Line Out Comments
Why Mac Miller Owes Lord Finesse 10 Million Dollars
1
Yo, Mac Miller doesn't owe Lord Finesse $10 million, they settled a $10 million lawsuit for an undisclosed amount. When you file a lawsuit you can claim damages as high as you want, which is where that $10 million figure originated. It has not basis in reality, and in all likelihood they settled the law suit for an amount that is much less than that. SMH.
2
Also, your legal analysis is incorrect. There are two copyrights in every song, one for the composition of the music, and another for the actual recording. Whenever you sample another recording thats a potential violation, and you must get clearance. Also, court's have decided that sampling any piece of an actual recording belonging to another is a potential copyright violation, no matter how small the snippet. Do the research and you'll see this.
3
No one really knows though since the details of the settlement aren't available to the public. They could have settled for 10 Million. It probably would have cost Mac more than that to go through the whole trial and he probably felt that it wasn't worth it. There is that possibility of factoring in the projected costs of something (like a trial) to figure out if it's worth more to go through it or just pay out the dough and end it all immediately. It probably would've cost him more than 10 million to go to trial.
5
@1,2,You just said the same thing I did. To be fair you're correct about two parts of a sound recording, but either way Miller is in the wrong and that does nothing but complicate the point unnecessarily.
Also, $10 million is likely not an arbitrary number but rather a prediction worked up on the potential future earnings of Lord Finesse's work in this case. There are people (lawyers) who get paid to figure that stuff out, it is very much based in reality:
The legal penalties for copyright infringement are:
Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits.
The law provides a range from $200 (if done unknowningly) to $150,000 (if knowingly infringing) for each work infringed (EACH work! 700,000 downloads on dat piff alone.)
Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.
The Court can issue an injunction to stop the infringing acts.
The Court can impound the illegal works.
The infringer can go to jail.
Also, $10 million is likely not an arbitrary number but rather a prediction worked up on the potential future earnings of Lord Finesse's work in this case. There are people (lawyers) who get paid to figure that stuff out, it is very much based in reality:
The legal penalties for copyright infringement are:
Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits.
The law provides a range from $200 (if done unknowningly) to $150,000 (if knowingly infringing) for each work infringed (EACH work! 700,000 downloads on dat piff alone.)
Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.
The Court can issue an injunction to stop the infringing acts.
The Court can impound the illegal works.
The infringer can go to jail.
7
How is what Mac did any different than what almost every other hip hop artist does? Use tracks by other artists and upload them/release them via mixtapes? I have been pondering this since the dispute occurred, and can't make sense of it. For example, J. Cole's mixtapes have multiple Kanye beats, along with Jay Z's work.... please! explain so I don't end up another Mac Miller!
8
@7 It's all here in plain english: http://www.copyright.gov/ . I can't give you legal advice (though I do advise you to read my post a little closer because the answers to your questions and links to references are in there). But basically it's like mama said: ASK before TAKING, Don't take TOO MUCH, SHARE if you've been helped, and SAY SORRY when you get caught.
SEE ALSO: http://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightB…
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
https://www.legalzoom.com/intellectual-p…
SEE ALSO: http://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightB…
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
https://www.legalzoom.com/intellectual-p…
9
Great aricle.
But! a label or corporations somewhere own the rights to the master recording of Oscar Peterson"Dream of You". And as Finesse directly sampled (not replayed) this he or his label must have cleared it. if he didnt he is also in a bit of trouble....... but he cleared it right???
Secondly the publishing to Oscar Peterson "Dream of You" is owned by a Publisher somewhere .your "derivative work" argument may hold up as its only 4 notes though.
Glad to see Ness come out on top.
But! a label or corporations somewhere own the rights to the master recording of Oscar Peterson"Dream of You". And as Finesse directly sampled (not replayed) this he or his label must have cleared it. if he didnt he is also in a bit of trouble....... but he cleared it right???
Secondly the publishing to Oscar Peterson "Dream of You" is owned by a Publisher somewhere .your "derivative work" argument may hold up as its only 4 notes though.
Glad to see Ness come out on top.
10
@9 Good points!, a few things. 1. The derivative work is real, but the length in seconds is a myth. Samples are samples. 2. You are correct about the many forms of potential copyright violation, recording, composition, performance, etc, etc. 3. Lord's 3 second sample is a very small part of his composition and his song sounds entirely different than Peterson's Dream Of You after his work as a producer is done. 4. Lord's record sales, in Rap and Hip Hop, have no direct sales effect on Peterson's records coming out of the Jazz crates (if anything it probably increased sales so DJs could hear the source themselves), and therefore have very little effect on the future financial potential of Peterson.
There are so many factors, and good cases to look into. Beastie Boys vs. James Newton, The Verve vs. Mick and Keef, 2 Live Crew vs. Roy Orbison, George Harrison and the Chiffons...etc. Every case is different and has to be treated individually.
There are so many factors, and good cases to look into. Beastie Boys vs. James Newton, The Verve vs. Mick and Keef, 2 Live Crew vs. Roy Orbison, George Harrison and the Chiffons...etc. Every case is different and has to be treated individually.
11
This is literally the worst article I've ever read. Not even coming from a Mac miller fan, but a fan of hip hop. Which clearly you are not. People have been using other people's beats for years. They rap over them and put them on mixtapes which they put out themselves and use for promo. Mac miller fans might be too young and stupid to understand how the culture works, but most rap fans were upset that lord chose to pick on the new kid. Any famous producer could sue countless artists for the same thing lord did.
This article was written like it was a report for school by someone who just did some Internet research.
This article was written like it was a report for school by someone who just did some Internet research.
12
There is a reason why people hire lawyers instead of just doing some Google searches. This article is the worst explanation of copyright law ever. I stopped reading at your explanation of derivative work. This should be pulled from the website pending editorial review.
13
@ Sean Jewell you're wrong. Unless Lord Finesse is claiming statutory damages b/c its a registered copyright, the 10 million dollar number is extremely speculative. Highly speculative damage claims are regularly disregarded in a court of law. They settled the case so we don't know what, if anything, Mac Miller would have owed Lord Finesse.
14
"The spirit of hiphop is not to steal entire tracks, it's to sample beats with which to rap over"
...this is so wrong on so many levels. hip hop has always been a competitive art form and one of the many competitions in hip hop involves taking someone else's beat and rapping over it. now mac probably wasn't trying to compete with lord finesse, what he did has been done by so many rappers in so many cases before this trial existed.
one could argue weezy's huge success is due to his stealing of beats and rapping over them.
rap mixtapes have for a long time been about rapping over other artists beats to either compete, show one's knowledge of hip hop, or to make an artistic statement. even lupe fiasco was first noticed because of his recycling of beats on his farenheit 1/15 tapes.
think about where hip hop came from...dub plates in the caribbean were an enormous influence on the art form and THAT involved the "stealing" of instrumentals and laying new vocals over them. this recycling culture of riddims exists to this day.
hip hop artists have been stealing beats for as long as hip hop has been around. this case is scary because it takes away from what makes hip hop so appealing in the first place...the low entry cost. anybody can pick up a mic and start spitting over their favourite instrumentals. and now if you show ppl your rhymes and ppl like them and you establish a career off of your "stealing" of beats, you can get screwed over like this??? thats not what i want to see.
dont think about what this case means for the artists who have established themselves...think about the would-be hip hop legends who are limited by their access to engaging production. these are kids who we are screwing over. remember that.
...this is so wrong on so many levels. hip hop has always been a competitive art form and one of the many competitions in hip hop involves taking someone else's beat and rapping over it. now mac probably wasn't trying to compete with lord finesse, what he did has been done by so many rappers in so many cases before this trial existed.
one could argue weezy's huge success is due to his stealing of beats and rapping over them.
rap mixtapes have for a long time been about rapping over other artists beats to either compete, show one's knowledge of hip hop, or to make an artistic statement. even lupe fiasco was first noticed because of his recycling of beats on his farenheit 1/15 tapes.
think about where hip hop came from...dub plates in the caribbean were an enormous influence on the art form and THAT involved the "stealing" of instrumentals and laying new vocals over them. this recycling culture of riddims exists to this day.
hip hop artists have been stealing beats for as long as hip hop has been around. this case is scary because it takes away from what makes hip hop so appealing in the first place...the low entry cost. anybody can pick up a mic and start spitting over their favourite instrumentals. and now if you show ppl your rhymes and ppl like them and you establish a career off of your "stealing" of beats, you can get screwed over like this??? thats not what i want to see.
dont think about what this case means for the artists who have established themselves...think about the would-be hip hop legends who are limited by their access to engaging production. these are kids who we are screwing over. remember that.
15
"The spirit of hiphop is not to steal entire tracks, it's to sample beats with which to rap over"
...this is so wrong on so many levels. hip hop has always been a competitive art form and one of the many competitions in hip hop involves taking someone else's beat and rapping over it. now mac probably wasn't trying to compete with lord finesse, what he did has been done by so many rappers in so many cases before this trial existed.
one could argue weezy's huge success is due to his stealing of beats and rapping over them.
rap mixtapes have for a long time been about rapping over other artists beats to either compete, show one's knowledge of hip hop, or to make an artistic statement. even lupe fiasco was first noticed because of his recycling of beats on his farenheit 1/15 tapes.
think about where hip hop came from...dub plates in the caribbean were an enormous influence on the art form and THAT involved the "stealing" of instrumentals and laying new vocals over them. this recycling culture of riddims exists to this day.
hip hop artists have been stealing beats for as long as hip hop has been around. this case is scary because it takes away from what makes hip hop so appealing in the first place...the low entry cost. anybody can pick up a mic and start spitting over their favourite instrumentals. and now if you show ppl your rhymes and ppl like them and you establish a career off of your "stealing" of beats, you can get screwed over like this??? thats not what i want to see.
dont think about what this case means for the artists who have established themselves...think about the would-be hip hop legends who are limited by their access to engaging production. these are kids who we are screwing over. remember that.
More...
...this is so wrong on so many levels. hip hop has always been a competitive art form and one of the many competitions in hip hop involves taking someone else's beat and rapping over it. now mac probably wasn't trying to compete with lord finesse, what he did has been done by so many rappers in so many cases before this trial existed.
one could argue weezy's huge success is due to his stealing of beats and rapping over them.
rap mixtapes have for a long time been about rapping over other artists beats to either compete, show one's knowledge of hip hop, or to make an artistic statement. even lupe fiasco was first noticed because of his recycling of beats on his farenheit 1/15 tapes.
think about where hip hop came from...dub plates in the caribbean were an enormous influence on the art form and THAT involved the "stealing" of instrumentals and laying new vocals over them. this recycling culture of riddims exists to this day.
hip hop artists have been stealing beats for as long as hip hop has been around. this case is scary because it takes away from what makes hip hop so appealing in the first place...the low entry cost. anybody can pick up a mic and start spitting over their favourite instrumentals. and now if you show ppl your rhymes and ppl like them and you establish a career off of your "stealing" of beats, you can get screwed over like this??? thats not what i want to see.
dont think about what this case means for the artists who have established themselves...think about the would-be hip hop legends who are limited by their access to engaging production. these are kids who we are screwing over. remember that.
16
Sorry, but where did anyone get the idea that things were settled for $10 million dollars? We have no idea how much was actually paid out.
17
@12 LOL thanks a lot bro, now I'm in trouble with the editor of the internet.
@15 Good points, a lot of them. Dub plates are still used that way, btw. But that's the Caribbean, where at best you'd get copyright protection under French or Dutch law. This is America. Hip hop isn't going to die because Lord Finesse sued Mac Miller. If you're going to steal a beat, you sure shouldn't do it from a guys who song is called "Hip 2 Da Game". He's perfectly within his rights is all I'm saying. Whether or not it helps...well...
@15 Good points, a lot of them. Dub plates are still used that way, btw. But that's the Caribbean, where at best you'd get copyright protection under French or Dutch law. This is America. Hip hop isn't going to die because Lord Finesse sued Mac Miller. If you're going to steal a beat, you sure shouldn't do it from a guys who song is called "Hip 2 Da Game". He's perfectly within his rights is all I'm saying. Whether or not it helps...well...
18
@13 @16 what I should've made more clear is that I (me, I) think that Mac owes Lord the whole 10 mil and it is a reasonable number based on the bare minimun $250 PER violation fee after 750,000 downloads on Dat Piff alone. He STOLD Lord's work and GAVE IT AWAY 750,000 times.
Also, copyrights don't have to be registered to be valid. Ever. At all. End of story.
Also, copyrights don't have to be registered to be valid. Ever. At all. End of story.
20
Sean, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Damages are not computed on a per-download basis. Please consult with a lawyer and revise the article accordingly.
21
I don't understand why people are trying to play blind and use the "essence of hip-hop" as an argument or as a justification. This is all true. That's the problem with "artists" who are trying to come into the game and grow a name or just fans in general who don't take the time to research it for themselves. Learn the business. Just because your favorite rapper has done it in the past doesn't mean you can. Yes, it's true that is the general nature of the mixtape game in the past to jump on a beat and make it your own so to speak. In fact, I remember visiting the bootleg man on numerous occasions back in the day to get the latest G-Unit mixtape when they were started that trend and were killin' it too. Desert storm mixtapes w/ clue all that shit. This case has potentially opened the door for your favorite artists and up and comers (who blow up off it) to face similar charges should the individual choose to sue. It's not in the "essence" of it all I understand that but these people out here want their money and you have to think if you were on the end you might do the same and want yours. It's good too though because it's going to separate the real artists from the wannabe's who can't create original dope original works. Bong bong son. lol
22
Other artists may have not been sued (we've yet to see) because you never know maybe they have a good relationship with the person they took the beat from. Or maybe the person whose beat is being used doesn't care because they see it ethically wrong to take legal action because they too are down with hip-hop and believe in it themselves. However, its clear not everyone sees it that way. Let's not forge to that Mac made a video for the song. The video supposedly received millions of views and therefore it was receiving money by way of AD placements. Who gets a cut out of that? Mac Miller (or whoever in his camp/business that runs that) and youtube. Money was made. But before I forget it could just be maybe other artists gave the person a little side money lowkey just to cover themselves. Who knows?
25
Mixtapes have written on them for promotinal use only. This is how artists, and record labels are able to get around copyright infringment. If a artists is in the studio, and records a song that they want to put on their album, but it turns out that the sample holder is asking for a large amount of money, which the record company doesn't want to pay. The artist, or record company can simply leak the record to a dj, and the record company and artist can simply claim the song was bootlegged. I believe someone said Miller recorded a video for the song, and it was put on youtube. This is why Finesse has a ground to sue. Miller is receiving revenue from Finesses work.
26
thats not even the big issue, legally you can wrap it so many ways whatever. the point is sooooo many artists do this same exact thing..... curren$y has like 6 mixtapes just rapping over old vintage beats. tons of artists do this. it is the most ridiculous thing because the only reason people would side with finesse is because no one likes mac miller. anyone else this would happen too would be just downright outrageous. this is on some fuck shit.
Comments (26) RSS