George Clinton Explains How Bridgeport Allegedly Faked Documents To Get His Music Rights
from the cut-and-paste,-yo dept
We recently wrote about George Clinton speaking out about Bridgeport Music, the copyright troll that Clinton alleges forged paperwork to get the rights to Clinton's works, and then went on a rampage suing hundreds of (mainly hip hop) artists for sampling Clinton's work (something Clinton is in favor of allowing). As we noted, we were a little disappointed in the lack of clarity from Clinton on the details, but more of the picture is coming out, thanks first to a comment by people associated with Clinton, claiming:Bridgeport claims ownership to the majority of P-Funk's music by using a forged document from 1983 dealing with the transfer of the Malbiz catalog of songs. Armen Boladian has admitted in court that he signed George's name, changed wording of the contract w/o notification, and practiced these same tactics on numerous other documents. Essentially Bridgeport acquired the music through theft, coercion, blackmail & other highly dubious actions.Clinton has also put up a new video that appears to show Armen Boladian being deposed concerning these issues, implying strongly that he altered documents (the edits make it difficult to confirm the full accuracy of the questions Boladian is answering -- but assuming the edits are accurate, that's the picture the video paints).
Of course, all of this seems to highlight the sheer insanity of "ownership" around "rights" in a song. You can't see it. You can't hold it. You can't block it off. The "rights" are fictions. They're whatever is on a piece of paper, and people can edit and change the paper. That's not property. It's an imaginary figment.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: armen boladian, copyright, george clinton, hiphop, lil wayne, music, sampling
Companies: bridgeport
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That just isn't a very good argument. The property line between your house and your neighbor is just on paper. There is no physicial line painted, nothing of the sort. The paper can be edited, changed. That's not property, that's just property.
It's incredibly poor logic to say because someone may have committed fraud that the underlying concept is defective. By that logic, we wouldn't have money, commerce, or any other dealings with each other because someone at some point committed fraud in each of these areas.
You were doing good until you got near the conclusion. Then the post turned into a head shaker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What is equally funny in this story is that nobody explains why Clinton has been not dealing with this issue for 20+ years, and suddenly he is all over it. I can imagine one of those copyright hating lawyers pushing him on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But, of course, I don't think that is the point of Mike's comment. Property documents show ownership of tangible/physical goods or property. A song/idea/thought can not be possessed or contained while being simultaneously shared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how is a song lumped in now with "ideas" and "thoughts"? Ideas and thoughts are intangible activities of the mind, songs do exist in the physical world. They're not imagined. An idea for a song or a thought about a song is not in itself a song. And of course they can be simultaneously possessed and shared. When I'm performing, are you suggesting that the music the audience hears is no longer in my mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regarding the physical objects that hold ideas (i.e., tangible media upon which is placed a recording), I give you a better example:
An artist paints a picture or sculpts a sculpture. Although I may buy that physical manifestation of the artist's idea I am not the owner of the art I am merely the owner of the physical manifestation. The artist (or his or her heirs) remains the owner of the art and the idea of the art and the artist may make additional physical manifestations of his or her idea either in the form of similar works, additional castings (with regard to a sculpture), or lithographs, prints, posters, etc (with regard to an image).
Don't try to discount the value of an idea to its creator simply because its expression may be shared and experienced by others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A book becomes more valuable as it's read to an audience.
A movie becomes more valuable as it's seen and discussed with a community.
The artist using stone could decide to reallocate the concrete stone (a scarce resource) into a statue. The idea of someone else to make a separate statue in another area, is still plausible.
And just a small hint: The "originality" argument doesn't always apply. Some of the best inventions came about while trying to fix technology or make it somewhat better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Value is one of those slippery concepts. Valuable to who? Does your listening to a song make it more valuable to me? To society? Did the total value of something increase because you listened to it, did you generate value out of thin air? Or was that value applied to something else, and now applied to the new music you are listening to right now? Is the current song you are listening too more valuable than the one that played just before it? Is value an ever increasing endless thing, or is it like conservation of mass, there is only so much value that any one person has, and to add value to one you take away from another?
Talking in vague terms like "value" is incredibly misleading. Cancer patients make Oncologists valuable (without patients, they would be nothing). Would we make them more valuable if we found a way to give more people cancer? Would there be a net increase in value overall? That is the sort of twisted logic that makes using "value" a meaningless measurement.
Originality exists even in recovering music, as an example, as everyone plays differently. Playing a sample of an existing recording isn't very original. Anyone can do that, and it will always sound the same. Adding "oh yeah" or whatever in the middle of it isn't particularly original, and doesn't offset the incredible lack of originality in using the sample.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're denying that Nikola Tesla came and made alternating current work for electricity, effectively building modern society...
Or the incredible number of remixes being created, for *FREE*, through other people's spare time...
Or the amount of work that DJs do in their "art form" that is all about originality. Have you ever heard of Paul Oakenfold? Darude? Do you not understand that originality comes through building materials based on what's before?
Else, you might as well say that because all music uses a guitar and string, it's a copy of something else. That's a false assertion that seems to take your logic to its natural conclusion.
"Value is one of those slippery concepts"
Actually, no, it's not. I value my time in debating with people on this forum. Other's find value with editing wikipedia. Some value it by working on music and not being hindered. I have artists that I value enough to actually listen to more, and other artists I won't pay attention to. I go to concerts where there are thousands of people, and record the events and post the concert on Youtube. Though it's an abstract concept, you can add value to almost anything, which makes people want to buy from you. Concepts such as "brand loyalty" can have value in their own right, especially considering most people find music that they like , sharing it for no other benefit but seeing if others enjoy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Boladian seems to be openly treating this as if he had some impunity to this, doesn't he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike says "You can't see it. You can't hold it. You can't block it off." But seeing or holding only ever applies to tangible personal property and real property, and then only to the existence of such property. Rights in property are ALWAYS a figment, something on paper or simply "known" and adhered to. Otherwise you might end having to change the old maxim "possession is 99% of the law" (which really isn't all that true, which is why it is only an expression) to "possession is 100% of the law" or "possession = ownership" which, I think Mike would agree, is not an intended goal in a capitalist society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, when I'm looking at my fence from my window, I can't see it? When I'm leaning on that fence, and standing in my yard, I can't touch it? Most importantly, if I can't block it off, why is my fence there in the first place?
Note: Mike did not say these things aren't significant. Some of the most significant things in life cannot be seen, felt, or blocked off - like love. I would not, however, call love "property."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's start with your property line. You see the fence? Is it really on the property line? Or did the surveyor get it wrong by an inch or two? Did someone make an error when the fence was built? Was there an error on the original documents? Did someone modify them to correct the error, now making your fenceline to be in error? Just because you see a fence doesn't mean that the underlying truth (which is only on paper) agrees.
You cannot compare emotions to music. While music may be driven by emotion, or played in an emotional manner, the underlying song, the music, the performance are all as much a product as is nailing together two pieces of wood, or building that fence between your properties.
Trying to classify anything that isn't physical as "not property" is to ignore all that goes into them. It is an attempt to reframe the universe, but fails in even the most basic view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is a computer chip design physical property, or just an idea?
Is mechanical design property, or just an idea?
They are not copyrighting the concept of music, they are copyrighting the music that is produced. Yes, produced, as in product.
Everything that is ever discovered, built, or created for the first time is an act of imagination.
To try to draw a distinction because you can hold one in your hand and cannot hold the other in the same manner is entirely misleading. Record the music, and you can hold it in your hand (and they can copyright it). Write it down as sheet music, and you can copyright it. You can also hold both of those in your hand. Does that make them more real for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.
The plastic disc is physical. The paper is physical.
The music IS NOT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can copyright a book, you can copyright an article, you can copyright a website and yes, you can copyright a song.
If he is in denial about those basic ideas, you can imagine why so many find the rest of his concepts laughable. You have to wilfully ignore reality to make it all work out in your mind. Just ask Marcus how to do it, he's an expert!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But how music is used, and distributed, the copyright is for... what? Does it protect the distribution? Does it add value to a song?
Without the tangible medium, the song still exists to be heard by the artist. While you're using the utilitarian implementation of copyright, (where the "labor" of one's efforts is protected by the government), that doesn't make your point valid.
If you remove the medium and merely had the song, what exactly is there to protect? The artist can perform it again, or someone else could learn to do the same.
That isn't the same as a piece of paper for a plot of land. You still have a tangible medium to use for bartering as you see fit. As the article looks into this use, it should be noted that the "rights" of this song:
The right to perform this song
To enforce others not to perform this song
The right to have samples and licenses based on this song
These are some of the supposed rights that are being faked. Now we have a LOT of songs being made by artists and musicians worldwide. Having someone in control of who gets to use that material is probably what Mike's intended meaning is criticizing.
"If he is in denial about those basic ideas, you can imagine why so many find the rest of his concepts laughable. You have to wilfully ignore reality to make it all work out in your mind. Just ask Marcus how to do it, he's an expert!"
His "concepts" are more normalcy is copyright law instead of the one sided idiosyncrasy it's become today. Perhaps more research into the matter, where economic data could be quantified, similar to the "Media Piracy in Emerging Economics" research, the "GAO report on Piracy", or even NBC's report where we find out that piracy is the fault of the industry itself, could shed some light on this subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with most of what Mike says but this is not a valid argument. The idea of ownership of material things is the same fiction and I can see why people have extended the historic idea of ownership of material things into the realm of immaterial things also.
Mike's argument has mainly been that this extension of the idea of ownership has many unintended consequences and needs to be rethought. I agree with that. I don't agree with the idea he put forward here that if you can't touch it you can't own it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, the common good is also somewhat determined by what people value. I value my right to copy more than I value someones privilege to prevent me from copying. So it is in my best interest to have these laws abolished. If enough people agree with me then a publicly representative government should abolish these laws. It's called democracy. My vote is that these laws get abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you want to abolish copyright, be ready to have all of your property rights revoked. Why should you be able to own a house if others do not? Can the majority who are homeless or renting vote to revoke your rights to own anything?
Some laws aren't there because they are popular, but because they form the framework under which our systems operate. Take those away, and you haven't got much left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Being against copy protection laws doesn't make one against property laws.
"If you want to abolish copyright, be ready to have all of your property rights revoked."
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and if you can get enough people to value what you value, perhaps you can get elected politicians that will pass laws that favor a free for all parking system.
"If you want to abolish copyright, be ready to have all of your property rights revoked."
No, I'm ready to abolish copy protection laws without revoking property rights.
"Why should you be able to own a house if others do not?"
Because I can pay for it and others can't. Because society sees that such a systematic configuration best serves the public interest as a whole.
"Can the majority who are homeless or renting vote to revoke your rights to own anything?"
Absolutely.
"Some laws aren't there because they are popular, but because they form the framework under which our systems operate."
Anti-Free speech laws in China aren't there because they're popular, but because they form the framework under which their system operates. Laws that govern those oppressed by a tyrannical government aren't there because they're popular, but because they form the framework under which their system operates.
"Take those away, and you haven't got much left."
Abolish tyrannical governments and wanna be tyrants have nothing left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't work like that. Any new law would have to be in respect of existing laws, the constitution, etc. Not only would I have to get elected to make such a change, but a majority of members of the house and senate would each have to agree, and the President would have to sign.
"No, I'm ready to abolish copy protection laws without revoking property rights."
Copyright is a type of property law. If you are for dropping that one, be hopeful that your neighbors aren't planning to drop the one about your title deed to your house.
"Because I can pay for it and others can't. Because society sees that such a systematic configuration best serves the public interest as a whole."
You answered the question. Why does copyright exist? Because some people can create new music, new writings, new whatever and others can't. Because society sees that such a systematic configuration best serves the public interest as a whole.
"Anti-Free speech laws in China aren't there because they're popular, but because they form the framework under which their system operates."
A truly pathetic deflection. The laws of America (and the constitution) are all about "we the people". The people of China didn't get to vote. Your entire line of thinking just sucks, a total fail from one end to the other. Why not address the point instead of pulling the old "in communist China" bullcrap?
"Abolish tyrannical governments and wanna be tyrants have nothing left."
Abolish bullcrap, and your post disappears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Without copy protection laws I have my legal right to copy as I please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me the deed
In any case, pretty funny hypocrisy from Mike, the author, considering that to the left of the article he has a copyright notice. If you don't believe in copyright, why do you declare it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give me the deed
Are you going to be so disingenuous in an argument that you'll use a picture of a copyright symbol to act as a copyright notice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give me the deed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give me the deed
I bet he left out a word....
"and "when" people can edit and change the paper. That's not property. It's an imaginary figment."
Even if it was a typo or whatever... I would like to know how one can own the rights to something that doesn't physically exist? The concept itself defeats me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give me the deed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Give me the deed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Give me the deed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give me the deed
I have no such notice. What are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give me the deed
Copyright
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Jun 17th 2011 6:07am
at the top of the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give me the deed
Please tell me you're joking... that flying flock of ©s is a graphic illustration for posts in the "copyright" category. Did you really think that was an actual notice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End of the line
But enough time had passed and the Civil Rights Act had made artists realize that they weren't just living on a plantation any more and could assert themselves as businessmen on equal footing with the white executives who made a living preying on them in the past.
Today, with P Diddy and JayZ and others becoming the big executives themselves, black artists are not as afraid as they once were.
But even taking race out of it entirely, there's just no reason for the big record/publishing companies to exist any more. Why do I need Sony or BMG or whoever just to listen to music? I can go directly to the artist.
I would be happy if every major record label (and movie studio) disappeared tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
possession and ownership
Ask any two year old and they will claim everything is theirs.
Look at many military conquests. Look at the Europeans coming to America who basically claimed the land for their home country and everyone accepted it (but not all the local inhabitants though). Even some people, still to day, claim they own their wife (as in property).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]