Lord Finesse's Lawyers Now Using Copyright To Stifle Dan Bull's Criticism Of His Lawsuit Against Mac Miller

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Fri, Jul 13th 2012 2:39pm — Mike Masnick

Yesterday we wrote about rapper Lord Finesse suing fellow rapper Mac Miller because Miller released a free song that used the same beat that Finesse used (which was itself based on a sample from jazz musician Oscar Peterson). Miller, of course, has become a phenom, being the first indie artist to top the charts with a new release in over a decade. The song in question, Kool Aid & Frozen Pizza, wasn't on Miller's album, but was just released for free online, and uses the same beat from Finesse's 90's era hit Hip 2 Da Game. And now Finesse is suing for $10 million.

In our post on the subject, we pointed to a song that Dan Bull put together, using the same beat, but as commentary/parody of this legal fight. The song highlights how hip-hop has a long history of building on the works of others, and does a nice job laying out the history with Oscar Peterson's sample being used first. And... this morning Dan Bull logged into his YouTube account to discover that Finesse's lawyers had issued a takedown on his song.

This is a clear abuse of copyright law to stifle criticism of his lawsuit. First of all, it's not at all difficult to find a lot of other songs that use the same beat with people rapping their own lyrics over them... and they all have been left up (and have been up for a while). Here are just a couple examples -- both of which have been up for over a year. And, oh yeah, even Mac Miller's own version is still up on YouTube. So basically, either Finesse and his lawyers just so happened to take down the one video that is critical of the lawsuit... or they're using copyright to stifle criticism and free speech.

Furthermore, it seems like there's as pretty strong argument for fair use (or fair dealing in the UK) for Dan's video. It's clearly using the music to comment on the lawsuit and the fact that it involves this beat. It's difficult to discuss the nature of the beat without actually being able to use the beat, as Dan did. In many ways this seems like a classic case of what fair use/fair dealing was designed for. The beat is integral to the criticism and commentary that is the whole point of the song, and is used out of necessity.

Of course, even more amusing is that the entire point of Bull's song was to tell Finesse just how bad legal action like his lawsuit against Miller really looks -- and instead of getting the message, it appears that Finesse and his lawyers want to look even worse, using the same sort of "copyright as censorship" effort that made Bull call them out in the first place.

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: criticism, dan bull, fair dealing, fair use, hip-hop, lord finesse, mac miller, parody

70 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Prisoner 201, 13 Jul 2012 @ 2:46pm

Will we finally see a combination of the Streisand effect and the Carreon Effect? I have a bunker full of popcorn just in case the resulting cascade effect sets fire to the atmosphere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 13 Jul 2012 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re:
  Of course we will. Stupid takedowns gain stupid amounts of attention because people can't help but notice and point out stupid in it's natural habitat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TDR, 13 Jul 2012 @ 5:31pm
  
  Re:
  Would that be the Streirreon Effect? or the Carrisand Effect? or the StreiCarreon Effect?
  
  Either way, how long do you all think it will be till Bull does another parody video mocking the takedown of his original video mocking this whole thing? What kind of clueless smeghead calls himself Lord Finesse? Ego much?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lozine, 13 Jul 2012 @ 2:50pm

Copyright claims everywhere! its making me sad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
carborundum (profile), 13 Jul 2012 @ 2:54pm

Wow
So now Dan Bull can sue Finesse's lawyers for an illegal takedown/ perjury?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xenomancer (profile), 13 Jul 2012 @ 3:09pm
  
  Re: Wow
  If I recall correctly, from what we've seen of copytroll lawsuits so far, even judges pissed off with those "claiming" infringement have refused to follow through and find the obvious bad faith of such take downs actionable. It's one of the major weaknesses of the DMCA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 13 Jul 2012 @ 7:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Wow
    IIRC, the recoverable damages are ridiculously tiny. It's a joke.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2012 @ 11:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wow
      If the DMCA takedown process were declared unconstitutional as applied, that would be worth more than all the money in the world.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liam, 15 Jul 2012 @ 2:35am
  
  Re: Wow
  No because finesse has sued mac miller for $10 million and dan doesn't have the money or the balls to do that as he said in his last posted video, although dan is perfectly in the right he is just unable to risk something he doesnt have. He believes it to be better just to keep his mouth shut which is exactly what the lawyers want.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someone (profile), 30 Aug 2015 @ 1:38am
  
  Re: Wow
  Well he could but again Mac Miller was sued for $10 milon for "his" song... and I doubt that Dan Bull has the resources to sue him. So it is unlikely to happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 3:08pm

Told ya! This is a classic loose, loose situation: If Finesse wins both, the court is pretty biased towards content industry since parody is a no-brainer in the Dan Bull case and that precedence is ridiculous. If both are kicked out, Finesse is loosing a lot of dough. If one of Bull or Mac wins, it is gonna be one of them taking a serious hit, while the other will be able to make Finesse go to about 0 in balance from the cost of the cases...

Sugarhill Gang has been bank-rolling Chic since forever and several other rappers have been hit by the copyright hammer. I am, however, surprised to see a rapper sue 2 other rappers. I would say Finesse is completely out of street-cred after this, yo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re:
  What a looser.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nikto, 15 Jul 2012 @ 7:33am
  
  Re: Misspellings
  It's 'lose' not 'loose.'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 3:13pm

Carreon effect at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 3:14pm

Ah crap, first poster beat me to it lol. Well, whatever, fuck Carreon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 3:21pm

This is such an obvious case of abuse that it would be a good case for arguing the DMCA takedown process is unconstitutional. It shouldn't be "censor first, ask questions later, sue if abuse occurred." You don't even need to wipe the whole DMCA (although I think that would be great), just the part that says liability attaches if the provider doesn't remove content immediately even before the other side has a chance to respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPHinPgh (profile), 13 Jul 2012 @ 3:22pm

WTF is Schwartz? Are they ripping off Spaceballs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Adam W, 13 Jul 2012 @ 6:27pm
  
  Re:
  They are a food company that specialises in herbs and spices I believe...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 2:11am
  
  Re:
  Schwartz means black in German
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 3:39pm

A parody as typically associated with copyright is directed to commentary on the work itself. Here the parody is directed to a "news" matter, and not to the specific work. Hence, in my opinion reliance upon fair use as a defense would be a very difficult position to sustain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 3:45pm
  
  Re:
  However, the "news" matter the parody is about is specifically about the work itself. Many of the lyrics in the song were specifically about the work and how it was built without permission using a sample of another artist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 13 Jul 2012 @ 5:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Ack!!! brain freeze without ice cream.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- surfer (profile), 13 Jul 2012 @ 3:47pm
  
  nothing will every make you happy will it?
  nothing will ever make you copytards happy will it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 13 Jul 2012 @ 4:01pm
  
  Re:
  Here the parody is directed to a "news" matter, and not to the specific work.
  
  Wrong!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 13 Jul 2012 @ 4:01pm
  
  Re:
  Commentary defense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re:
  The news IS the work farkwad
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hmm, 15 Jul 2012 @ 11:19am
  
  Re:
  Yes but in Britain ,the place he lives in, the rights of fair use state they can also be used for commentary on news.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
blogward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 4:34pm

This thread
Like anyone cares about hip hop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 13 Jul 2012 @ 5:17pm

Stop-and-frisk, TSA patdowns, harmful full-body scanners, NSA aggregating private user phone/internet data, FBI foiling self-created terrorist plots, checkpoints within our borders, predatory lending, mass foreclosures, corporate bailouts at the taxpayers' expense, lobbyists rewriting the laws in order to expand monopolies and stifle innovation, lawyers suing everyone under the sun, rampant patent trolling, censorship, fraudulent copyright/IP takedown notices...

The 'American dream' is fast devolving into an Orwellian corporate-facist nightmare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChimpObama McBinLadenBurton, 13 Jul 2012 @ 5:30pm
  
  Re: Stop-and-Frisk
  Whoa...
  
  I read back your comment out-loud, in "rap-style" with an English accent, and I sounded just like Dan Bull!
  
  Thanks Man!
  
  COMBB
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 13 Jul 2012 @ 5:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Stop-and-Frisk
    Perhaps it would be good if somebody got the message across to the general public via music. But it would be hard to make it work without coming off as sounding too paranoid, pretentious or corny. It would need to be infectious like The Alan Parsons Project - Eye In The Sky in order to have the desired effect.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 7:11pm

This is classically funny, and shows how much the people at Techdirt don't understand. If Dan Bull stole the music, he violated copyright, plain and simple.

Now, he may want to try to claim fair use, but clearly this isn't parody, but rather rapping an opinion, which is not the same thing. So his fair use claims would be, well, hard to sustain (and harder still to sustain if he is in the UK, which doesn't appear to have specific fair use clauses).

So in the end, yes, copyright is used to shut down and dissenting opinion, but it is ALSO used to shut down a copyright violating song. Perhaps Dan would re-do the song with his own beat and put it back up. No, wait, that would require effort, nevermind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 7:37pm
  
  Re:
  >So in the end, yes, copyright is used to shut down and dissenting opinion
  
  And of course you would have no problem with this. But hey, you're the one who supports CEOs who demanded SOPA to shut down parody and criticism; of course you would gleefully support the above clause.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 8:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, I have no problem with it, because the dissenting opinion could have been stated without violating copyright. By violating copyright, he pretty much showed you how much his opinion is really worth.
    
    If his opinion was really valuable (and not just an attempt to get attention) Mr Bull would have taken the time to make his own music rather than using someone else's.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 14 Jul 2012 @ 12:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "By violating copyright, he pretty much showed you how much his opinion is really worth."
      
      And the fact that you still see copyright violation as the Terrible Crime here, completely missing the point of Dan deliberately putting his lyrics over that beat, shows how much your opinion is really worth.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jul 2012 @ 2:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wrong. The dissenting opinion is a direct commentary on the song, involving specific discussion of aspects of the song - the use of the beat is integral to the commentary. It is a strong case of parody fair use.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2012 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No parody would be making fun of something. This isn't making fun, this is stating an opinion.
        
        There is a huge gap of difference.
        
        Weird Al is parody. Mike Masnick is opinion. Reading one of Mike's diatribes over a copyright song wouldn't suddenly turn it into a parody. It might be funny, but it's not a parody.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2012 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dan Bull's work is a parody and criticism of Lord Finesse.
        
        [i]n truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before.
        
        The germ of parody lies in the definition of the Greek parodeia, quoted in Judge Nelson's Court of Appeals dissent, as "a song sung alongside another." 972 F. 2d, at 1440, quoting 7 Encyclopedia Britannica 768 (15th ed. 1975). Modern dictionaries accordingly describe a parody as a "literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule," or as a "composition in prose or verse in which the characteristic turns of thought and phrase in an author or class of authors are imitated in such a way as to make them appear ridiculous."
        
        ...
        
        [A]s to parody pure and simple, it is more likely that the new work will not affect the market for the original in a way cognizable under this [market harm] factor, that is, by acting as a substitute for it ("supersed[ing] [its] objects"). See Leval 1125; Patry & Perlmutter 692, 697-698. This is so because the parody and the original usually serve different market functions. Bisceglia, ASCAP, Copyright Law Symposium, No. 34, at 23.
        
        We do not, of course, suggest that a parody may not harm the market at all, but when a lethal parody, like a scathing theater review, kills demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the Copyright Act. Because "parody may quite legitimately aim at garroting the original, destroying it commercially as well as artistically," B. Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright 69 (1967), the role of the courts is to distinguish between "[b]iting criticism [that merely] suppresses demand [and] copyright infringement[, which] usurps it." ... Of course, the only harm to derivatives that need concern us, as discussed above, is the harm of market substitution. The fact that a parody may impair the market for derivative uses by the very effectiveness of its critical commentary is no more relevant under copyright than the like threat to the original market.
        
        Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 575-93 (1994) (all brackets in original).
        
        The point Dan Bull is trying to make is that it is ridiculous and hypocritical for Lord Finesse to sue someone for using his beats in a free song when (1) it's a widely accepted norm within the rap industry to reuse others' beats without credit or payment and (2) Lord Finesse has done exactly what he's suing Mac Miller for. Using Lord Finesse's beat to do it is essential to making the point.
        
        As for any argument that Dan Bull's work will destroy the market for the original, well... even if it's true, too bad. That's what happens when you piss off your potential customers in a free market.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 6:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's a weak parody at best, and one that I doubt Dan Bull would want to go to court to try to support. He is very likely to get a judge that wouldn't see much parody in it.
        
        Commentary in and of itself (which is what this is) is not parody. Mr Bull is making sarcastic comments to expose his point of view. He isn't making fun of anyone, he isn't making a joking version, he is VERY serious.
        
        Sorry, no parody here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2012 @ 10:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your statement sounds like an opinion, but I think it's parody... I mean, how do I know you're not just a fake troll commenting for the lulz?
        
        What you think is your opinion, I think could be parody, and who are you to judge my opinion (or parody) of your parody (or opinion)?
        
        See, you're just like all the other close-minded asshats who are trying to make a point - you have little more than opinions (or parody).
        
        There is no huge gap - only your opinion of what the difference might be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 9:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    SOPA did no such thing, but then it is easy to think otherwise if you partook of the FUD-breakfast, lunch and dinner you were spoonfed by the anti-SOPA Chicken Littles.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2012 @ 9:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/10472819115/ceo-says-sopa-cispa-are-needed-because-disgrun tled-customer-once-set-up-parody-site-to-mock-him.shtml
      
      So you're saying this CEO partook the FUD-breakfast, too? Because that's exactly what he believed SOPA would do for him.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JJJoseph (profile), 13 Jul 2012 @ 9:37pm
  
  Re: Fair Use
  Anonymous Coward:"If Dan Bull stole the music, he violated copyright, plain and simple...Now, he may want to try to claim fair use, but clearly this isn't parody, but rather rapping an opinion, which is not the same thing."
  
  But he didn't steal it. He changed it to a different end. Fair use is not just parody, it also consists of altering a work to repurpose it. This is exactly what Mac Miller did. It's clearly fair use.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 14 Jul 2012 @ 12:49am
  
  Re:
  If Dan Bull stole the music, he violated copyright, plain and simple.
  
  So the music is suddenly gone, because he "stole" it? And what about Lord Finesse "stealing" from Oscar Peterson?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jul 2012 @ 2:12am
  
  Re:
  No, wait, that would require effort, nevermind.
  
  You should probably go look at Dan Bull's extensive catalogue of work (and then provide us with a link to your presumably much larger catalogue of even more original work) before saying stupid shit like that
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Jul 2012 @ 2:25am
  
  Re:
  This is classically funny, and shows how much the people at Techdirt don't understand. If Dan Bull stole the music, he violated copyright, plain and simple.
  
  Well, he didn't steal it, so I guess he didn't violate the copyright.
  
  Now, he may want to try to claim fair use, but clearly this isn't parody, but rather rapping an opinion, which is not the same thing.
  
  Fair use is not just for parody. Fair use is actually more for opinion that is commentary/criticism.
  
  So his fair use claims would be, well, hard to sustain
  
  Considering you seem to think that fair use only applies to parody, well, that suggests that you're wrong.
  
  (and harder still to sustain if he is in the UK, which doesn't appear to have specific fair use clauses).
  
  You might want to look up fair dealing in the UK, which explicitly protects commentary/reviews.
  
  So in the end, yes, copyright is used to shut down and dissenting opinion, but it is ALSO used to shut down a copyright violating song.
  
  Except that it's probably not in violation, as we explained, but which you missed since you appear to not understand the law. At all.
  
  Perhaps Dan would re-do the song with his own beat and put it back up. No, wait, that would require effort, nevermind.
  
  If you think Dan didn't put effort into this work, then you also must think that Lord Finesse didn't put effort into his work, since it was built off of the Peterson sample. Is that the case?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2012 @ 5:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey Pirate Mike, why do you have time to debate this person (whom you obviously think is an easy win for you), yet you don't have any time in the world to debate me? I have a file saved with about 100 questions I've asked you (many more than once), and you refuse to answer. When would you like to go through those? LOL! I know, I know. Never. You can dish out the scrutiny, but God knows you can't take it. Toodles.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jul 2012 @ 2:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The last comment I recall from you ended with "go fuck yourselves and die"
      
      Why exactly is Mike or anyone supposed to bother replying to you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 14 Jul 2012 @ 10:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When would you like to go through those?
      When they start making sense rather than sounding like clueless, pointless drivel? Good luck with that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Jul 2012 @ 10:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey Pirate Mike, why do you have time to debate this person (whom you obviously think is an easy win for you), yet you don't have any time in the world to debate me?
      
      We get between 500 and 1,000 comments per day. I do not have the time to read them all. When I get a chance I will skim some, and if I see something worth responding to I will. I probably end up seeing about 50% of the comments on the site, and I respond to much fewer. I'm sorry if I don't respond to every time you have a question, but there are other reasons not to respond to you (see below).
      
      I have a file saved with about 100 questions I've asked you (many more than once), and you refuse to answer.
      
      That seems a little obsessive, don't you think?
      
      But, more honestly, the last few "questions" I've seen from you is "why are you such a piece of shit?" and "why don't you fuck off and die?"
      
      As far as I can tell, the *ONLY* thing you've done in our comments is throw temper tantrums in which you curse, call me names, and seek to insult me.
      
      And you think I should now "debate" you? Sorry, skippy. I debate people who show themselves worthy of debate by acting like they're older than 12. That's not you.
      
      I am sure that you will now claim that I refuse to debate you. That, of course, is ridiculous. As anyone who reads this site can see, I happily debate with lots of people, both in person and in these comments. Just recently I sat down for a 1 hour debate with Jonathan Taplin who I believe is on your side on these things. In the past I've debated with the likes of Steve Tepp. I have no problem debating someone who acts like an adult. But considering your regular decision to act like a child, there is nothing to "debate." When you act like an adult, perhaps someone will treat you like one. Until then, don't expect us to respond to silly baiting and ad hominem attacks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 14 Jul 2012 @ 11:49am
  
  Re:
  Except that, even if we except your argument, you are ignoring one fine detail. The fact that Lord Finesse doesn't technically "own" the copyright to the beat. That would be Oscar Peterson, given that Finesse sampled the beat himself. Therefore, even under copymaximalist doctrine, only Peterson would have the right to sue., even if Finesse had a "license" to use the beat (which I rather doubt).
  
  So anyway you wish to look at it, this is indeed an abuse of the system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 8:26am
  
  Re:
  Ah, but fair use also covers review, not just parody.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
michaelmiles, 13 Jul 2012 @ 10:04pm

If I recall correctly, from what we've seen of copytroll lawsuits so far, even judges pissed off with those "claiming" infringement have refused to follow through and find the obvious bad faith of such take downs actionable. It's one of the major weaknesses of the DMCA.For more Opstijgend vocht
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totte, 14 Jul 2012 @ 10:16am

Video on vimeo
For those that missed the original video: http://vimeo.com/45733369
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Puh.. Puh Puh Puh ..Puh Puh.. Puh, 14 Jul 2012 @ 11:47am

To the Same Beat
Sounds like cause for another lawsuit? Go Dan Bull!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eponymous Coward, 14 Jul 2012 @ 3:12pm

I think Dan should recut the song, or do an udated parody, where he re-samples the original by Petterson and thus holds copyright over this variant. Then if Lord Finesse and his lawyers issue another takedown they're are directly censoring that which they hold no rights in what-so-ever, and liable to be counter-sued! It will also further serve to illustrate the crazy absurdity in all this for we know his lawyers will probably take the bait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2012 @ 4:28pm
  
  Re:
  Why are people even talking about sampling? There was no sampling, they just recorded straight over the beat from Finesse's song. The mix is identical (as far as I can tell), and that will likely factor into the case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eponymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 3:46am
    
    Re: Re:peating myself...
    Do you understand comprehensive reading? The question you ask (Why are people even talking about sampling?) is answered in the body of my post, and pretty clearly I should add as to why I was talking about sampling, which you decided to respond to. Did you even read it in the first place, or should I just repeat myself for your benefit/lack of understanding?
    
    As another matter, though you seem absolutely certain, how do you know for sure that Dan Bull rapped over Lord Finesse's song and dind't reconstruct the beat from the original source material?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
colin s, 14 Jul 2012 @ 5:45pm

Miller etc beats / copyright duspute
Sullivan v Bristol Film Studios Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 570 is a decision of the Court of Appeal, England in which UK Court values a trivial copyright claim. Amount claimed was 800K. Amount awarded - 50 pounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 14 Jul 2012 @ 10:14pm

Wow! Claiming copyright on a rap beat. That would be like claiming that you have the copyright on all songs written in major or minor scale. Could even add in all they keys and modes of songs that you have copyrighted. Let's throw in any song that uses the circle of 5ths if the song you own uses it. Don't they ALL have pretty much the same beat? It has been said that there has only been one rap song ever written and everyone just puts different lyrics to it. George Harrison being sued over "My Sweet Lord" sounding a little like the one-hit wonder "He's so Fine" makes more sense than this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 10:24am
  
  Re:
  Don't they ALL have pretty much the same beat? It has been said that there has only been one rap song ever written and everyone just puts different lyrics to it.
  
  Um, no. Are you being sarcastic? Hip-hop is rich with variation.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2yVNDB4Q-A
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5p-oqfF8Pg
  
  http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6G1cLYoivQ
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4iR668Ki3I
  
  ...all the same beat?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 2:25am

Fuck Copyright and all of it's hippie followers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roofus, 15 Jul 2012 @ 3:29am

"Fuck Copyright and all of it's hippie followers!"

You do understand what a hippy is, right? If anything they'd be on Dan's side....even if it's just because they're high and think he had cakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob loblaw, 15 Jul 2012 @ 6:31am

hypocrasy
lord finesse has released two albums over the past couple years where all he uses are unauthorized samples from the Blue Note catalogue. Someone notify EMI and sue his ass. This is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 8:07am

Copyright is a problem inside of another problem: money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny, 15 Jul 2012 @ 12:37pm

Let's test this shall we?
An other YouTube user has reposted Dan's video (Mentioning Dan in the description of course) and he claims fair use and Parody as well. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH0ejMeCTYM&feature=colike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:06am

i am making an assumption here that the guy is now too old to do anything for himself, too unappealing to the masses, so feels his only option now is to try to get money by suing from those who can earn by themselves? get over it!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shane Bartosh, 26 Jul 2012 @ 11:41am

Forgetting About Criticism
Every one here is arguing about the parody aspect of copy-write law, but are forgetting that fair-use also includes criticism. You can make a reasonable argument that the work in question was not parody, I can see how it can be not considered parody. However it still is a criticism of both the case between Miller and Finesse, and the fact that Miller sampled Oscar Peterson in his song. When you criticize a work you can use that work under fair-use to make a case for your criticism.

Dan is in the right, Finesse is in the wrong, and is using his money to buy power and censor criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan Wilson, 26 Oct 2012 @ 3:36pm

Slapping
Just get someone to slap Finesse in the face for being such a whiny, hypocritical twat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldy, 4 Nov 2012 @ 10:05am

Kool aid frozen pizza
Lord Finesse use of Oscar petterons 2 note "beat" is not only clever but used in a different genre where I doubt you could recognise the notes as they are looped a tones changed. Mac Miller took the whole if Lord Finesse's classic "retreaded" and if you know your hip hop you will be "The awakend" with the "gimmick" mac is....if you pay homeage at least rap it in the rhyme?? He didn't and as LF said....ya business wasn't handled right....Mac should settle out of court his fame is founded on this track and court case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]