Tomorrow is Zombie Nation day [case postponed now]

[madfiddler]

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.

Bloody hell, not another one.

[Chris Abbott]

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

Yes, he must have done.

Chris

[CraigG]

Nice. Out of curiosity, would that not have any bearing on the case as it stands? He surely can't resell bits of someone else's song when he's not claiming ownership over the writing (or is he doing that)?

[Chris Abbott]

Nice. Out of curiosity, would that not have any bearing on the case as it stands? He surely can't resell bits of someone else's song when he's not claiming ownership over the writing (or is he doing that)?

His registration at GEMA says exactly that: he claims to have written it. That's what the first court case was about, to establish that he was merely an "adapter" under German law. Unfortunately he was saved by an incompetent court, at least until the appeal. The judge simply decided that he'd make up the law as he went along, based on an incident in his training involving Carl Orff and Michael Jackson.

Chris

[FFRenzy]

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.

(C)rap...in more ways than one

[CraigG]

Out of curiosity, is his age on any court documents? I'd love to know how old he was when 'he' wrote the music for a C64 game programmed in 1983/4.

This whole thing infuriates me, not because I'm anti-sampling (I'm not, and I think lawsuits based around fractional samples are idiotic) and not because I'm against reworking old music (frankly, RKO contribs could do with exploring that side of things more), but because there's no sense of justice and integrity here. Without David's riff, Kernkraft is nothing. What a pity the parties involved are complete tosspots, unwilling to recognise that fact.

By the way, should a non-idiot finally rule in David's favour on this entire incident, what could happen? Is he then in a position to smack ZN/Ministry of Sound, and so on?

[Chris Abbott]

Out of curiosity, is his age on any court documents? I'd love to know how old he was when 'he' wrote the music for a C64 game programmed in 1983/4.

This whole thing infuriates me, not because I'm anti-sampling (I'm not, and I think lawsuits based around fractional samples are idiotic) and not because I'm against reworking old music (frankly, RKO contribs could do with exploring that side of things more), but because there's no sense of justice and integrity here. Without David's riff, Kernkraft is nothing. What a pity the parties involved are complete tosspots, unwilling to recognise that fact.

By the way, should a non-idiot finally rule in David's favour on this entire incident, what could happen? Is he then in a position to smack ZN/Ministry of Sound, and so on?

He'd part-own Kernkraft 400, and probably be able to sue for back royalties, and generally cause trouble.

But actually this is about David's freedom to release versions of his own music without the threat of being sued by the person who stole his work.

As I've hinted here, it's become clear that any case ZN would bring to stop this happening (say, David said a big American star could cover Lazy Jones) would be extremely difficult to win for him: since all the lack of paperwork/crap paperwork stuff that worked in his favour when he was defending would be against him when attacking. For instance, the contract he originally signed with David (which was a retrospective licence authorising him to use the tune in Kernkraft 400 as-is, nothing more) doesn't transfer authorship rights, is ambigious about the meaning of exclusivity, and has no jurisdiction in it. And that's the only "proof" he has of any entitlement to Lazy Jones at all: and even the idiot court expressed the opinion that David's contract with him does not stop David exploiting the piece himself. For David to have that case dismissed, all that has to happen is to cast enough doubt on that piece of paper and the circumstances surrounding it. The levels of proof required are much lower for defense than attack.

Let's say that David said that, for instance, Madonna could cover Lazy Jones as "stardust", and that release is released as a song which contains part of Stardust.

What would Zombie Nation do? Well, he would sue in a court saying that his rights were infringed because he "wrote" Kernkraft 400. Or that the contract he signed with David gives him exclusive rights of the piece. Oddly enough, even though these two things are mutually contradictory, there's nothing unusual in the courtroom about arguing from both sides of your mouth if necessary. First he would have to prove he wrote Kernkraft: difficult when there's a licence he signed implying he didn't. He would have to prove that Lazy Jones was exactly the same as Kernkraft: a double edged sword because if he proves that, there is documentary proof that Lazy Jones existed first. The only other plank left is proving that although the licence he signed doesn't give him authorship rights (in which case he has to try and explain why he claimed them in breach of the law) gives him exclusive rights over the piece, despite the fact that he paid only a small amount of money, only signed the licence because he was caught infringing copyright, and that the contract in in breach of German law anyway: and German courts have proven that they regard this as a case for German law by hearing it.

The minor documentation problem that casts doubt on David's original authorship is irrelevant in that case: in fact, it would be bad for ZN to bring it up. Let's say they proved he didn't write it: all that would mean is that Kernkraft 400 was infringing someone else's copyright.

What about if he suddenly produced "A.Nonymous 80s electronic musician" to say he wrote the riff first and that David stole it from him, and that he had signed an exclusive agreement with ZN? Well, again, the burden of proof would be on him, not David. They'd have to show the original work, that David was in a position to hear it, and show why they didn't take any action not only when the game was released, but when Kernkraft was first a hit. Now, we've already been through a court case, and seen the evidence ZN possesses: and a mysterious artist who supposedly wrote Lazy Jones before David did hasn't been part of it. It's like finding a "Mr Jones of Croydon" who wrote "Yesterday" before Paul McCartney on an obscure 78 vinyl which no one had ever bought.

Does this give anyone an insight into how murky the whole court system is?

Chris

[Vosla]

"The wonderous flight of mighty Captain Incompetence and his crew" would have been a nice title for a song about the court, its obviously clueless judge and whatever people were on the jury. I still wonder how this is possible in front of a german court.

[datucker]

Is the verdict (don't know if this is the right translation) somewhere available for download? I'd love to read it as I've been lawyer myself until recently. Just to see what went wrong in this case.

[Chris Abbott]

Is the verdict (don't know if this is the right translation) somewhere available for download? I'd love to read it as I've been lawyer myself until recently. Just to see what went wrong in this case.

I don't think it's available for download publicly, but if you speak German and you PM me, I can send it over.

Chris

[Infamous]

bloody hell, thats pretty convulated ain't it? less plot twists in an episode of twin peaks and with what seems a pretty shit ending too (like twin peaks) .. will you be persuing it any further now or is this as far as the rabbit hole goes?, whatever happened to the whole timbaland thing too? was there any joy there ?

[Chris Abbott]

It's appeal time, then deciding what to do then. I know what I want to do, but I'm not the one paying the legal bills.

Timbaland: I don't know. You'd think it was an open and shut case, but it seems to be much more difficult than they thought. I haven't heard any news about that for a long time.

[Infamous]

Pain in the arse ain't it but at least theres someone out there thats trying their hardest to keep things straight and narrow, we should develop our own knighthood so you can have one.. chris abbott mbe .. got a ring to it don't it lol.

Good luck with it all though fella and keep us all posted on whats happening, hopefully justice will eventually prevail and david will finally get what he should have had a long long time ago.

And pretty typical the timbaland thing would go quiet for some time, it'll no doubt resurface eventually though.. things like that tend too do.

[merman]

And pretty typical the timbaland thing would go quiet for some time, it'll no doubt resurface eventually though.. things like that tend too do.

Yo dog, Timbaland is SOOOOO 2008. It's all about the William, or whatever that fellow from the Black Eyed Peas calls himself...

[Infamous]

ohhh will.i.am ... called that because he's notorious for forgetting his own name and telling people he's called gerald... the tit.