Form SR

MusicProducer · 02-01-2005, 01:24 PM

I would like to ask a question to any that has interest, that I have been pondering for a while. There was a court case in which a judge explained that sampling music rather it be recognizable or unrecognizable was illegal and violates copyright. Does anyone remember this case, it was awhile ago and is kinda foggy in my mind, now.

But in looking at this one could legitimately invalidate all SR (Sound Recording) copyrights on ALL music. The SR is usually what the record companies own.

Couldn’t one say that it is not possible to have an SR copyright on music unless the person or persons obtaining the copyright owned and made the musical instruments that the sound recording was made with?

You get what I’m saying or have I just totally lost you?

Chiva · 02-01-2005, 01:26 PM

you mean it's the people who makes the intstruments that should have copyrights to the songs since it's their instruments creating the music?

Team-Rancho · 02-01-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MusicProducer

I would like to ask a question to any that has interest, that I have been pondering for a while. There was a court case in which a judge explained that sampling music rather it be recognizable or unrecognizable was illegal and violates copyright. Does anyone remember this case, it was awhile ago and is kinda foggy in my mind, now.

But in looking at this one could legitimately invalidate all SR (Sound Recording) copyrights on ALL music. The SR is usually what the record companies own.

Couldn’t one say that it is not possible to have an SR copyright on music unless the person or persons obtaining the copyright owned and made the musical instruments that the sound recording was made with?

You get what I’m saying or have I just totally lost you?

First a definition of a sample would be needed. What is a sample? Is a similar or identical riff already a sample? The next step would be to prove someone actually sampled something. And a prove that the sampling-artist actually has heard of the original. Then I'd like to know which court that was. One could go to a higher court. It also depends on the nation the case comes up in.

And finally the consequence of the verdict of the court in MusicProducer's post would be that most of today's pop-songs were illegal.

Although they're too bad to be legal this conclusion seems rather unlikely.

T Bogus · 02-01-2005, 01:55 PM

I copyrighted the color Blue in 1984.

Chiva · 02-01-2005, 01:58 PM

no. i got it back in the late 60's actually. i own the smurfs.

Team-Rancho · 02-01-2005, 02:01 PM

Not to forget certain haircuts...

Chiva · 02-01-2005, 02:03 PM

i own the mullet yes. also, i just got copyrights to the emo-haircut the other day.

T Bogus · 02-01-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjw

i own the mullet yes. also, i just got copyrights to the emo-haircut the other day.

You guys have both infinged on my copyrights as well. My family name reserved Sarcasm in the late 1800's.

MusicProducer · 02-01-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjw

you mean it's the people who makes the intstruments that should have copyrights to the songs since it's their instruments creating the music?

thats kinda what that judge would be saying.

I will see if I can find the case on the net.

MusicProducer · 02-01-2005, 02:24 PM

this is a snipit from Wired web site.

"The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that even if a sample has been mixed into an unrecognizable form, artists must secure the rights to use such clips. In this case, NWA used a 1.5-second"

To me this rulling would invalidate any Form SR filing, wouldn't it.