Caligari

__________________
ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay
------------------------------------------------
Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free

jockboy60

wow, copyright infringement is not good.... it pays to be very careful...

__________________
Read my blog about my "marketing experiments" and whether they succeed or fail. http://www.mymarketingexperiment.com

eRock

It's because RK Media has money. Plus, the music industry is REALLY cracking down on copyright infringement. The current industry is changing dramatically & the dinosaurs are grasping at anything to stay in business.

__________________
Swiftwill Hosting

Fat Panda

I hope ND can weather this storm...

nikki99

once I heard my music on the bus I was traveling... was a poor bus from a fucked up town, obviously piracy, I went so mad

__________________
SMC Revenue - Best Tgirl websites of the world now VR
Non exclusive BIG Tranny/shemale Package for sale, full 2257 - hit me up skype: nikkimontero

pornlaw

Just like the Florida A&M IP lawsuit that RK settled very quickly, so will this one.

Larry is a great First Amendment attorney, but this isnt going to be a First Amendment case.

I cant image that RK doesnt have the funds to settle, but this one is going to hurt. The only question I have is will the records label make an example out of RK and push this one since there is little chance of a successful defense. They would also be entitled to attorneys fees at the end.

The other question that this case raises is whether it is now hunting season on all adult sites/DVDs by labels. Why stop with RK ?

I can see more copyright infringement lawsuits in the future.

__________________
Michael

www.AdultBizLaw.com

crockett

Yes it's obvious they were just time shifting..

sinclair

Now WTF couldn't I have seen the position listed for the person that was hired to actually watch and catalog all the scenes that infringed on the copyright?

__________________
--
skype:vmgsinclair

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human sex."

WiredGuy

Which sites by RK were named in the suits?
WG

__________________
I play with Google.

gfy1016

would this lawsuit explain why my ND stats suck this month?

Juilan

is INtheVip mentioned in the suit?

__________________
My Best Converting VOD Sponsor |

Agent 488

rip nasty dollars?

Pics Traffic

No its not. You cant even shoot Mardi Gras type content with music from the bars in the background.

rowan

With regards to club music being "public domain"

I've noticed shows on TV often replace the background music and ambience with generic music. If someone talks they quickly fade in and out with each word, so you can't pick up the beat of the real music that's playing.

No doubt they do this to avoid legal/licensing issues.

V_RocKs

The crazy shit is that they own a record company... So why not use your own music in the club?

LickMyBalls

So they didn't Dmca RK? So what's the difference here?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=CY4KqzDy3e8

crazytrini85

gideongallery is the dumbest smart sounded person I've ever come across.

Time shifting. Really . . . wow.

__________________

kane

I think the difference is that youtube is posting that full music video and making money off of it while RK is using the music in their movies. Youtube can hide behind the DMCA because because they claim they are just a host and don't control the user uploads. RK took the music, used it as a soundtrack then sold the videos (or memberships to the sites where you can access the videos.)

Thumbnailer

Youtube plays very smart here
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ma...pyrigh t.html

__________________
FREE DOMAINS (3rd level) - USA.CC and more -- it should be free in The Communist Era

Nathan

Until you all understand The meaning of "copyrighted" content and "infringing" content; and until you understand what creating/using yourself versus offering a service actually means, you will all never understand DMCA!

The comments in some of these posts comparing this to tube sites is just scary.

__________________
"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie Munger

Amputate Your Head

This is why smart operators hire people like me to design original soundtracks and shit. A proper license wins every time. I have never understood how people can stand up for copyright protection, shoot original content, spend money on developers and programmers and the whole enchilada.... then score it with unlicensed music. Bizarre.

__________________
SIG TOO BIG

lazycash

__________________

punkpred

So motherfucking true!

__________________
HDVBucks

D Ghost

Hey Doc, hit me up when you get a sec...

$5 submissions

Quick, get a lawyer that is versed in the art of SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.

__________________

LickMyBalls

Great Exposure for the RK brand! Wonder how many people, who never knew, will check them out. Thanks TMZ!

$5 submissions

It's all about how big the allegedly infringing company is.

__________________

sortie

Do you find it ironic that the "dinosaurs" have the product that people are looking to use?

Maybe a dinosaur is someone that actually creates something useful that
"new jacks" with no fucking talent want to steal to "create a business".

When the "dinosaurs" are gone then who will the new jacks steal from?

Themselves?

__________________

baddog

Is kinda public domain like kinda pregnant?

Some music is licensed to be used on YT.

sortie

Damn! Are you really this fucking stupid?

__________________

Semi-Retired-Dave

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

__________________
Support a Good Cause

Semi-Retired-Dave

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

__________________
Support a Good Cause

gideongallery

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"

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

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.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

colin farrell

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

don't make yourself look dumb.

__________________
just passing by

TheDoc

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.

__________________

gideongallery

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

you may want to look at the case law again.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

TheDoc

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]

__________________

$5 submissions

Hard to feed off each other

__________________

gideongallery

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

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

TheDoc

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.

__________________

TheDoc

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.

__________________

TheDoc

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.

__________________

gideongallery

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.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

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

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

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.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Agent 488

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.

Agent 488

sample? nightclub?

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

Agent 488

hopefully they just settle and get back to business.

TheDoc

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.

__________________