Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:45 pm

I guess the royalties from their one hit must be running out. How on Earth can they not notice this until 20 years after the fact?

Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:22 pm

Geoduck:

Yes, it was:

The court’s analysis is somewhat complex but concludes that no sampling can be made without a license or permission.11 The reason is not because of the copyright to the music composition in the sample, but because of the copyright to the sound recording. The court interprets the copyright statute, 17 USC Section 114, as prohibiting the copying of the whole or any part of a sound recording. The new ruling reasons that you should either pay for a license to sample a song with the original sound recording, or go into the studio yourself and recreate the sample with your own sound recording.

Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:38 pm

This is beyond silly.

Why sue Apple and other distributors? That's like sueing a grocery store for unknowingly selling contaminated Coke.

Music sold on iTunes, like a bottle of soda, is packaged at the manufacturer. How can a company be held liable for the contents of a package if the package is delivered in its original condition?

And in this case the package (the song) was contaminated at the source (Run-DMC). Seems to me that the only way Apple could be liable is if someone can prove that Apple knew the song was 'contaminated' and decided to sell them anyway. Without that proof, the lawsuit is bogus.

But then, what do I know? People get awarded for sillier things.

Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:58 pm

I disagree with the attorney quoted here. Apple can claim it is an Internet Service Provider, which are immune from copyright infringement claims provided they remove contested works when notified. That is how companies like AOL and Google do not get sued when their users post infringing works.

All Apple is doing is providing a song on behalf of the record labels that claim they own the rights.

Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:01 pm

No, that is Trademark law. In copyright, you have the right until the copyright espires, which in the US is over a hundred years (it used to be twelve years). Nonetheless there is a staute of limitations whereby you have to sue in so many years after the infringement, or you lose your case.

	geoduck wrote:
	Isn't there something in Copyright law about if you don't defend your rights for a period of time you lose them, i.e. you can't let someone use your material until they get a lot of money from it and then take them to court? Also, wasn't the sampling issue in Hip-Hop resolved legally some years ago? Just curious.

Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:11 pm

I disagree. Copyright protection is created by the US Constitution. Originally creators were protected for something like twelve years. The Constitutional protection was meant to promote the useful arts and sciences by striking a balance between allowing creators to benefit from their works for a limited time, before allowing others to build upon their works for the benefit of the public.

The Founding Fathers recognized very few things are trully original. Instead, works of art are inspired by other works of art, and it is not beneficial to the public for a creator to forever own the rights to a copyright which was likley derived from another work.

It is not fair for an artist to forever lock out others from using their work for over a hundred years. Especially, when their are very few works that are trully original, and doing so only benefits the creator, not the public.

Everytime the copyrights to Mickey Mouse gets ready to expire, Disney lobby Congress, and the time period gets extended. Hardly, fair.

	boric*acid wrote:
	In actual fact, it isn't even necessary to register a copyright (though it is a very good idea) if one is the creator of a work--the protection is automatic, and lasts the lifetime of the creator and then some, and that's how it should be in my opinion.

Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:07 pm

Ok, lets not talk about trademark law, this is copyright, 2 different things. Yes, copyright in the U.S. extends for the life of the author plus 70 years. If, however, any claim for copyright infringment must be filed within 3 years of the violation ,as stated by the attorney in the article, the Knack is SOL. Music retailers should not have to suffer now because the Knack is either 1) suddenly hard up for money, or 2) has been living under a rock for 20 years (along with everyone associated with them, apparently) .

Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:52 am

The Knack? More like The Retarded.

Could they make their intentions of a cheap money-grab more transparent? Even if failing to notice this for almost 20 years was plausible, and it's not even close, these chuckleheads are trying to sue companies that aren't liable in any way whatsoever.

Justice will be served in the end, though, when all they manage to do is waste tonnes of thier own money on a stillborn lawsuit.

Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:11 pm

The Knack Soundscaned 80 copies on their whole catalog last week. Pitifull.

I think they need the $$$$

Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:49 pm

	geoduck wrote:
	Isn't there something in Copyright law about if you don't defend your rights for a period of time you lose them, i.e. you can't let someone use your material until they get a lot of money from it and then take them to court?

No. In Copyright law, you can chose who and when to sue. It expires after a certain date based on creation or if you choose to release it, but not from non-protection.

Arguments could be made in court to the effect that it was abandonned, but I don't thinkthose arguments fly.

Trademarks, however, have to be vigerously defended, which is why Disney sues pre-schools for painting Micky Mouse on a wall.