If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   Madonna being sued for copyright infringement. It must be in Vogue   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 28
    More: Obvious, human beings, Nicole Scherzinger, class a drugs, Playboy Bunny, Sharon Osbourne, tribute bands, market trends, Louis Walsh  
•       •       •

2852 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 15 Jul 2012 at 9:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



28 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-15 09:28:54 AM  
My grandmom has been wearing her underwear on the outside of her clothes since the 70s
 
2012-07-15 09:32:37 AM  

SockMonkeyHolocaust: My grandmom has been wearing her underwear on the outside of her clothes since the 70s



acidcow.com
 
2012-07-15 09:38:57 AM  
Shame she's such a Material Girl.

/whatever
 
2012-07-15 09:45:36 AM  
Will VMG Salsoul sue girl next door next? Stay tuned
 
2012-07-15 09:53:00 AM  
Not the first...or the fifty-first time for her...
 
2012-07-15 10:16:59 AM  
The papers say: "The unauthorised sampling was deliberately hidden.

"It was only when VMG looked for the sample, with the technology available in 2011, that it could be confirmed."


Yeeeah... This sure doesn't sound like bullshiat.
 
2012-07-15 10:40:11 AM  
Yeah, I don't really hear it.
 
2012-07-15 10:45:44 AM  
There's a whole lot of these same suits online. Just type Madonna lawsuit and see. She has done this on and on and been sued more than any other "artist"
 
2012-07-15 10:53:58 AM  
Statute of limitations much?
 
2012-07-15 11:03:23 AM  
What probably happened was those horn tracks were sampled in a studio keyboard and she never had a clue about where that sound came from.
 
2012-07-15 11:17:30 AM  

ArkAngel: Statute of limitations much?

If

this is true...
"It was only when VMG looked for the sample, with the technology available in 2011, that it could be confirmed."
... then the statute of limitations wouldn't have started running until 2011. It's paused until the plaintiff "knew or should have known" of the infringement. This is crucial... Otherwise, for example, I could make a single copy today of a work under copyright - say, Windows 7 or the Avengers - and place it on my shelf for three years, and then suddenly pop up and start selling copies commercially with the argument that Microsoft or Sony can't sue me because the statute of limitations has run out. If they couldn't have reasonably known, then they shouldn't be penalized.
 
2012-07-15 11:21:45 AM  

Theaetetus: ArkAngel: Statute of limitations much?

If this is true...
"It was only when VMG looked for the sample, with the technology available in 2011, that it could be confirmed."
... then the statute of limitations wouldn't have started running until 2011. It's paused until the plaintiff "knew or should have known" of the infringement. This is crucial... Otherwise, for example, I could make a single copy today of a work under copyright - say, Windows 7 or the Avengers - and place it on my shelf for three years, and then suddenly pop up and start selling copies commercially with the argument that Microsoft or Sony can't sue me because the statute of limitations has run out. If they couldn't have reasonably known, then they shouldn't be penalized.


What did you just post there? Something real for us readers to take note? Or some Farking gibberish? I think the latter. Where the Fark did you get that quote? A third grader?

I think she's been sued for this already though...so many...hard to keep track
 
2012-07-15 11:25:48 AM  

LewDux: SockMonkeyHolocaust: My grandmom has been wearing her underwear on the outside of her clothes since the 70s


[acidcow.com image 700x508]


THAT is awesome. You are awesome. I want her to be my gramma.
 
2012-07-15 11:35:03 AM  
Madonna's not the only artist VMG Salsoul is suing.
 
2012-07-15 11:38:36 AM  

SockMonkeyHolocaust: LewDux: SockMonkeyHolocaust: My grandmom has been wearing her underwear on the outside of her clothes since the 70s


[acidcow.com image 700x508]

THAT is awesome. You are awesome. I want her to be my gramma.


Ok...I think this has run it's course. Seriously...stop the granny pants posts..just sick. Not funny either.
 
2012-07-15 12:41:26 PM  

Gestankfaust: Where the Fark did you get that quote? A third grader?


Not only have you not read the article, you delight in your ignorance so much that when others read and quote the article, you dismiss such quotes as being fictional. Good jorb.
 
2012-07-15 12:54:09 PM  
Wow - the thing is, even back in 1990, everyone worth a crap into dance knew that the baseline/main lead line was blatantly jacked from Hanson & Davis's "Tonight (Love Will Make It Right)". It was an obscure Chicago house track done entirely on an Emulator II, likely. Anyhow, yeah - pretty much this.
 
2012-07-15 02:11:43 PM  
So, when does she have to hand back her Emmys?

...

Wait, she hasn't been asked to do that? They just want money?

Fark 'em.
 
2012-07-15 03:42:19 PM  

Theaetetus: ArkAngel: Statute of limitations much?

If this is true...
"It was only when VMG looked for the sample, with the technology available in 2011, that it could be confirmed."
... then the statute of limitations wouldn't have started running until 2011. It's paused until the plaintiff "knew or should have known" of the infringement. This is crucial... Otherwise, for example, I could make a single copy today of a work under copyright - say, Windows 7 or the Avengers - and place it on my shelf for three years, and then suddenly pop up and start selling copies commercially with the argument that Microsoft or Sony can't sue me because the statute of limitations has run out. If they couldn't have reasonably known, then they shouldn't be penalized.


It is not a tort or crime to make a single copy and keep it for yourself. The tort would be when you attempted to sell it. That it when the infringement would occur. If there was infringement in this case, it would have initially occurred in 1990.
 
2012-07-15 03:44:05 PM  

Theaetetus: Gestankfaust: Where the Fark did you get that quote? A third grader?

Not only have you not read the article, you delight in your ignorance so much that when others read and quote the article, you dismiss such quotes as being fictional. Good jorb.


Yer an idiot....a third grader wrote it...you quoted it. I read it fully...WTF was I supposed to get out of it but BS? Good "jorb" to you too
 
2012-07-15 04:45:01 PM  
I always thought she had permission to use it, In fact I thought Madonna sampled it in Vougue
 
2012-07-15 04:57:00 PM  

ArkAngel: It is not a tort or crime to make a single copy and keep it for yourself.


Actually, no... The keeping it for yourself part is an affirmative defense. The tort is the unlawful copying.

The tort would be when you attempted to sell it. That it when the infringement would occur. If there was infringement in this case, it would have initially occurred in 1990.

Doesn't change the real point of the post you're replying to - the statute of limitations doesn't start tolling until the plaintiff knew or should reasonably have known about the infringement. If they should have known in 1990, then it's tolled. If they couldn't have reasonably known until 2011, then it hasn't.
 
2012-07-15 05:17:18 PM  

Gestankfaust: Theaetetus: Gestankfaust: Where the Fark did you get that quote? A third grader?

Not only have you not read the article, you delight in your ignorance so much that when others read and quote the article, you dismiss such quotes as being fictional. Good jorb.

Yer an idiot....a third grader wrote it...you quoted it. I read it fully...WTF was I supposed to get out of it but BS? Good "jorb" to you too


Did you consciously make a decision to be an asshole when you woke up today?
 
2012-07-15 05:55:23 PM  
If it requires a forensic analysis of the music in question to determine that there was actual infringement going on because it is so deeply hidden. Should it count as plagiarism?
 
2012-07-15 07:19:42 PM  
So do these people just pick random songs to dig into with their detection methods in case there might be unauthorized samples buried deep, deep down? Why this one? And isn't a certain amount of sampling legal anyway? Also, what was the great technological leap that made the detection definitive? Couldn't they, if they thought there was infringement, just have demanded access to the original multi-track master to verify so?

Wall o' questions.
 
2012-07-15 07:57:22 PM  

Disgruntled Goat: So do these people just pick random songs to dig into with their detection methods in case there might be unauthorized samples buried deep, deep down?


Sometimes.

Why this one?

Because they got a hit?

And isn't a certain amount of sampling legal anyway?

Not per se. It depends on all sorts of other factors, including the commercial nature of the infringement. Like, it's legal for you to put up a review with a 30 second clip, or to include it in a presentation at your school, but it's not legal for you to take the same 30 seconds and use them as the break in your new hit song.

Also, what was the great technological leap that made the detection definitive?

Easy and cheap FFT and sliding window spectral analysis.

Couldn't they, if they thought there was infringement, just have demanded access to the original multi-track master to verify so?

Yes, but they have to file suit first so that they can get a discovery order. Otherwise, Madonna could just tell them to pound sand.
 
2012-07-16 03:26:59 AM  
Sampling in the 80s was awesome. There were no rules and no laws for it yet, so every artist ripped off anything and everything they could from drum breaks, horns, strings, and melodies off old disco, R&B and soul records to create a collage greater than the sum of its parts. Hell, I was just earlier today listening to Public Enemy's Fight the Power and it floored me how many samples it used. That song could never be made today. The Beastie Boys used to list hundreds of samples on their earlier albums.

No one can get away with that anymore. It costs too much to clear the rights to a sample nowadays, so all the new club hits only have one or two samples, tops. It's made creative expression so suffocating and stifling that its literally killed a worthy artform.

fark you, RIAA.
 
2012-07-16 08:56:03 AM  
Walt_Jizzney: Good catch, but ultimately even Hanson & Davis jacked the rhythm line from the "Go-Go" genre of the 60's and up that was/is popular in the DC and Baltimore clubs.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report