Yup, Retail stores, Nightclubs, Restaurants. You name it, if you have music playing. You are paying for it.

Still won't be enough money to pay for damages. I guess this would be a good time to buy exit traffic from them. :thumbsup

i love it

well expect for the it fun part

btw haven't seen a new inthevip video but the ones i remember from when i was a member only sampled a small part of the song.

sampling is still fair use

unless they have changed their practise and included a substantial portion of the song, they still have a good fair use defense. Especially since the entire expression of the video is sex happening in the clubs. It really would be the club without "club music"

nope sampling (unless they changed their production style)

of course those of use with a couple iq points recognize there is more than 1 fair use to consider.

and different fair uses cover different characteristics.

no they don't. you're way out of your league on this case.

don't make yourself look dumb.

Recording the entire song as is, as it was copyrighted... and it playing for even 1 second, instantly makes it not a sample. Just the logic of that, makes it not a sample.

Sampling is fair use, recording a song in a video is not sampling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbel...uff-Rose_Music

you may want to look at the case law again.

You should try reading what the Supreme Court said... what you're talking about has "zero" to do with sampling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)

2 Live Crew, a hip-hop group familiar with controversy, was often in the spotlight for their 'obscene' and sexually explicit lyrics. They sparked many debates about censorship in the music industry. However, it was their 1989 album As Clean as They Wanna Be (a re-tooling of As Nasty As They Wanna Be) that began the prolonged legal debate over sampling. The album contained a track entitled "Pretty Woman," based on the well-known Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman. 2 Live Crew's version sampled the guitar, bass, and drums from the original, without permission. While the opening lines are the same, the two songs split ways immediately following.[1]

For example:

Roy Orbison's version – "Pretty woman, walking down the street/ Pretty woman, the kind I'd like to meet."
2 Live Crew's version – "Big hairy woman, all that hair ain't legit,/ Cause you look like Cousin Itt."[2]

In addition to this, while the music is identifiable as the Orbison song, there were changes implemented by the group. The new version contained interposed scraper notes, overlays of solos in different keys, and an altered drum beat.[2]

The group was sued by the song's copyright owners Acuff-Rose. The company claimed that 2 Live Crew's unauthorized use of the samples devalued the original, and was thus a case of copyright infringement. The group claimed they were protected under the fair use doctrine. The case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music came to the Supreme Court in 1994.

In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court didn't consider previous ruling in which any commercial use (and economic gain) was considered copyright infringement. Instead they re-evaluated the original frame of copyright as set forth in the Constitution. The opinion that resulted from Emerson v. Davies played a major role in the decision.[1]

"[In] 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." Emerson v. Davies,8 F.Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845)[2]

Perhaps what played a larger role was the result from the Folsom v. Marsh case:

"look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work." Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, 348 (No. 4,901) (CCD Mass. 1841)[2]

The court ruled that any financial gain 2 Live Crew received from their version did not infringe upon Acuff-Rose because the two songs were targeted at very different audiences. 2 Live Crew's use of copyrighted material was protected under the fair use doctrine, as a parody, even though it was released commercially.[1] While the appellate court had determined that the mere nature of the parody made it inherently unfair, the Supreme Court's ruling reversed this decision, with Justice David Souter writing that the lower court was wrong in determining parody alone to be a sufficient criterion for copyright infringement.[3]

[edit] 1990s

In the early 1990s, Vanilla Ice sampled the bassline of the 1981 song "Under Pressure" by Queen and David Bowie for his 1990 single "Ice Ice Baby".[4] Freddie Mercury and David Bowie did not receive credit or royalties for the sample.[5] In a 1990 interview, Van Winkle said the two melodies were slightly different because he had added an additional note. In later interviews, Van Winkle readily admitted he sampled the song and claimed his 1990 statement was a joke; others, however, suggested he had been serious.[6][7] Van Winkle later paid Mercury and Bowie, who have since been given songwriting credit for the sample.[6]

More dramatically, Biz Markie's album I Need a Haircut was withdrawn in 1992 following a US federal court ruling,[8] that his use of a sample from Gilbert O'Sullivan's "Alone Again (Naturally)" was willful infringement. This case had a powerful effect on the record industry, with record companies becoming very much concerned with the legalities of sampling, and demanding that artists make full declarations of all samples used in their work. On the other hand, the ruling also made it more attractive to artists and record labels to allow others to sample their work, knowing that they would be paid—often handsomely—for their contribution.

A notable case in the early 1990s involved the dispute between the group Negativland and Casey Kasem over the band's use of un-aired vocal snippets from Kasem's radio program America's Top 40 on the Negativland single "U2".

Another notable case involved British dance music act Shut Up And Dance. Shut Up And Dance were a fairly successful Breakbeat Hardcore and rave scene outfit who like their contemporaries had liberally used samples in the creation of their music - without clearance from the individuals concerned. Although frowned upon the British music industry usually turned a blind eye to this mainly underground scene, however with rave at its commercial peak in the UK, Shut Up And Dance released the single "Raving I'm Raving" an upbeat breakbeat hardcore record which shot to #2 on the UK Singles Chart in May 1992. At the core of "Raving" were significant samples of Marc Cohn's hit single "Walking in Memphis" with some of the lyrical content changed and sung by Peter Bouncer. Shut Up And Dance hadn't sought clearance from Marc Cohn for the samples they used in "Raving" and Marc Cohn took legal action against Shut Up And Dance for breach of copyright. An out of court settlement was eventually reached between Shut Up And Dance and Cohn which saw "Raving" in its current form banned and the proceeds from the single given to charity. Ironically Shut Up and Dance were later commissioned to produce remixes for Cher's 1995 cover version of "Walking In Memphis" and were allowed by Cohn to use parts from the deleted "Raving I'm Raving" for this remix.

The Shut Up And Dance case had major ramifications on the use of samples in the UK and most artists and record labels now seek clearance for samples they use. However there are still cases which involve UK artists using uncleared samples. In October 1996 The Chemical Brothers released the single Setting Sun inspired by The Beatles' Tomorrow Never Knows and featuring Oasis' Noel Gallagher on vocals - a long admirer of The Beatles' work. Setting Sun hit #1 on the UK Singles Chart on first week of release and the common consensus was The Chemical Brothers had sampled/looped significant parts of Tomorrow Never Knows in the creation of Setting Sun. The three remaining Beatles took legal action against The Chemical Brothers/Virgin Records for breach of copyright, however a musicologist proved The Chemical Brothers had independently created Setting Sun - albeit in a similar vein to Tomorrow Never Knows.

In 1997 The Verve was forced to pay 100% of their royalties from their hit "Bitter Sweet Symphony" for the use of a licensed sample from an orchestral cover version of The Rolling Stones' hit "The Last Time".[9] The Rolling Stones' catalogue is one of the most litigiously protected in the world of popular music—to some extent the case mirrored the legal difficulties encountered by Carter the Unstoppable Sex Machine when they quoted from the song "Ruby Tuesday" in their song "After the Watershed" some years earlier. In both cases, the issue at stake was not the use of the recording, but the use of the song itself—the section from "The Last Time" used by the Verve was not even part of the original composition, but because it derived from a cover version of it, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were still entitled to royalties and credit on the derivative work. This illustrates an important legal point: even if a sample is used legally, it may open the artist up to other problems.

[edit] 2000s

In the summer of 2001, Mariah Carey released her first single from Glitter entitled "Loverboy" which featured a sample of "Firecracker" by Yellow Magic Orchestra. A month later, Jennifer Lopez released "I'm Real" with the same "Firecracker" sample. Carey quickly discarded it and replaced it with "Candy" by Cameo.

In 2001, Armen Boladian and his company Bridgeport Music Inc. filed over 500 copyright infringement suits against 800 artists using samples from George Clinton's catalogue.

Public Enemy recorded a track entitled "Psycho of Greed" (2002) for their album Revolverlution that contained a continuous looping sample from The Beatles' track "Tomorrow Never Knows". However, the clearance fee demanded by Capitol Records and the surviving Beatles was so high that the group decided to pull the track from the album.

Danger Mouse with the release of The Grey Album in 2004, which is a remix of The Beatles' self-titled album and rapper Jay-Z's The Black Album has been embroiled in a similar situation with the record label EMI issuing cease and desist orders over uncleared Beatles samples.

On March 19, 2006, a judge ordered that sales of The Notorious B.I.G.'s album Ready to Die be halted because the title track sampled a 1992 song by the Ohio Players, "Singing in the Morning", without permission.[10]

On November 20, 2008, electronic band Kraftwerk convinced the German Federal Supreme Court that even the smallest shreds of sounds ("Tonfetzen") are "copyrightable" (e.g. protected), and that sampling a few bars of a drum beat can be an infringement.[11]

Hard to feed off each other :1orglaugh

by definition if your only playing one second of the song, your not recording the entire song as is

btw if that arguement was valid covers would not be legal either



she used all the lyrics of the song BTW

That's not someone recording the music... that's someone using a sample to make new work. Which actually can be taken down if a complaint happens... so it's not really a sample either. I'm thinking... you really don't know what sampling is.



“In most copyright actions, the issue is whether the infringing work is substantially similar to the original work. . . . The scope of inquiry is much narrower when the work in question is a sound recording. The only issue is whether the actual sound recording has been used without authorization. Substantial similarity is not an issue . . . .” Bradley C. Rosen, Esq., 22 CAUSES OF ACTION § 12 (2d ed. 2003).

Basically, when you record it, it's not substantial similarity, it's not a sample, it's not fair use.

Truly gideon.... I would just leave the thread. No possible way RK can win this and no way you're going to either... the only thing they can hope for is to fire the lawyer they have, hire the best IP law firm in the Country (which wouldn't touch this case for 75 million dollars) - basically they're fucked if the Music Industry doesn't back off.

Which is sad... sad they did it, and sad they go out this way.

The only half ass way I can see this being twisted is if that club they used is owned by RK and the club did lic the Music in RK's name and through some slick underhanded shit they got the club contract a bit more open to change mediums.

All of which.... isn't very likely.

i love how you use truncation to make a bogus point

directly from your own quote

there is no way 30 second clip of a song chorus is going to supersede the objects of the original work

the fact that they don't licience it for use in porn videos at all means there is no diminishing the profits

so that leaves prejudice the sale.

the 2 live crew case is on point (although for a different fair use) because of the two distinct markets issue.



there is precedent on their side

the context of the use (fucking in a club without club music would not make sense)
the shortness of the sample (you might want to look up the definition of sample btw)
and non competitive nature of the different markets does give them a shot.

or the club paid for a promotional use licience (as with clubs that show dance club in their commercials/promo shows)

case on point for sampling btw

http://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

they would have to combine it with the distinct market ruling previously mentioned to get fair use authorization for the commercial nature of the work.

anyways it's just not just nightclub samples. there is music playing through most of their videos, and not just a fucking sample.

i love rk but let's not be fucking retarded.

sample? nightclub?

http://wankdb.com/v/604183/Reality-k...thes-come-off/

hopefully they just settle and get back to business.

The fact that they don't lic is why it's copyright infringement.


The 2 live crew work was a parody and was something newly created from the actual work. "2 Live Crew's use of copyrighted material was protected under the fair use doctrine, as a parody, even though it was released commercially."





About 100 different court cases and the supreme court say otherwise.

You might want to look what the courts consider sampling as... here let me help "In music, sampling is the act of taking a portion, or sample, of one sound recording and reusing it as an instrument or a different sound recording of a song."

Notice, it's not the original.

The competitive nature is an aspect of "damages" not copyrights.


Correct, the club... you can not record the music you hear outside and sell/profit from it. You didn't lic the music.


I wasn't aware she was profiting from the video or that it had a commercial aspect... probably why it's fair use.

However if she was selling this, and as a bonus using the name of the song to promote it, it would be copyright infringement.

100 time travelling vcrs.

And we are off.

In lane #1 we have everyone.

In lane #2 we have Gideon, the swarm, a VCR and fair use.

In lane #3 we have Kane opting to sit this one out in order to go watch a movie with his hot Asian girlfriend :)

Almost every compilation video uploaded to adult tube sites uses copyrighted music...pass it on.

Jesus gideongallery. You get stupider and stupider.

I AM a musician. I have played clubs since 1978 and know for a FACT you can NOT use music like that. You have to pay BMI/ASCAP just to have a freakin' dj or a jukebox in the club.

If you think for one second that anybody can make a porn movie and put an artists music as the backing track to it...I don't know what to say to you.

Don't you understand that the artist has to be paid for that? Not only that...but they can also decline their work to be used in a project that they don't want to be associated with.

Fuck. Do you think Iron Man the movie just used "Iron Man" the Black Sabbath song without obtaining permission first and then paying for it?

I said it once, and I'll say it again...gideongallery is the dumbest person I've ever tried to have a conversation with. Instead of taking each thing on a case-by-case basis...he just has the kneejerk reaction to defend EVERY case of stealing another person's work.

Loser.

Maybe the producers time shifted it into the move :1orglaugh

Let me answer for gideongallery:
"Time shifting onto an infinite hard drive on a cloud the song was turned into a parody and now I will use the word sample. Matter of fact I can string lots of familiar words together and make it almost sound plausible, except for the fact that it's all bullshit. So here you go: VCR, Sony, time shifting, cloud, sample, fair use, parody, disney, and I can put even more words in as I go. I'm just making this shit up as I go along to justify stealing everything because of a complete lack of all talent."
</gideongallery>

Settle for what, 10 Million bucks and call it a day. :Oh crap

It really boggles my mind that a big porn company would use copyrighted music that way. There are so many talented musicians here in Miami and elsewhere that would be thrilled to create music as a work-for-hire for adult movies in any style from silly to serious and do it for peanuts. I have hired and paid a bunch of local musicians and talented amateur musicians over the years to create and record theme songs for some of my adult movie series with custom lyrics associated with the movie plots. Some of these were completely original instrumental songs and some were even even parody songs based on real copyrighted music.

But because the music itself was orininal in the sense that it was modified and made into a parody it was covered under fair use and never a problem. For example, I made a two part movie starring Shayla LaVeaux fifteen years ago called "Striptease" where I had some friends in a rock band record a cover of a cover as the theme song- essentially covering Anthrax's thrash metal cover of Joe Jackson's "Time" song from the 80's with the chrous being "Striptease" instead of "Time". In any case, if music is that important, you can simply hire someone to create it for you instead of taking something off of the radio!

Moral of the story here, we have tube sites that killed our own industry with our stolen content which seems nobody cares about anymore and we now care that RK is using music without proper licenses.

What happened to the Porn Industry.

Someone bring back 1999-2004

And For the Record, Nightclubs have to pay BMI/ASCAP. I know, I did.

you do realize that no fair use is licienced.
by that stupid definition all fair use is a copyright infringement since it is not licienced

the very nature of fair use is that it is without any need to get permission from the copyright holder


which is why i said

your trying to argue that only parody is allowed to be released commercially because that all this ruling allowed, well that bullshit

this ruling states that commercial does not automagically make it infringing

commentary has already been extended to this as well (ask micheal moore)

RK would be making the arguement sampling would also be so extended.


really care to provide the links.
your making arguements that sampling is only fair use because the uploader didn't profit from it.


good thing we are talking about video and not music

you were the person trying to argue that hitler parodies were only valid because they were a sample and not the entire movie.

RK is not selling the entire song, just a small piece
they are not even selling the song they are selling the porn, which just happens to include just enough of the song to establish the premise of the porn video (sex in a club)



wow i can't believe your trying to make the if it commercial it can't be fair use arguement again

sony made money from selling vcrs
2live crew mad money selling their song
micheal moore makes money selling his commentaries

profit doesn't automatically invalidate fair use
profit that cost copyright holder the profits from the direct liciencing of the work ...

which is why i said

i know that, hense why i mentioned the promotional use licience.

i never said they didn't it if the music studios licienced the content for porn videos and RK took it it would be a completely different issue.

copyright is being used as a censorship tool here, not to protect the income of the copyright holder

commentary, and parody make fun of the copyrighted work, they rarely get permission

prince didn't want his music used in the baby dancing video

do you think micheal moore could make fun of george bush if he need to get permission to use his news clips to do it.

or make fun of the nra when he used parts of charlton hestons speaches in his movies

you clearly want copyrght to have censorship power, the lenz vs universal proves that it doesn't


wow trying to use an example where the action would cause economic loss (because muscians do licience the music to movies) to justify using copyright as a censorship tool (no use in porn)


i do take cases on a case by case basis (see above)

you clearly want copyright to give you absolute control which it never intend to be (hense fair use )

you twist everything to fit this stupid view.

hell you tried to argue that disney snow white was based on the "traditional" snow white stories, even though even wikipedia showed that original printing had evil mother as the villian. The step mother aspect was a change made in a later revision BY THE BROTHERS GRIMM.

disney admitted they used the grimm fairytales, there was no way that used the original stoires since that had the mother not the step mother as the villian and yet you keep argueing your bogus statement to try and justify your bogus position.

If it's copyright infringement, it's not fair use.


I'm not arguing this at all... you pointed out a half quote and I provide the why, which if anything means it doesn't relate to the topic you tried to twist into meaning.


Under the definition of sampling, and what the courts have defined sampling as, they did not sample anything. It's not sampling simply because you think it is.



Lookup Sampling in the Wiki and Google. Sampling is not what you think it is.

Even better, they didn't grant the rights to use it on video, or "Digital Licensing" as it's called.

It's a parody that is a sample, that's why it's valid. Correct.

They don't have to sell the song... they don't even have to say it's in it, advertise it, talk it about it, or anything... they do have to tell them what it's going to be published on and provide a sample when they purchase the rights.




I never said it did... I replied to the Video and her case going (which she hasn't actually won yet) which again isn't what RK is doing either way so it makes no difference.

People for sure care about what's going on piracy wise with tubes... however what our Industry needs to accept is the law does and doesn't work in our favor.

What some tubes are doing is illegal... it's not user uploaded. To prove that you simply need to sue, go through discoveries, hope you get the info and you will probably win. This is a rather risky move though, if you're wrong - ouch.

Alternatively your option is use DMCA to your advantage. Several services in our Industry can help with this. monitor your content, auto send out take down notices, log everything... When one doesn't comply, take them to court - go through discoveries, find users aren't uploading the content and put them in the ground.

The problem is... most are complying, you can't sue when people comply. That's the bitch part of the law, unless you want to take some risk to prove the user upload - no law/act is being broken otherwise.

People have looked into it... very few have been able to do anything about it for a reason. I would expect more to come out as our Industry ups the technology that we use to monitor things.

retail stores playing music has to pay a price

I know for fact that pornhub wasnt user uploaded...I know the guy/company that scraped it for them. Is it possible to sue then subpoena them?

From what I understand... this is why Google doesn't get into trouble, they aren't uploading it.

This is from the wiki, end of it is the important part

"It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users."

Basically the tube is the provider, if users are uploading it the tube has a limited liability. Then based off what's going on with Google, they do major filtering, finger print filtering, and human monitoring as well as they comply with notices. So the liability is.... .. extended I guess is the word.

Anyway, if the provider is the infringer, and not users then they are aware of the infringements, thus it's not protected under DMCA and it falls under Copyright Infringement.

So to answer the question... I would guess so, just make sure you get an damn good IP lawyer to help and it should go smoothly.

Gideon,

Stop comparing sampling music to using a song in a video as background... That is just idiotic.
Sampling means using a part of a song and using it to create a new thing from it. The song is not the point of RKs videos, its Justin the background, it's not sampling!

Hey gideongallery...YOU are the one with a BOGUS postition. I told you 1,000 times now...
SNOW WHITE WAS A FOLK TALE. NOBODY KNOWS WHO WROTE IT

What part of that don't you understand?

This is from answers.com:
"Snow White is a character from "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (originally "Schneewittchen" or "Schneeweissen"), one of the folk tales collected and published by The Brothers Grimm in the early 19th century"

Just because the Brothers Grimm published stories (traditional folk tales) that ALREADY EXISTED, it didn't mean that they owned that story.

You are a fool. And again, I ask you...what is your purpose on GFY? What is your agenda? Why are you here? You are NOT in the porn business. You have nothing to contribute here. You have never made any money. And all you do is defend stealing.

You are a poor excuse for a human being. And all of your laboring on GFY would be much better put to use ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING.

But you prove over and over and over your character and your lack of talent and skill.

Again I quote "A Knights Tale" because it fits you PERFECTLY:

GideonGallery..."You have been weighed. You have been measured. And you have been found WANTING."

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

The sad part is...that pretty much sums up gideongallery

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Think about that young porn model that died recently. Zoey or something like that. She went from who? to I made $1xxx's off of people searching for her name.

I looked up google trends on realitykings.com which is what TMZ put in their story and not as big of an increase as I expected except that tons of people already search for it daily already... But I expected at least a 40% increase.

But lets look at Alexa...

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.rk.com#

It basically doubled the day(s) it was on their front page or still on peoples minds...

Don't tell me RK didn't make a grip of cash and that those people won't be a happy piece of the pie... I know for a fact that RK has 1000's of members that have been re-billing since 2004... Six years of rebills... plus the 1x,xxx's that join for a month or three or six and then go.... insane numbers...

I think RK will reach a settlement that will make both sides happy!