Every case is different in court, and its up to a judge and the parties involved to decide the outcome. Neither you, I, nor anyone here knows what a judge would decide in this case, so yes it IS all opinion by all of us here. You don't know anymore than anyone here how this case would've played out in court. And the fact that it didn't even make it to court doen't really support your argument, tbh.

But if what you're saying is true, that Peterson was paid as a co-writer, if I'm not mistaken don't most sampled artists who are paid as co-writers also get co-writing credits too on the "new work"?

For example, "Today was a Good Day" by Ice Cube. I believe Ron Isley is a co-writer of that song, even though he didn't actually work on the new version. If someone decided to use that beat without Ice Cubes permission, do you think he would just go and file a lawsuit without meeting with Isley first to discuss if he wanted to sue over it?

So if Peterson were a co-writer of this new Finesse version of the song, then I'm pretty sure he would need to be in compliance with Finesses' lawsuit. Because what if Peterson showed up at the court and said, I'm part writer of that song, and I give Miller permission to use it. I don't want to sue him. I don't want my name in this lawsuit. I side with the defendant'?

Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I assume Finesse didn't get Oscar Peterson's permission before he decided to file this suit. And if Peterson is in fact a co-writer, then that would result in much more complicated issue, which it sounds like was maybe part of the reason it didn't go to court.

Like I've been saying, its not always about money. Some ppl just don't want to be involved in lawsuits, and don't want the hassle. And if Peterson happened to be a co-writer of the song, he would have a say someone trying to force him to be a plantiff in a potentially long drawn out lawsuit. Maybe he just wouldn't have felt this Miler kid deserved to be sued and have his life/career messed up. Some ppl are old and don't care about or need money and have morals. And even if he were somehow called to court and took the side of the defendant, it certainly wouldn't bode well for Finesses case. All I'm saying is its not as cut/dry as a hip hop producer can just sample a song, then go around suing ppl for it, with no regard to the original artist sampled. Every case is different and if the original artist sampled was a co-writer in the new version, he could be involved in some capacity in the lawsuit.
Old 1st February 2013
  #95
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Finess would not need to consult with Peterson in order to file a suit against Mac Miller. Let’s call Peterson “A”, the first writer. “B” is Finess, the second writer. “C” is Miller, the third writer. Frequently if person C infringes on person B, person B will consult with person A and may file a suit jointly. But it doesn’t have to work like that. Person A might not want to file a suit, or might settle out of court, or file a separate suit altogether. Although, if person B’s suit happens first and they win, then person C would be a moron to let person A’s case actually go to court because there’s already precedent on the specific infringement. Remember, person B’s copyright includes person A’s copyright, but the reverse is not true. As such, person B can sue person C for infringement without saying anything to person A even though person A’s copyright has been infringed upon by person C. In short, in this scenario, person C has infringed on two separate copyrights, that of person B (which includes person A’s copyright as an element) AND that of person A. If I understand your argument correctly, it would be a fallacy to propose that person A (Peterson) can give permission to person C (Miller) to use person B’s material. Because as I said, copyright B includes a portion of A, but A does not include a portion of B. This actually came up maybe six or seven years ago. In that situation C got permission from A to use B. B got pissed off and sued and lost. The reason was because when B cleared the sample, it was such a huge lift that they got no publishing. So the copyright was still entirely owned by A. So there was a copyright A, and then no copyright B (because they gave up ALL publishing in order to clear the sample), and then copyright C which includes the portion A and the new portion B, but person B cannot claim a copyright to portion B (it’s claimed by A).

Make sense?

Last edited by chris carter; 1st February 2013 at 03:32 AM.. Reason: swapped an A and B by accident.
Old 1st February 2013
  #96
Lives for gear
 
archfrenemy's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
This is why you train your dog to press the "burn CD" button, "steal" your mix and bring it to a friend. Dogs lack culpability.
Old 1st February 2013 | Show parent
  #97
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris carter ➡️
Finess would not need to consult with Peterson in order to file a suit against Mac Miller. Let’s call Peterson “A”, the first writer. “B” is Finess, the second writer. “C” is Miller, the third writer. Frequently if person C infringes on person B, person B will consult with person A and may file a suit jointly. But it doesn’t have to work like that. Person A might not want to file a suit, or might settle out of court, or file a separate suit altogether. Although, if person B’s suit happens first and they win, then person C would be a moron to let person B’s case actually go to court because there’s already precedent on the specific infringement. Remember, person B’s copyright includes person A’s copyright, but the reverse is not true. As such, person B can sue person C for infringement without saying anything to person A even though person A’s copyright has been infringed upon by person C. In short, in this scenario, person C has infringed on two separate copyrights, that of person B (which includes person A’s copyright as an element) AND that of person A. If I understand your argument correctly, it would be a fallacy to propose that person A (Peterson) can give permission to person C (Miller) to use person B’s material. Because as I said, copyright B includes a portion of A, but A does not include a portion of B. This actually came up maybe six or seven years ago. In that situation C got permission from A to use B. B got pissed off and sued and lost. The reason was because when B cleared the sample, it was such a huge lift that they got no publishing. So the copyright was still entirely owned by A. So there was a copyright A, and then no copyright B (because they gave up ALL publishing in order to clear the sample), and then copyright C which includes the portion A and the new portion B, but person B cannot claim a copyright to portion B (it’s claimed by A).

Make sense?
You da man. Very well worded explanation of how things work.
Old 1st February 2013
  #98
Lives for gear
 
steveswisher's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
The only reason it was settled out of court is because Miller was wrong, knew he was wrong, and wanted to get it over with quickly. They came to a monetary agreement that satisfied Finesse.
Old 1st February 2013 | Show parent
  #99
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
so miller could've worked around this by recreating finesse's beat?

i mean could finesse have done something if miller had a beat made with the same sample and drumloop finesse used, maybe chop it up a little different mix etc but basically the same?
Old 1st February 2013 | Show parent
  #100
Lives for gear
 
Danny Downer's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by beat you down ➡️
so miller could've worked around this by recreating finesse's beat?

i mean could finesse have done something if miller had a beat made with the same sample and drumloop finesse used, maybe chop it up a little different mix etc but basically the same?
If he cleared those samples and arranged it differently sure thing
Old 1st February 2013 | Show parent
  #101
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Downer ➡️
If he cleared those samples and arranged it differently sure thing
i mean as a nobody... not clearing any samples... just couple thousand views etc
asuming peterson not going after you...

the beat clearly resembles what finesse did but it's a total remake not his instrumental. maybe you added or left out some stuff but the sample and overall feel is the same.

could finesse go after you for that?
Old 1st February 2013
  #102
Lives for gear
 
steveswisher's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by beat you down ➡️
i mean as a nobody... not clearing any samples... just couple thousand views etc
asuming peterson not going after you...

the beat clearly resembles what finesse did but it's a total remake not his instrumental. maybe you added or left out some stuff but the sample and overall feel is the same.

could finesse go after you for that?
As long as none of Finesse' work was included you'd be fine. Peterson would still be able to make a claim if he wanted but Finesse would have had nothing to do with the beat at that point so he would have no claim.
📝 Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace 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…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump