Timbaland Court Case starts on Wednesday

[Gargaj]

One thing I still don't get though - why is Universal Music Finland / TEOSTO / Helsinki Court involved in this? Sure, the original piece was conceived by a Finnish person but he already appeared to have resolved the case, while GRG is Norwegian (and hence I'd assume it would be the Norwegian branch of CISAC who would need to deal with it) and Universal itself is American.

So... um?

[goto80]

Hey thanks for the answer!

1) I think describing it as photography vs painting is confusing. Of course the sounds in MODs are to some extent an icon of something 'real' (like photography). I am guessing you also mean that SID-composing is like painting because there are more decisions involved. But I think that is a normative statement, and we can also argue for the contrary. Like photography, SID-composing is based on fixed possibilities. You cannot photograph anything that doesn't exist, you cannot make SID-sounds that are not based on the chip. MOD-composing is more like painting, because you can play any 8-bit waveform at any point in time. (on the C64 you have a locked amount of waveforms and fast triggering is limited by the ADSR-bug). The waveforms do not have to be 'photographs' but can be extracted from any data file and be completely modified in a sample-editor. So, I think it's very difficult to talk about SID involving more decisions, interpretations or creativity than MOD. Of course, if a composer wants to mimick a given sound, it is a lot easier to use sampled sounds than programming SID sounds. But that is a rather particular instance which might not be relevant in any given case. Maybe this is all a bit philosophical, but I find it interesting.

3) Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Very interesting! I have actually thought about this for quite a while. I will e-mail STIM about it, but do you know of any documents to read further on this matter? Since Syntax Error played not only SIDs, are any 'non-recorded' sound format seen as performative?

4) Yes, makes sense! SID-files and other sound formats which require a player and can be 'inductively' remixed, seems almost futuristic in this sense. So it means that the song must have been played on a C64/emulator? If it is played as MP3/CD/vinyl/whatnot, then it is not a performance anymore, right? As I remember it, Syntax Error was rarely broadcasted live in the studio, but probably sent on a CD to the radio. (hehe, this is getting ridiculous)

[Chris Abbott]

One thing I still don't get though - why is Universal Music Finland / TEOSTO / Helsinki Court involved in this? Sure, the original piece was conceived by a Finnish person but he already appeared to have resolved the case, while GRG is Norwegian (and hence I'd assume it would be the Norwegian branch of CISAC who would need to deal with it) and Universal itself is American.

So... um?

GRG's lawyers are Finnish.

Chris

[Chris Abbott]

Painting involves modelling reality by interpreting within a palette of fixed colours which can generate an infinite possibility of art: SID sans-samples is an interpretive art by necessity. MOD composing necessarily involves the importing of outside resources which are then adapted into art, kind of like a photo collage (including, to further my analogy, photographs of bits of art). I stick by my analogy!

Hey thanks for the answer!

1) I think describing it as photography vs painting is confusing. Of course the sounds in MODs are to some extent an icon of something 'real' (like photography). I am guessing you also mean that SID-composing is like painting because there are more decisions involved. But I think that is a normative statement, and we can also argue for the contrary. Like photography, SID-composing is based on fixed possibilities. You cannot photograph anything that doesn't exist, you cannot make SID-sounds that are not based on the chip. MOD-composing is more like painting, because you can play any 8-bit waveform at any point in time. (on the C64 you have a locked amount of waveforms and fast triggering is limited by the ADSR-bug). The waveforms do not have to be 'photographs' but can be extracted from any data file and be completely modified in a sample-editor. So, I think it's very difficult to talk about SID involving more decisions, interpretations or creativity than MOD. Of course, if a composer wants to mimick a given sound, it is a lot easier to use sampled sounds than programming SID sounds. But that is a rather particular instance which might not be relevant in any given case. Maybe this is all a bit philosophical, but I find it interesting.

if a composer wants to mimick a given sound, it is a lot easier to use sampled sounds than programming SID sounds

I'd argue that virtually all MOD and even commercial composing is in this camp, so it's not a particular instance, it's almost the whole instance. I'd also argue that any processing of sounds outside the MOD editor is out of scope of the central argument, because it's not MOD composing but standalone sound design.

The whole argument came about anyway because Universal tried to claim that SID composing involved no creativity at all: so this line of argument was necessary to prove that (a) it did, and that (b) GRG's creative input into Acidjazzed Evening created a bona-fide arrangement with copyright protection of its own. I've got no particular beef with MOD composers.

Chris

[maverickbna]

This is why whenever someone starts to spout copyright law, I reach for my non-existant sidearm.

[Chris Abbott]

Agreed, it's all terribly complicated...

[soren_ladegaard]

The complication here is that GRG's SID is a remix of a MOD. The record company settled with that guy.
Chris

Does anyone know what this settlement includes? Just wondering how much this original Amiga MOD is considered to be worth?

[Chris Abbott]

Nope, no one knows (and there's a gagging clause in the contract so no one will know).

Chris

[Jeroen Tel]

Glenn told me on the X2008 party he changed the notes in his remix, which in effect would make the C64 version a sound-alike of the Amiga MOD version. Thus Timbaland's record company may have settled with the wrong guy!

In my view Glenn is the actual composer of the tune, no matter how much is "sounds like" the Amiga MOD.

I talked to Glenn before the hearing, so I really hope he took my advice of registering the music with the Norwegian composers copyright organisation and claims the rights to the music itself for at least 50% (which is standard for a cover I believe).

My 2 P,

//Jeroen

[Chris Abbott]

Hi Jeroen,

A lot of the hearing in court was to do with establishing Glenn's composer-ship claim to "Do It": the court doesn't establish percentages but it can establish whether Glenn is entitled to a share of that. What percentage is complicated negotiation after the ruling and can't be unilaterally claimed that easily.

There was a lot of argument from the other side trying to claim that the port from Amiga to C64 was just mechanical, and that anyone doing that conversion would come up with the same result: which was blown out of the water by playing five versions of Popcorn by different composers on the C64 to show that different people got artistically drastically different results. It took five minutes of discussion for the court to agree to let me play it, and only two minutes to do so I think they were hoping there was a MOD2SID tool.

Chris

[Jeroen Tel]

Hey Chris!

Well, the take on it from my view is this... everybody deserves a fair share...

(1) Tempest creates an Amiga MOD music composition (planting the seed & shoot) (gaining nothing $-wise)
(2) Glenn converts the MOD to a SID, with artistic freedom (growing the shoot to a plant) (gaining nothing $-wise)
(3) Timbaland samples the SID and uses it for a monster hit (growing a HUGE flower from the plant) (gaining $millions in the process)

Who deserves what? That's the question...

(1) Of course the one planting the seed and growing the shoot deserves a share of the resulting $seeds.
(2) Of course the one growing the plant upon which the flower would be grown deserves a share of the $seeds.
(3) Of course the one growing the flower upon the plant's stem deserves a share of the $seeds.

In what proportion...

In my view (feeling) it should be

(1) 25%
(2) 25%
(3) 50%

No matter what, in good comparison...

(1) Without the seed there wouldn't be a shoot... (Tempest)
(2) Without the shoot there wouldn't be a plant... (Glenn)
(3) Without the plant there wouldn't be a flower... (Timbaland)

I guess it would be honest for each and every party to just agree one could not have accomplished the monster hit without the others! Fair and square that's how things should be...

My 3 P,

//Jeroen

[k_rostoen]

Normally I'd probably think that was an ok way to divide stuff (or at least a good way to start), but not in this case. Remember, Timbaland stole the sample.

[Steve B]

That's the point isn't it.
If Tempest draws up the plans for a supercar,
Glenn uses the plans (after asking if its ok) to build the supercar,
Then Timberland steals the car and sells it for millions...
Who deserves what then?

[beyond]

Who deserves what then?

Timbaland: A smacked bottom!

[Chris Abbott]

Well, here's the thing. On 24th January, the court will decide whether Glenn is entitled to a share in the piece. If he is, then there's a lot of negotiation about percentages.

So the fight for the share Jeroen is talking about has already taken place. So there's no particular point in speculating until the court judgment is in, really. Although Timbaland does indeed deserve a smacked bottom.

Chris