Tomorrow is Zombie Nation day [case postponed now]

[Steve B]

hurrah !

[Chris Abbott]

Not quite, Steve. Our case was dismissed.

From the laywers:

"In fact the judgement is a complete joke. Not only that the facts are incomplete and partly wrong, there are paragraphs in the judgment which only consist of "???" not joking!). I suspect that the judgement has been written by a legal trainee and the judges did not even bother to look it over before it has been sent out.

The ruling completely lacks understanding of the law and the music industry "

So, we appeal to try and get this travesty of justice sorted out. The court claims there isn't enough proof David actually wrote that particular tune Lazy Jones, for instance. How do they all sleep at night, huh?

Well, onwards. Maybe NEXT year will be our year.

Chris

[Steve B]

Not to put too technical a response down:
That sucks dogs cocks.

It beggars belief.

Here's to next year then

[Chris Abbott]

The curse of Commodore continues. Or perhaps it's the curse of Abbott, who knows...

[C64GLeN]

The curse of a poor legal system that unfairly favours industry over the individual in IP cases.

[Chris Abbott]

Well, anyway, it's all about "burden of proof".

In any court case, someone attacks, and someone defends. It's up to the attacker to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. All the defense has to do is to sow that doubt. In this case, the court didn't express any worries about authorship until the final judgement, when they suddenly used it as the main reason for throwing out the case (incompetently enough to demand a re-hearing or appeal).

However, let's say that David W. allows the release of a single based on "Lazy Jones". Undoubtedly Zombie Nation would sue. But they'd have to present "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence that Seftner (ZN's real name) either wrote it (he didn't, obviously), or that the crap contract he signed with David prohibits David from reusuing his own work (it says no such thing).

So basically his evidence and arguments were enough to sow doubt in the minds of incompetent judges, but are nowhere near strong enough to win a case. You'd think, anyway

Civil Courts are all about the status quo. They're very reluctant to upset it.

[edit: in this case, we were not actually David to ZN's Goliath, since the case was bought by a bigger publisher than him on our behalf: but what there is in the court system is a bias against computer music as real music]

Chris

[Vosla]

That's Germany for you. Old personal computers were no computers but toys. So everything connected to them is automatically child's play. No need to bother with details.

[madfiddler]

Lets re-record it again then, with Dave's blessing, and stick it on iTunes

Violin and harpsichord perhaps?

[Chris Abbott]

"Dave Whittaker benefit single"

No, Florian S (ZN's real name) has temporarily won the battle, but I think he's already lost the war. I hope that by next year you'll see what I mean...

Chris

[CraigG]

That verdict is shocking. So is the result effectively that while there's no proof Florian S wrote the tune, there's no proof David W wrote it either (in the eyes of the courts)? What was the argument against David? The only thing I can think of is no proof of contact combined with (I'm assuming) unauthorised cover versions in Lazy Jones might have presented a little doubt, but still.

[Chris Abbott]

That verdict is shocking. So is the result effectively that while there's no proof Florian S wrote the tune, there's no proof David W wrote it either (in the eyes of the courts)? What was the argument against David? The only thing I can think of is no proof of contact combined with (I'm assuming) unauthorised cover versions in Lazy Jones might have presented a little doubt, but still.

The argument was that since there were covers in the game, and he wasn't credited on the packaging with any of the music, that it might have been an uncredited cover. They're not saying it was, but they're saying that there wasn't enough proof that it was an original piece by David, and thus they threw the case out, since it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not saying it's even a good argument, and arguing that it's a stupid argument will be part of the appeal, I'm sure, but it highlights the problems with a dodgy paper trail.

The judgment was pretty shoddy legally, anyway. This is just one of the many dodgy arguments they made to disregard evidence.

However, if David authorised a release of Lazy Jones as a single and Florian S. sued, you might be in the strange position of Florian S. arguing that David DID write it so as to make the demand for money valid. Otherwise he'd be suing the wrong person. Plus in order to get money he'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he wrote it (he didn't) or that the dodgy contract he signed with David stopped David from releasing it himself (it doesn't). In that case, it's enough for David to assert he did write it enough so that Florian S. can't claim that HE did. It's terribly complicated.

Chris

[beyond]

You're saying that David has a weak case since the tune was put in a game next to some covered tunes, so if the tune had been the only one in the game, David's case would have been much stronger? I would say that this puts doubt on all composers, as you would have to *prove* that you wrote the music in order to claim any rights to it. This is literally impossible as anyone else can claim that they were whistling it to the "composer" the day before he came up with the tune. It does not make sense to call a reverse proof, probatio diabolica, on these kinds of things, I'd say.

If Florian S, already acknowledging the composer to be David as he asked for permission to use the tune, can provide information of the composer not being David there is a case for him, otherwise he has lost. This is weakening by postponing everything as much as possible hoping for the other party to give up. First move is to stop answering any kind of enquiries from the other party, second move is to claim something outrageous in return and insist on this matter be the main case.

To me this is lawyers going "I was first!" "No, I was", "No, because I was here first", "nononononono, I was here before you"... three year old kids playing in a sandbox.

/Theo
--
What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom at the sea?

[Chris Abbott]

The problem is that in this case David was trying to gain control of Kernkraft 400, on the grounds that he actually wrote the main melody. The lawyers on the other side threw some mud, and unfortunately the court was stupid enough to buy it as "reasonable doubt", despite having not raised concern before. It was a ridiculous call which reflects as much as anything else a bias against computer music and computer musicians.

In this case it was merely sufficient to Florian S. to throw doubt on David's authorship, since David was the one attacking. He didn't have to prove David didn't compose it. And yes, it's all "lawyer-play". You'd think that the law actually was applied properly in these places, wouldn't you? But no, everyone just makes it up as they go along.

Chris

[Mordi]

Maybe a bit off-topic, but the melody has been used in a new song by The Game. I think Dr. Dre produced it. I guess he got a license to use it, though?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lisOWaiZPI

I noticed this when they played it on a norwegian radiostation today.

[CraigG]

Good grief—here's hoping; but knowing the way the Stardust saga's gone, maybe he got the rights from Zombie Nation!