CraigG wrote: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
