Jay-Z & Kanye Accused Of Infringement... On Album They Worked So Hard To Stop From Leaking

from the just-saying... dept

Fri, Aug 26th 2011 5:43am — Mike Masnick

We recently wrote about the ridiculous pains to which the producing crew for Jay-Z and Kanye West's new album went through to try to prevent the album from leaking. After we wrote that, we actually got some detailed information showing that for all that effort, the album actually did leak (via a hacker) who tried to sell it, but the asking price was too high. Either way, for a crew so concerned (supposedly) about "infringement," you might think they'd also be focused on making sure their own album didn't infringe. However, not everyone feels they did so.

Apparently R&B/soul singer Syl Johnson, who has gone after an awful lot of musicians for sampling his work is considering suing over an uncleared sample on the album. His publisher put up a blog post about this, though that blog post has been taken down now. The blog post was full of bluster about just how much money other artists pay Johnson:

"Two decades and several lawsuits later, Syl Johnson is a veteran of copyright infringement cases, and has done very well for himself clearing samples from his fertile catalog (we're glad to say we've helped him with a few) for use in numerous tracks," reads part of the post. "He's been amply paid, as he is quick to boast in his concerts, by acts like Wu-Tang Clan, Kid Rock, and Michael Jackson. Other performers ... have not been so respectful."

Perhaps some of that time spent "locking up" the album could have been spent on making sure the samples were actually cleared. Of course, the process for clearing samples is pretty ridiculous these days, and it's not surprising that a sample might fall through the cracks. But, once again, this really highlights the difference between "leaks" and "infringement." While we were told that the efforts to keep the work locked up showed how much the two hip hop stars were concerned about "piracy," it seems clear that they were much more concerned about the marketing aspect, and having the album become available when they wanted, rather than any great deference to copyright law.

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: copyright, jay-z, kanye west

66 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 5:56am

Aha!
Now we know *why* they were so adamant that it not be leaked - they were trying to cover up their evil piracy!

I, for one, am glad that these evil pirates have been found out, so that they (and everyone at their record label who stood to profit off of this evil, despicable act) will get the full force of the law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cjstg (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:50am
  
  Re: Aha!
  ok, i just want to know: who in their right mind goes through the catalog of samples and find one and says, "hey, this is a good sample from someone who sues everyone. let's use this one. oh, and be sure not to clear it with the owner." why would anybody sample from this guy? or if they did, not get it cleared. that's insanity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re: Aha!
    Gay Fish Yo
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 12:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Aha!
    I'm sure that was the exact thought process they went through.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Kindler, 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:08am

What a conundrum for the RIAA
Which artist's interests will they serve to protect Syl Johnson or KanZy? I suppose they will rally behind Johnson because you can't let some pirates be stealing food from the mouths of ye hearties. They don't condone any such behavior. RIAA is down for the artist man. Screw those Jayze pirate guys. It's like boarding a man's vessel and making off with his wenches. Exactly the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:19am

Yo Mike, I know you had some good reporting and all here but I just wanna say, its only stealing when people other than us do it... duh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:20am

What does missing a license on a sample have to do with preventing the leaking of their album?

Poor Mike. He was so upset at those guys for daring to protect their work.

You knew he would try to find something to try and disparage them with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:22am
  
  Re:
  Very little.
  
  But then the article you failed to actually read and comprehend, was highlighting how worried they were about people infringing on their music while at the same time they were infringing on someone else.
  
  I could read it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    And apparently you comprehend that creative and consumptive infringement are two entirely different things.
    
    Mike Masnick grasps it, he just pretends not to. That way he can continue to write silly drivel like the above post.
    
    Willful blindness is one of the most key components of his business model.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "...creative and consumptive infringement..."
      
      I have never seen/heard of this distinction before. Can anyone please elaborate?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Edward Teach, 26 Aug 2011 @ 9:23am
        
        creative vs consumptive infringement
        "Creative Infringement" is when someone in power does it, "consumptive infringement" is when a consumer, out of power, does it. Simple, no?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kaden (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So we're agreed that there are varying and nuanced degrees of infringement now, right? It's not all theft, pure and simple?
      
      Good start... I wonder if it'll hold.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - harbingerofdoom (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      does it make you sad to be inside your brain?
      
      you are deliberately missing the point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crbunt, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you have such a problem with the way this site is run why are you here?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Zot-Sindi, 26 Aug 2011 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        they've got a raging mike fetish, they pretend to be trolling but infact they are hiding their love for mike
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And apparently you comprehend that creative and consumptive infringement are two entirely different things.
      
      You mean commercial and non-commercial infringement - ah got it. Of course you're saying that Jayze etc are doing somethi9ng much worse than someone who merely copies a friend's CD for private listening?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think the point of the article is simple irony. Big names in the industry apparently overlooking a sample and run into an infringement contraversy. Why aren't they being labeled as thieves by the "lump everyone into criminal category" team? It's an interesting point, not a ballistic rant.
      
      And maybe the strategy was for marketing and keeping the 'concept' intact instead of worrying about piracy. This seems rational, just a different way to stir interest around an album by keeping things mysterious and 'secret.' I think the argument that people will hear individual songs and not the whole album is a little weak. I mean, radio still does exist. Grossly overplayed singles will not be going away. Its still just a matter of if you have 10 good songs or 2 good and 8 garbage to determine whether or not people will embrace it as an album or continue to consume it as singles.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zot-Sindi, 26 Aug 2011 @ 11:10am
  
  Re:
  Poor Mike.
  
  yes, poor Mike indeed, i feel kinda sorry for anyone who has a handful of dedicated trolls with a huge fetish for them constantly calling out their name in every single post they make like a horny spouse calling the other to bed
  
  Mike, miiiiiiiiike
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:29am

What does them 'protecting their work' have to do with avoiding infringement? It was a marketing strategy... that worked extremely well.

Rap songs, by natured, are infringed daily. Put in "Jay-Z Kanye West H.A.M." in to YouTube and look at how many remixes are up already. If they cared, those wouldn't be so abundant. It was a marketing strategy to generate buzz without letting everyone hear too many individual songs before the album was ready.

Jay-Z went further in to this in an interview with one of the big stations down there (I'm Canadian, so I don't know which haha). He explained that the album is just that, an album, and is intended to be listened to as such. Leaking out songs here or there would be detrimental to that concept, as people wouldn't get a feel for the whole album.

You're always telling artists to ditch the old business model and do something different... and they did. Successfully.

As for the infringement... what song? Funny the article is already accusing them of stealing, when we don't know what they stole or where it was used. Is there any proof that this is the case?`
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward Who Can Read, 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:57am
  
  Re:
  This is directed at Anonymous Coward (comment 6).
  
  "What does them 'protecting their work' have to do with avoiding infringement?"
  
  As per your question, nothing. Nothing at all. But I believe the point being made in the article is that they went through precautions to protect THEIR WORK, while at the same time THEY WERE INFRINGING ON THE WORK OF ANOTHER.
  
  "You're always telling artists to ditch the old business model and do something different... and they did. Successfully."
  
  Actually, by "ditch the old business model and do something different" most people mean try a different business model. They did not do that in this case. All they did was take a few security precautions in order to prevent the album from leaking early, which while relatively effective, was not a complete success as per this article. Thus, you're comment is not accurate.
  
  "As for the infringement... what song? Funny the article is already accusing them of stealing, when we don't know what they stole or where it was used. Is there any proof that this is the case?`"
  
  This article isn't accusing them of stealing anything. If you read the article, you'd see that another artist is making the claim that they infringed, not Mike or anyone here. Also, take note that there is a difference. They possibly committed copyright infringement NOT theft. If you actually read the article, and went to the source link provided in blue, you'd have all the information. "A sample of Johnson's 1967 song "Different Strokes," which appears on the track "The Joy," was allegedly never properly cleared." (That's from the MTV article, the source, where there's more to the story.) Which answers your "what song" and "what they stole or where it was used" bit.
  
  No offense, but before you say something, perhaps you should read the entire article and get all the information. Otherwise you look rather foolish. Just because you can read doesn't mean you apparently can comprehend. Tsk tsk.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    "...they went through precautions to protect THEIR WORK, while at the same time THEY WERE INFRINGING ON THE WORK OF ANOTHER."
    
    In other words, they weren't protecting their work, they were trying to hide a crime.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:13am
    
    Re: Re: "Who can read"
    "Actually, by "ditch the old business model and do something different" most people mean try a different business model"
    
    So they didn't use a different business model, they just used a different business model? Not sure what you're getting at. As Mike says, artists have neve gone to that extreme to keep it from leaking... so that's a different business model. What's your argument there? I feel like we're agreeing...
    
    How was it not a complete success? They did this to sell more albums... and it worked. What am I missing? The infringement thing? That's really got nothing to do with stopping their work from being leaked. I admit I didn't read the MTV article, but these are 2 different topics. They wanted people to buy and listen to a full album, not a single track, and they were successful in that. Even if it was ALMOST leaked, like Mike said, it never made it online to my knowledge (and to Mike's).
    
    "But I believe the point being made in the article is that they went through precautions to protect THEIR WORK, while at the same time THEY WERE INFRINGING ON THE WORK OF ANOTHER. "
    
    I think you're missing the point here... they didn't go through the precautions to avoid infringement. I really doubt they were concerned about people taking their beats or something. They were protecting the completness of the album, as I stated above, to avoid people hearing one or two tracks out of context. THEY DID NOT AVOID A LEAK TO PROTECT INFRINGEMENT.
    
    PS: I'm taking no offence! First time poster. Big fan of the site! Also big fan of discussion! (and clearly of Jay-Z and Kanye!)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AC, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Who can read"
      No, a different business model would be a different way of selling a product. Taking steps to protect a product isn't a different business model. I think that'd be more like a different type of security.
      
      And by "not a complete success", I refer to the fact that the steps they took was to insure there was no leaks. But, apparently there was. That's what I mean. Regardless of how the album did, the steps taken weren't sufficient to prevent a leak. Whether or not it was distributed online is irrelevant, a leak still happened. Thus the measures taken weren't as effective and as hardcore (for lack of a better word) as they were originally being made to be. (As per another article on the subject, which I'll link to as soon as I find the link.)
      
      As for the "precuations to avoid infringement", you're misunderstanding me. I meant, they went through all this to protect their work. But while they took steps to protect their stuff from being infringed upon, stay with me here, they infringed on the work of another. Two separate things. They weren't trying to protect against that, I did not say that. I'm just saying they did something themselves that they didn't want to have done to them. Which, I may be wrong, I think the article was pointing out.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 10:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Who can read"
      So they didn't use a different business model
      
      No, they did not use a different business model. A business model is defined as an plan or concept which explains how a business intends to create value in order to sell goods to a consumer at a price higher than the cost of production. Changing security isn't a different business model, even trying to push out a "complete album" isn't a different model (see: recorded music pre-internet).
      
      I think you're missing the point here... they didn't go through the precautions to avoid infringement.
      
      Yes they did. Jay-z is free to state that the purpose was to release a "complete album" but that is effectively the same statement. The objective was to keep people from hearing the tracks via unauthorized means which is basically the definition of infringement. Some un-named source at his label said they wanted to "create that nostalgic moment of unwrapping the CD and listening to it for the first time". That statement alone disproves both of your arguments, their business model isn't new and their goal was clearly to keep the tracks from being infringed (where infringed means copied/listened to without authorization). No one is arguing that they where trying to protect the work from being re-mixed by other people.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phaedrus (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:32am

Who?
This Syl Johnson guy is really good at keeping his music from leaking out. I have no idea who he even is.

Good job Syl, I certainly haven't "stolen" any of your work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JG, 26 Aug 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: Who?
  Well Phaedrus, I don't know what you do in the music business or what genres you might be familiar with but your statement shows you don't know a thing about classic soul and r&b.
  
  And chances are Syl hasn't heard of you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:40am

Have you turned this info over to artists and police?
"After we wrote that, we actually got some detailed information showing that for all that effort, the album actually did leak (via a hacker) who tried to sell it, but the asking price was too high."
It's manifest evidence of (attempted) criminal infringement. If not, why not? And are you bragging of communications from people "inside", perhaps the actual criminals who attempted infringement?

That aspect is the HELL OF A LOT MORE INTERESTING than your attempt to show inconsistency in preventing leaks and a possible oversight -- you don't KNOW, just run wild with a guess that may not pan out if they make arrangements.

So, Mike, DISH on your inside info. Inquiring minds want to know, and you may even have gotten yourself a trip to the witness stand. -- I suggest RIAA lawyers dig on this: Mike claims to have DETAILS ON AN INFRINGEMENT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:05am
  
  Re: Have you turned this info over to artists and police?
  "I suggest RIAA lawyers dig on this: Mike claims to have DETAILS ON AN INFRINGEMENT."
  
  I, too, have details of an infringement. I suggest they research and monitor this IP address:
  192.168.0.1
  
  I would like to know their identity after it has been researched as I believe they have infringed(distributed) on some of my copyright as well.
  Thank-you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:29am
    
    Re: Re: Have you turned this info over to artists and police?
    Oh No! It must be me! I looked on my computer and found that I used that address!
    
    (Seriously - I we got a scam phone call the other day from a company claiming that our "Microsoft COmputer" was compromised and they had detected it over the internet. When asked how they knew it was us the woman said "we recorded your IP address" we asked "What was it?" She said "192.168.0.1" when we told her that that was a local network address she had a hissy fit!)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Have you turned this info over to artists and police?
      That's funny!
      
      I get pop-ups telling my I have a virus on my "C" drive.
      I wish I could tell them I have a "Home" drive, but no "C" drive on my Linux box. Can't wait for that phone call!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 26 Aug 2011 @ 6:55am

link or it didn't happen!
Can you provide us with the link to the numerogroup blog? I have been looking for it for a while now and can't find it. I think they may have taken it down.

@Phaedrus: I am sorry that you have not heard of Syl Johnson. Please take a listen to this youtube: http://goo.gl/zAkVA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: link or it didn't happen!
  Thanks! Not my favorite style, but I can recognize his ability.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JJJ, 27 Aug 2011 @ 1:06am
  
  Re: link or it didn't happen!
  Syl Johnson posting on Youtube? Now I've seen everything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean T Henry (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:02am

$$$
"the album actually did leak (via a hacker) who tried to sell it, but the asking price was too high."

The asking price was to high what did he not offer to pay someone to take it off his hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kanye, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:07am

Hey Mike!
Hey Mike, Imma let you finish but MC Hammer was the best infringer of all time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:30am
  
  Re: Hey Mike!
  best infringer = ????
  
  If you mean putting out quality after infringing, I'd have to go with Led Zeppelin.
  
  If you mean the most, I'd have to go with CRIA(Canadian RIAA).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kanye, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:32am
    
    Re: Re: Hey Mike!
    I mean infringed on the best stuff. Rick James was the man. He's Rick James, bitch.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hey Mike!
      Make up your mind, whoever rick james is, is he the man or the bitch?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Kanye, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Mike!
        There's a comma there. That means he's Rick James, bitch. He's the man. You're the bitch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Mike!
        No, you're the bitch. I can tell because you have internet balls.
        
        Rick James, musician.
        Rick James, artist.
        Rick James, bitch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kanye, 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Mike!
        You're just mad because I did your mom.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Mike!
        I doubt that very much.
        
        1) She is not a lesbian.
        
        2) She has a loaded .357 magnum beside her bed.
        
        3) Her Husband has a loaded 30.06 carbine on the other side.
        
        You're just mad because you missed your period. Bitch!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kanye, 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Mike!
        Touche sir. However:
        
        1) She is not a lesbian. - I am well aware.
        
        2) She has a loaded .357 magnum beside her bed. - Yeah, she's freaky like that. Made me 'use' it on her.
        
        3) Her Husband has a loaded 30.06 carbine on the other side. - Again, I know. You'd be AMAZED to see what he can do with it too ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Mike!
        So then, where does she live?
        
        What does she look like?
        
        If you could see what he can do with that carbine, then you would be able to see them too!
        
        Do either/neither wear glasses?
        
        Your petty, childish insults are useless.
        
        If you want to get a rise out of me, you will have to come here and bend over. Bitch!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kanye, 26 Aug 2011 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Mike!
        If you want to get a rise out of me, you will have to come here and bend over. Bitch
        
        Not my best work, but you kept replying. That's really all I'm going for buddy.
        
        By the way, your parents didn't tell me you go both ways. We could have brought you into the fun if I had known that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Mike!
        Here's another, Charlie.
        You're winning!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:28am
    
    Re: Re: Hey Mike!
    If you mean putting out quality after infringing, I'd have to go with Led Zeppelin.
    
    Deep Purple (Black Night) surely....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:26am

I never listen to RAP and any kind of Techno krap.I play live rock n roll and i do not stand and jump around in front of two turntables and a computer system.I have no respect for these kind of artists.The other day some where on a radio i hear this obnoxious rap that turns into a black sabbath riff over and over.the old sabbath should of sacrificed the schmuck to the dark lord.
music that takes a beat and then steals other music by running it thru some FX and looping it,etc.
I can do this type of shit blindfolded !!!
go play a real instrument and write real music you dumb Rappers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:37am
  
  Re:
  I play a lot of guitar hero and can't STAND those guys that don't play real instruments. I wish they'd figure out how to make real music and stop with all that fake crap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:42am
  
  Re:
  You go a bit over the top here - I miostly don't like that kind of music either - but not because I don't think it's possible to do anything good that way - rather because most of it isn't good.
  
  You're no different from earlier generations who say that (for example) the electric guitar isn't a "proper instrument".
  
  I took the trouble to listen to a bit of Johnson on Youtube (there: he's probably got a cent or two from me) and whilst it's easier on the ear than most rap - to me it is profoundly unexciting so I'm not surprised he is largely forgotten.
  
  The fact is that good music is rare and the lens of time is a good filter - so it is easy to fall into the illusion that the past is better than the present.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:41am

"Infringement" is NOT EQUAL TO Mike's term: "is considering suing"!
That's the main objection to Mike's slant on it. You guys are going off as if Jay-z and Kanye have been convicted of infringing, and it's simply not true! May not even get sued, they'll just settle now that their (probably unintended) lapse has been pointed out, IF it's even a lapse.

-------------
And to answer the question by "crbunt": that's why the critics are here. Mike just simply fabricated this non-flap to take a dig at those guys for daring to keep their work under their control. It's trivially dishonest, completely unjustified by what he presents.

By the way, if your notion that piracy improves a product is all correct, then I can similarly maintain that critics improve the site. -- Mike would really run wild without such oversight. You fanboys seem to just read his titles and then post some agreement or off-topic trivia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:45am
  
  Re: "Infringement" is NOT EQUAL TO Mike's term: "is considering suing"!
  By the way, if your notion that piracy improves a product is all correct, then I can similarly maintain that critics improve the site. -- Mike would really run wild without such oversight.
  
  Thoughtful critics do inproved the site - but you're just the comic relief...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 10:54am
  
  Re: "Infringement" is NOT EQUAL TO Mike's term: "is considering suing"!
  Strike 1, first accusation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2011 @ 2:10am
  
  Re: "Infringement" is NOT EQUAL TO Mike's term: "is considering suing"!
  Fine, whatever, you can make up fantastic tales in that oversized, underutilized cranium of your's. Now the real question! What do you think about what was actually /IN/ the article? You know, about Jay-Z and Kanye having possibly infringed? Everyone on this blog is a pirate, after all, right? Must be, because we support mike?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:43am

I am not surprised at this this is how rap works and yes i agree with the AC who says its not real music. though it is an art form.Rap has always taken from others so what the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:50am
  
  Re:
  That's because all rappers are thieves. They rap about knocking over liquor stores and stealing money from ho's purses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    False, False, False, and False
    
    In order, Jurassic 5, who don't curse in their rap.
    Japanese rap, where they don't have ghettos in Japan.
    Wu tang Clan. Because they're Asian due to the lottery.
    French hip hop. Because they are actually Islamic based.
    
    I just hate the stereotype that all rap is bad simply because no one likes it. Great, it's not to your style or taste of music, but no one forces you to listen to it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In order, Jurassic 5, who don't curse in their rap.
      Japanese rap, where they don't have ghettos in Japan.
      Wu tang Clan. Because they're Asian due to the lottery.
      French hip hop. Because they are actually Islamic based.
      
      Jurassic 5 sucks. Charles Stewart knocked over 2 liquor stores last month. You know how I know this? Because he's a rapper.
      The Japanese don't have rap. That's a common misconception. They have anime and schoolgirls.
      The Wu tang Clan are robots built by the Japanese.
      The French don't count unless you're talking about smelling bad or surrendering.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Cheese-eating surrender rappers? I could write an anim� about that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'd watch it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 7:59am

"As for the "precuations to avoid infringement", you're misunderstanding me. I meant, they went through all this to protect their work. But while they took steps to protect their stuff from being infringed upon, stay with me here, they infringed on the work of another. Two separate things. They weren't trying to protect against that, I did not say that. I'm just saying they did something themselves that they didn't want to have done to them."

Yup, I misunderstood! Thanks for clearing it up! Looks like we're on a similar page. Like somebody above said, they will pay the little fee and all will be fine. Knowing how meticulous both artists have been (neither has been sued, to my knowledge, in the past), I'm sure it was an oversight. Unless, since the song is from 1967, they thought the copyright was gone on it or something? I really don't know the law, but I thought there was some 'public domain' thing that kicked in after 50 years, unless it was re-registered.

"Whether or not it was distributed online is irrelevant, a leak still happened"

I suppose I'm arguing semantics, but there was no leak. A crack in a wall isn't a 'leak', but water coming in through the crack is a leak. Getting the album isn't really a leak... except to that one person. Distributing it would have been a true leak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:11am

No problem, misunderstandings happen. As you said, probably was an oversight. A fee, a fine and everything goes on like normal. Not sure on the copyright length of a song from 1967 to be honest, so I can't speculate on that. But copyright has been extended extensively, and from the bit I can gather about this Syl Johnson, I'm sure he'd be on top of it (in regards to re-registering, if it was needed).

"I suppose I'm arguing semantics, but there was no leak. A crack in a wall isn't a 'leak', but water coming in through the crack is a leak. Getting the album isn't really a leak... except to that one person. Distributing it would have been a true leak."

No worries. I too argue semantics all the time. It wasn't a true leak in the traditional sense. So it would appear that the measures taken were effective. But the fact that one person was able to acquire it beforehand still makes you wonder. The problem with the leak is the person tried selling it for an exorbitant amount of money, instead of just uploading it somewhere, which is what kept it from leaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:17am
  
  Re:
  The problem with the leak is the person tried selling it for an exorbitant amount of money, instead of just uploading it somewhere, which is what kept it from leaking."
  
  Haha this has a 'National Enquirer' feel to it... you know, the people who pay millions of dollars for pictures of secret celebrity weddings or something? Except they realized that most people were comfortable waiting the extra week or two... so no one was going to pay anything more than the 17$ the artists wanted!
  
  Great chat though!! I wish Mike was reading, he would fill us in on the copyright laws in regards to length of time from release! (I also wish I had his extensive knowledge on that stuff!)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:12am

Saying Rap isn't music or isn't art is just plain obnoxious. When Rock 'n Roll came out, everyone labeled it as 'not music' as well, and I'm sure you all told your parents where they could stick their opinions.

Some rappers do talk about robbing stuff or shooting people, etc. etc.... but Rock also talks about killing people, robbing places, trashing hotels, killing yourself, using drugs, abusing women... hasn't anybody heard of a groupie? Is there a big difference?

I have lots of friends who play guitar... but nothing they play should be labeled as music. Or as good.

Having to listen to Nickelback on the radio everyday (Ottawa radio stations are awful...) is painful. If everyone said 'rock sucks because Nickelback is horrible", that's obnoxious. Just like saying Soulja Boy's music is all crap doesn't mean rap is brutal.

It's a matter of taste. I personally see nothing of value in 99% of Picasso's art. But I'm a big fan of Andy Warhol!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2011 @ 9:06am
  
  Re:
  Some rappers do talk about robbing stuff or shooting people, etc. etc.... but Rock also talks about killing people, robbing places, trashing hotels, killing yourself, using drugs, abusing women... hasn't anybody heard of a groupie? Is there a big difference?
  
  When rock stars do it, that makes it art. Rappers are nothing but inner city thugs who want to kill you and steal your Pumas.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Howard the Duck, 26 Aug 2011 @ 8:53am

Yikes!
Jay-Z & Kanye have terrorist ties?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]