Insanity: Judge Rules That Copyright Holder Of 10-Second Sample Deserves 84% Of The Royalties

from the clueless-judges dept

Wed, Oct 12th 2011 8:06am — Mike Masnick

More insanity in the world of copyright, this time coming out of Denmark, where a judge has ordered the musicians behind a song to pay massive royalties to the copyright holder of a song from which they sampled a mere 10 seconds. Despite the fact that the musicians worked hard to find the copyright holder and to work out a deal, and despite the fact that it was just 10 seconds of music, and one of about 50 different elements in the song, the (apparently musically illiterate) judge decided that this sample was the major part of the song, and deserved 84% of the royalties. The article details how the musicians went to great lengths to work out a deal with the copyright holder, but ran into some problem as they dealt with one person who later turned out not to be the actual copyright holder. When they did discover the real copyright holder, again, they worked hard to come to an agreement. And, again, this is a 10-second sample, and one of dozens of elements in the song.

The major issue of the case concerned the definition of a sample is and whether the judge understood the nature of modern music. While Djuma Soundsystem argued � with support from Koda � that the sample was 10 seconds long, Meistrup argued in the court documents that �all of [Engin�s] original composition is used, up to three minutes play time.�

Ralf Christensen in newspaper Information criticised the judge�s lack of understanding after the verdict.

�It�s a harsh verdict not only because of its economic burden, which may affect Danish music in a way similar to what we�ve seen happen with American hip hop. It is also an expression of the court�s lack of understanding for the development of modern music.�

The article notes that part of the issue may be that the musicians being sued represented themselves and were "under prepared" for dealing with the court. But the real problem is that this ruling will act as a precedent and apparently it's the first of its kind in Denmark dealing with samples, and may effectively wipe out the ability to create music based on samples in Denmark. The band, Djuma Soundsystem, claims that it's now hired a lawyer to handle an appeal, so one hopes that a higher court recognizes the insanity of it all. In the meantime, however, the band owes approximately $200,000 (over 1 million Danish kroner) on a song which they say made them about $25,000 (or 140,000 Danish kroner).

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, denmark, music, samples

103 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:11am

If you want to be in art you need to know the law! If you want to be in law, well, who gives a shit about how art works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:18am

So...
Did the court say who gets the other 4,116% of the royalties?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:32pm
  
  Re: So...
  Um, so how did you work out 4,116% of the royalties?
  
  Let us try a fair calculation. The band says they made $25,000 off the song. Assume the song was 3 minutes (typical length for a song) = 180 seconds. The sample was 10 seconds. So the band owes:
  
  $25000 * 10s / 180s = $1388.89
  
  There, that wasn't too hard was it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:18am

I LIKE to capitalize WORDS throughout my posts. I think it helps MAKE my point BUT really it just makes ME look like a complete moron. But all the BEST authors do it in ALL the BEST books. Also, you are wrong, you have NO RIGHT, their decision. Non-sequitur!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  You're right, it does make you look like a moron.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I couldn't tell the difference from his normal look.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:44am
  
  Re:
  I LIKE to capitalize WORDS throughout my posts. I think it helps MAKE my point BUT really it just makes ME look like a complete moron.
  I'm pretty sure it's your actual words that make you look like a complete moron. Just FYI . . .
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm pretty sure this isn't the real out_of_the_blue...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:59am
  
  Re:
  Nothing like having the Techdirt moron brigade out trying to shout down another person who doesn't agree with Mike.
  
  Hint: This isn't OOTB posting. You guys need to grow up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    What you take pleasure in torturing children?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 12:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Only in my weekend work for the PRS.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hint: Only a moron like you would think we truly believed this was blue posting.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh no, a staff pretending to be a troll responding to another commenter pretending to be a troll!
    
    They're everywhere! Run for the woods!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BeeAitch (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Simple solution: REGISTER AN ACCOUNT. Duh...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:20am

yet again, one illiterate person (as far as copyright issues are concerned)is passing a judgment that affects, possibly, hundreds or thousands of other people. why doesn't someone realise that to rule on particular issues, a judge needs to have an understanding of what he/she is ruling on? if not, pass the case over to someone with sense, at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:21am

Copyright law is killing the music industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:43am
  
  Re:
  its killing musicians and fans, the fucking executives and lawyers are too rich to care.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Qritiqal (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  Don't delay the revolution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- IWriteActualMusic, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  "Producers" with no music talent are ruining the music industry. It is ridiculously easy to build a "beat" in a sequencer, especially if you "sample" someone else's talent. I'm not arguing about music companies and copyright, I'm saying that if I spend time writing music (an actual melody with arranged harmony in a specific genre) and then someone samples it (no matter how long a clip) without compensating me, then they have stolen my music. Stealing is stealing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Stealing what exactly?
    
    Your melody?
    
    Get over it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    So you invented the notes you play? How about the musical instrument you are using to create those notes? Do you owe your parents a royalty for the sounds that come out of your mouth since they created your mouth?
    
    There are only so many notes and so many ways to arrange them, I guarantee every song knowingly or unknowingly samples other songs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Conflation is conflation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - illuminaut (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 12:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    no matter how long a clip? really?
    As long as they don't reproduce the original song to a point where it may be mistaken for the original and claim it their own it is fair use in my book. Negativland were famous for deconstructing popular songs and turning them into something else entirely, and they too got into legal trouble more than once, but the only time they got really slammed was for album artwork that might be misconstrued for an U2 album.
    
    Musicians need to take their heads out of their ass once in a while and realize that it's not only the idea that counts. If people wanted to listen to the original song they would.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Your statement makes me think that you believe the only reason to create is to make money. I bet your music represents a similar 'heart and soul'.
    
    Wouldn't a better reason to be creative, is to create? Put money as a maybe distant second or lower, would be nice, priority? That might put some 'heart and soul' into your music too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dwg, 12 Oct 2011 @ 3:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yea, you're right: no such thing as "transformative use" at all. Do you read before you write? Despite your utter wrongness, I promise here that I'll never steal your music. I've got Glenn Gould to steal from--why would I bother with your sorry ass?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Seems to me they made a good faith effort to contact the copyright owner and make a deal with him. You make it sound like they broke into his house, beat him up and robbed his safe.
    
    Reading comprehension: 4%.
    
    As for the rest: I think you're lying about writing actual music. I bet you're just a troll.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:42am
  
  Re:
  "Copyright law is killing the music industry."
  
  Yeah, thankfully this isn't part of the music industry, any more than the guy shuffling the garbage cans at Intel is a chip maker.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    Since when are musicians not a part of the music industry? I think you posted to the wrong article.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Valis (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:25am

Education.
They should send the judges dealing with cases like these back to school to complete courses in information technology, and they should be required to go for refresher courses every few years to keep up with advances in the field. A hundred years ago there was very little change in society during a judge's lifetime, they could apply the knowledge they acquired at law school till the end of their careers and it would still be (mostly) relevant.

Today the rate of change has sped up so much (a la Alvin Toffler) that their knowledge is obsolete in a few years.

Do the law schools even give courses in technology at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:35am

"may effectively wipe out the ability to create music based on stolen samples in Demark"

FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:51am
  
  Re:
  I didn't see any charges of theft levelled at this band. Could you point them out for us?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    OMG! You dared to disagree with an unfounded and illogical accusation of theft in lieu of the use of the term copyright infringement... Clearly you're a goddam dirty pirate freetard!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 12:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's just the TD staffer from the moron brigade. Thinks he can discredit all other trolls by posting incredibly stupid crap.
      
      "pirates stole my notes!" yeah right, like anyone with a brain is going to say that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 12 Oct 2011 @ 7:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So it seems "moron brigade" is the new "sycophant."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  "ACTIFY (Added Cconflation to That For You)"
  
  FTFY.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:38am

let's also add in here that it appears that the sample, while 10 seconds long, is used repeated through the resulting track (adding up to somewhere near 3 minutes of play time).

Nothing like facts to destroy the Techdirt myth of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eEygIR4whE
  
  start at 2:10 or so... the guitar part is "the sample" and it plays pretty much to the end of the song. Sort of hard to miss.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Even if correct, should Djuma Soundsystem be forced to hand over 7x-8x as much money as they made from the song? Is the sample greater than 7x the length of the song?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Maybe it uses Doctor Who's TARDIS technology and the sample is bigger on the inside than the outside?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 3:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It also has added timey-wimey...stuff...in it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Doesn't make this judgement any less stupid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's hilarious that you think the song itself is an argument for your point rather than against. If this use doesn't pass muster as transformative what would? Seriously, that's not a hypothetical, is it your opinion that no music with sampling should ever qualify as transformative enough to be fair use or can you actually provide an example of song with samples that you feel are fair use?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dwg, 12 Oct 2011 @ 3:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's the thing about copytards: they eschew the whoel idea of "transformative use." It's like they listen to songs in half-second bits and never bother to try to enjoy the stuff. No wonder they're so bitter.
      
      Dangermouse? GirlTalk? 2 Live Crew? Come on, jackalopes--what will it take?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  "let's also add in here that it appears that the sample, while 10 seconds long, is used repeated through the resulting track (adding up to somewhere near 3 minutes of play time)."
  
  I'm confused as to what that has to with anything in this matter. The sample is only 10 seconds long. Who cares how much elapsed time that 10 second sample is used in the song. It's still just 10 seconds of use....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Did you listen to the song? Without that particular sample, the song is without it's structure. The sample provides the melody for most of the song.
    
    The "10 second sample" makes it sound like it is a small piece of a 5 and a half minute song. The reality is that it is a key, repeating component of the song, providing it's melody, pace, and structure. It's not insignificant.
    
    The court got this one right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, it didn't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Okay...have a look at this
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
      
      and then tell me again they got it right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sort of left field, isn't it? We are talking a direct performance sample here, not "chord structure".
        
        As for the video itself, considering there are only 88 keys on the keyboard, there are technically only a limited number of noted to play. Musical scales limit that even further. It is very easy to try to jam a bunch of songs into a cord pattern in this manner, but it proves very little. Performance is a significant part of the deal, not just individual cords played.
        
        Sampling? That is using performance, which is why it always ends up being copyright violation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Recently it has ended up in infringement, before nobody cared not until the 90's anyways.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yet those 4 chord songs all used the same notes. Who's violating whose copyright now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Raybone (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the sample starts @ 2:04 and ends @ 4:02...out of a total of 5:26..it is basically the sample used for the break down and rebuild..of the beat and chord sequence...which in this style of music provides the'pace and structure'..there is no melody in this song..just rhythm samples, chords, arpeggios based on those chords. Its all about a soundscape..not a melody. This is not Beatles music. The sample is not, as you seem to characterize, the linchpin in the song. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that you need to gain some fundamental education in modern music and musical structures in general.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The same is there beyond 4:02, and drives the melody of the song (the basic sound scape) and also provides the rythmn of the song. The pattern and progression of the sample is used throughout as it's basic melodic structure.
        
        It's my opinion. I disagree with your opinion, but I understand where you are coming from.
        
        I have to say though that trying to call it a "sound scape" rather than a song is a very sly way to try to avoid the fact that it is still made up of the same elements of a song, such as tempo and melody.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Raybone (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I have to say though that trying to call it a "sound scape" rather than a song "..never said that..it is a song..with no melody..and i listened very closely to the song..the sample might have an extra delayed flurry of notes that starts at 4:10 and fades to the right at 4:20. After that its just arpeggios and string pad chords. I've very good ears and get paid well for them. Also..harmonic motion is not the same thing as a melody.
        
        " is still made up of the same elements of a song, such as tempo and melody" the tempo was established by arpeggios at the beginning 2 min before the sample was introduced..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2011 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "the tempo was established by arpeggios at the beginning 2 min before the sample was introduced."
        
        Actually, if you pay attention, the speed and tempo of the arpeggios appear to be set in consequence of the sample, and not the other way around. This sort of song isn't written in a linear fashion. It is clear that the sample in question is they key melody of the song, and a such, everything else appears to have been done in support of it.
        
        It's opinion, nothing more.
        
        So what is it that you do Mr Raybone that gets your ears paid so well?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Raybone (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I must also state that much of what we talk of can fall into subjective opinion..so there is that..however i must say that I see no logic for your support of this verdict, even in the light of the position you hold.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It's my opinion. I disagree with your opinion, but I understand where you are coming from."
        
        I have my own unfounded opinion in which I use musical terms I don't really understand. I disagree with your opinion, but I understand that you know a lot more about music than I do and clearly have a professional opinion on the matter, but I don't concede points no matter how much bullshit I am called on.
        
        ftfy
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now you show your true colors. This isn't about the law or morality to you. This is about your deep seated disdain for sampledelia. The court got it 'right' in your eyes because sampledelia isn't 'art' in your eyes so a ruling against it is 'good' in your eyes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So what?
      Is focking 10 secs of it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The reality is that none of that has anything to do with the original work that was supposedly infringed here. Does this song, Les Djinns, have the same melody, pace, or structure as the original? No, it doesn't. So how could it have infringed on those things? If it's melody, pace, and structure are different then the work it supposedly infringes on them then obviously it didn't get them from that work. It got the 10 second sample from that work but the melody, pace, and structure came from somewhere else.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:44am
  
  Re:
  "The 10-second sample is looped and played at length throughout the track. According to Skulstad�s statement to the court, while the sample is a prominent part of the melody, it is only one of about 50 instrumental layers." So while being used throughout the track it has varying prominence in the soundscape throughout the track and is still a small part of the overall work.
  
  Nothing like misrepresenting facts so I can prove people wrong and accuse them of misrepresenting facts. Hypocrisy is the coolest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:22am
  
  Re:
  So monopolizing building blocks is a sensible thing to do right?
  
  Next you will call people who don't pay artists to stream music or video inside their homes is theft too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:36am
  
  Re:
  Facts like it's only one small part of what's actually playing for those 3 minutes and that there's no legal reason why using the same 10 second clip more than once should change if the use is legal or not?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:49am

So what prevents the record company, who produced the track, from paying any part of the royalties? I mean they made money too (and probably the majority of the money made went to them), but only the musicians are held responsible to pay back the money?

I dont know why anyone would want to be a musician these days. when even just playing music, in your basement, for yourself could get you used why even bother. just become a lawyer and let other people play the worlds smallest violin just for you, as you sue them to the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:00am

25000*0.84=200000? Yeah, I'd say that qualifies as insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:01am

The worst thing about this ruling in my opinion? It's effectively reduced art to something quantifiable, something you can measure in mathematics. I have heard about people studying music from a mathematical approach, and obviously, you'd have to have an engineering degree or the like if you want to carve a second Mt. Rushmore...but the core of art cannot be measured. It can only be felt and appreciated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:03am
  
  Re:
  Sampling effectively reduces are to something quantifiable. It can be measured in length of sample, number of notes, speed,pitch change, etc. It can all be measured and examined, because there isn't much else in the "performance", because the performance is actually someone else's.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killercool (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, the only reason sampling is like that at all is because of rulings like this. If judges hadn't imposed time, note progression, and other restrictions on samples, there would be no need for the calculations required to keep samples "legal."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Right, they're not artists because no one is playing the guitar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dwg, 12 Oct 2011 @ 3:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Painting effectively reduces to something quantifiable. It can be measured in number of brushstrokes, color, size, etc. It can all be measured and examined, because there isn't much else to a painting, because the materials all came from somewhere else.
    
    Right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:05am

" In the meantime, however, the band owes approximately $200,000 (over 1 million Danish kroner) on a song which they say made them about $25,000 (or 140,000 Danish kroner)."

Let's start another branch here. Mike, if the song made the "band" better known, or added to their fan base, or they attracted a larger crowd or sold more merchandise at their shows, and will do so going forward, how much did it really "earn" for them?

You are all about the esoteric exposure theory of marketing, so how much is the exposure worth here? I am guessing about $175,000... what about you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  "Not wanting to put off their record label, EMI, they lied and said the song did not use any samples. It was released and sold 150 copies."
  
  Apparently the song made them a huge hit. But we anti-pirates all know exposure is worth negative 150 billion dollars.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killercool (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  Oh, yes. Let us quantify intangibles. My grandfather left me a watch. It is priceless to me. My cousin stole and hocked it. I must sue him for the "true" value of the watch. I could really use those infinite dollars.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:31am
  
  Re:
  You are the reason every time I pirate a song and deleted it after I get this broad smile of satisfaction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- illuminaut (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  uhm, ok. So how about this then: the ruling itself makes headlines and thereby exposes the band to further exposure. According to your logic, the judge should factor that into the equation, and because the higher the punishment is the more press and exposure the band gets, this will recursively spin out of control until the band either owes all the money in the world or the judge's head explodes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    You mean this?
    http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100108063233/uncyclopedia/images/archive/b/b5/2010010 8063328!Exploding-head.gif
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  Then again I'd never heard of either song until now so clearly there's also the added intangible exposure of the original artist in addition to this band. I'm guess the two more or less cancel out... what about you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:33am

Next country to get Pirate Party seats?

Denmark yay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caught in the act, 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:49am

Djuma got caught violating a copyright
If Djuma couldn't work out an agreement with the real copyright holder, then why did they go forward and use the sample anyway? It's so stupid because that in itself demonstrates a flagrant disregard for copyright law. That song should never had included the 10-second sample. Serves them right for trying to pull a fast one.

Also, there was no mention how often that 10-second sample was used throughout the song. 10 seconds might sound miniscule, but use it 6 times throughout a song and it's already a whole minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
  I'm no musical scholar here, so I'm gonna have to ask for someone else to do the legwork, since I'm unable to...
  Can someone research and tell us where the "original" songwriter got that 10 second sequence from? If proof can be shown that the artist screaming and ranting about how his music was ripped off, did in fact take the sequence from somewhere else...it would invalidate the punishment wouldn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
    Ummm the original artist did something that may be shocking to someone under 30 years old... he "played" an instrument.
    
    I know. It is hard to imagine, people actually performing music with basic instruments rather than just arranging clips of other people performing, but it actually use to happen a lot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
      Durn those damn kids and their creative use of technology available to them!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
      So what? The person who plays the piano or plays the guitar...they would have to have learned it from someone else. They would then most likely use their teacher's music and then build off of it.
      A remixer...their instrument IS other people's work. He uses it to create something new.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
        Rikou, it's the standard argument, and it might get a pass here, but it doesn't get a pass in the real world.
        
        No matter how good a music teacher, no matter how perfect the "rendition" of the music, someone playing guitar will always add a little of their own nuance to something. Part of the art and the mystique of playing a musical instrument is that it is a basic tool, one that requires skill, and that skill is unique to each player.
        
        There are no perfect guitar players. There are no perfect trombone players, and so on. Each player brings a little of their own skill and nuance to their play.
        
        Now a sample of a performance is always the same. The performance does not change. You can edit it, you can play with it, you can stretch it, shrink it, chop it into little pieces, but there is still a performance there that is not yours.
        
        While a good producer or a good editor is an "artist" in their own way, they are not musicians.
        
        Performance is key, it is a completed work. Using that performance as the basis for something else doesn't make that new thing into a performance, or even really music. It is the producer editing the track, it's something else. It's not a musical performance.
        
        The remixer doesn't create new... they just recycle. You may not have seen the pieces in that order or in that collection, but it is just recycled performances by other people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
        "The remixer doesn't create new... they just recycle. You may not have seen the pieces in that order or in that collection, but it is just recycled performances by other people."
        
        Which is why this "new" song sounds exactly like the work it is infringing off of. It has the same melody and tempo of all the pieces it stole from. Because really its nothing new, creative or original.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
        The ability to play instruments trumps the ability to create new musical arrangements. Because really as long as you have had a few lessons you can fart into a tuba and I will call you an artist. However if you can play no instruments but use samples to create a truly unique and original piece of music you are nothing but a worthless hack.
        
        But hey I am looking at this objectively and not letting my preferences get involved...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
        You don't actually know how art and culture work, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
      We get it, you don't think sampledelia is art. No one cares. Get over yourself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
        Are there ANY people that think sampledelia is art?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DC, 12 Oct 2011 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
        Actually, it can even be performance art. Get out a bit more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
  "The article details how the musicians went to great lengths to work out a deal with the copyright holder, but ran into some problem as they dealt with one person who later turned out not to be the actual copyright holder."
  
  Where are the damages against the first guy who lied about being the copyright holder?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:58am
  
  Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
  You're apparently new at this or you'd realize people license stuff to avoid legal trouble, not because they actually think they owe anyone anything. Copyrights and patents are licensed for use all the time in cases where it's not clear who would win in court because the risk of loss is enough.
  
  What's your legal basis for suggesting reusing the same 10 second sample infringes more of the original than only using it once? Be specific.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg, 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re: Djuma got caught violating a copyright
  Hey idiot: do you know that making a good-faith attempt to license something is actually a factor that weighs IN FAVOR of someone attempting to use another's work?
  
  Read a book.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:06am

Nothing new
This is nothing new.
Look up what happened to John Lennon for using the phrase "flat top" in "Come Together".

Then there's the famous suit against George Harrison for "My Sweet Lord".

For you internet kiddies that don't know any history that happened before 1995, use your Google machine to look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SamSneed, 12 Oct 2011 @ 10:55am

http://www.u3tech.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:39am

If the sample was the used as the "hook" it could contribute greatly to the song. Just because only 10 seconds was sampled does not mean that the sample is only present in 10 seconds of the song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IWriteActualMusic, 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:45am

"Get over yourself"

This is why I generally don't get involved in these kinds of discussions, because average Joes who know nothing about music composition and/or arranging and copyright law think they're "experts" because they listen to music and watch "Judge Judy".

Clowns are entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  So someone told you to get over yourself so you respond by explaining how you are better then everyone else in the conversation? Hmmmm, get over yourself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- IWriteActualMusic too, 12 Oct 2011 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re:
  Most of the people that post here are actual artists, who have a name posted. You have a fake one, so I'll go with my own experience in the arts rather then your fake one.
  
  But tell you what, post your name and work, and I'll post mine
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jackn, 12 Oct 2011 @ 11:49am

"may effectively wipe out the ability to create music based on samples"

Yay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raybone (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:02pm

Sampling is a hybrid art
I think a helpful way of looking at remixing and and the use of samples versus composition is to understand the difference of what they are. What we have in much electronically-based music are essentially composer-arrangers.

Historically, arrangers take composed music and 'remix' them. They may change the tempo, change parts, keys, moods, instrumental composition and even styles. Frank Zappa famously arranged Led Zepplin's 'Stairway to Heaven' for a big band. It took a lot of creativity even though Frank did not compose the song. Just about all the high school jazz charts and most of the college charts I read from back in the day were arranged by a person other than the composer. I contend that a remix/sample artist is no different from a jazz arranger. However, a sample artist may go further.

There are so many new tools for manipulating waves today compared to just ten years ago. It is these tools that help make a sample artist a composer as well as an arranger. Samples can be stretched, scratched, effected, flipped, internally rearranged, and tone adjusted just to name a few of the options available. There are wizards out there that can do just about anything to sound you can imagine, on the fly, and in a musically pleasing way that create new art with the elements of the old they draw from. Some controllerists can even improvise with other musicians on their instruments in a group setting adding new elements to live performances now.

Sampling is too convenient, easy, and most importantly, effective to ever stop. It will continue to grow as tech gets better and cheaper. The lines will be blurred more and more as new kinds of instruments using this tech are developed for those who play live. They will not replace regular instruments but join them on the stage. Traditional instruments will also continue to change and incorporate the new tech with the old. Already with my 6-string Ken Smith bass with a midi pick up connected to my Fantom, I can sound like an entire orchestra or really anything I chose through sampling, recording and prepping wave files to my keyboard. I would suggest this is a good trend mainly due to the further democratizing affect the tech has on the music industry. For composers with a good perspective the world is their oyster. However, considering the current climate, just don't forget to befriend a good lawyer ;D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg, 12 Oct 2011 @ 4:10pm
  
  Re: Sampling is a hybrid art
  Are you new here, or have I just been absent too long? You take the time to say the stuff I'm often too lazy to. Thanks, mate--you're a well-spoken, right-thinking dude.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 13 Oct 2011 @ 1:55pm

everyone saying the judge needs to be educated should take their own advice. it is the job of the parties involved to inform the judge of context with expert testimony. do you think judges in criminal proceedings are forensic experts? Of course not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg, 13 Oct 2011 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re:
  Tell that to the Federal Circuit, which reviews claim construction de novo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]