Slashdot Mirror
Eminem Sues Apple for Sampling his Samples
EvanKai writes "To celebrate Grey Tuesday, Eminem sues Apple to show his support for hiphop and sampling. CBS MarketWatch is reporting
that 'Rapper Eminem's music publisher is suing Apple Computer Inc., claiming the company used one of the hip-hop superstar's songs in a television advertisement without permission. Eight Mile Style filed the copyright infringement suit late last week against Apple, Viacom Inc., its MTV subsidiary and the TBWA/Chiat/Day advertising agency.' While the ad in question no longer appears, several similar ads can be found here. I can't believe Chiat Day failed to clear the use of these songs with Pink, Mariah Carey, and The Who... or whatever major label actually owns the rights."
Let's go slaughter it... who cares if it would've produced more for us in the longrun.
Eminem is sooooo worried about being taken seriously as a artist isn't he?
First Weird Al and now Apple... I hope no one ever buys that loser's albums ever again and he can go back to being poor white trash again.
Do artists care that they are getting free advertisement for their music? Artists used to pay radio stations to promote their music on the air. Now artists are demanding radio stations to pay THEM to play their music. I thought RIAA had something up their asses...
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
If you RTFA then you'll find that Apple didn't "sample" the song at all. Jeez. Can we get some standards here? The entire "story" here is that hip hop artists sample and then one is complaining about sampling, except that he isn't...
John.
The most popular "legal" music download service is now taking heat for illegal use of music.
His label, 8 Mile Style, owned by him, arranged for him to be one of the first exclusive artist on the iTMS. Now the label is suing Apple for a song that wasn't legally copyrighted until long after that commercial was run on MTV. Its a ploy to get his name in the papers and keep it there. Ya know he bitches about people not leaving him alone and boycotting him.. then goes and does this over something so little.. ironic.
if what Eminem claimed is true, ie Apply used one of the hip- hop superstar's songs in a television advertisement without permission, then it's a legitimate action isn't it?
now we're asking why a super-rich like Eminem bothers to stop free advertising. however we must think of a bigger picture where lesser-known artists are not getting a fair share and have no where to go.
What a hypocrite.
This Eminem (TM) guy's case is probably on shakey ground.
Well, duh, that's probably why they didn't hire him to endorse it, and instead paid someone else to sing a portion of the song indicating the kind of things that someone might expect to find on iTunes Music Store. Apple probably doesn't give a damn if Eminem endorses the service or not; they just want to inform prospective customers about what kind of music is available on it, not of Eminem's paid opinion of the service.The song was rapped by a 10-year old in a commercial. If it was hummed, would it count? This is the state of the music industry today, isn't it? An artist tries to get everybody singing their song and then sues anybody singing their song. Maybe the RIAA and SCO are not so different.
Stay tuned for new sig...
Why didn't Van Halen sue Tone Loc? (U2 can sue him too, actually...)
Why hasn't James Brown sued any of the rap acts that have sampled his stuff? (and many, many, many hip hop songs have ripped off his stuff)
Why didn't the Jimi Hendrix estate sue the now defunct WCW (since I don't think Time Warner owns the Hendrix copyrights)? The nWo theme was nothing but a mishmash of Jimi Hendrix riffs, after all..
Did Sir Mix-A-Lot pay royalties to Black Sabbath for his rip-off of 'Iron Man'?
Where would hip hop be without ripping off other artists? At least if credit was given the way the classical composers did it (saying, hey, this melody is a derivative of "___" by "___"), I think it would be less of a big deal.
Now, Apple should have licensed the use of these songs - but isn't it just a bit hypocritical of Eminem to sue apple when the biggest rip-offs of music has been several hip-hop artists?
Someone who's more familiar with Eminem's music can answer this - but who has Eminem ripped off?
10 seconds?
Isn't a short segment of under a specified time allowed for "fair use", or would that not apply to advertising?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
I agree. Even more so this could be seen as an endorsement by Eminem of iTunes. Something he may not actually want to do.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
copyright: the government gives the creator of a work a limited time monopoly on the work and derivative works.
It is a privilege and a reward for contributing to the realm of public knowlege (or culture, etc). It is not a property right. It is not unalienable. It is not permanent. The phrase "owns the rights" is idiotic on its face. A more proper term would be "holds the copyright".
These days corporations have turned copyright and patents upside down, and turned them into a system of legalized extortion and eternal ownership of works they did not even create.
The USPTO and current laws concerning copyrights and patents are corrupt and worthless, and need reform. Start by voting out of office a few corrupt senators who are well-paid lapdogs of the RIAA and MPAA. (Fritz Hollings et al)
Repeal the DMCA!
To paraphrase the saying:
Sometimes it's easier to pay for forgiveness than to ask permission.
KFG
That would be smart if they did that
/. and has a gazillion Apple fans (including me) but calling it smart is pusing the boundaries.
/. about the vendors putting asinine stuff in the EULA and how many times have we agreed that EULA, if really pushed, doesn't stand a chance in the court.
Really. Honestly. You think it would be Smart? I know this is
How many times we have argued on
Having anything in the agreement that would allow unfair use of Intellectual Property would be anything but SMART. It would be stupid PR if it blows up to begin with and I am not going to delve into any ethical issues that you most certainly overlooked when you called it Smart.
Free XBox, PS2
Apple did not use Eminem's song in their commercial.
t ml.
Apple did not sample Eminem's song in their commercial.
Apple did show a 10-year-old girl COVERING the song, in Acapella.
Not only could this easily be definied as a cover, which requires no payment of royalties, but I would see it as a parody, which is covered under fair use.
I suggest you all review the Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Guide at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/web_resources/index.h
There is no case here, mark my words... Apple will win this suit, as Eminem has no case.
Good point. I suggest you go watch "Bicentennial Man" with Robin Williams, and apply your argument to his quest for being acknowledged as "human". The idea is very similar. It's all about basic dignity. If you agree with Asimov's robot wanting acknowledgement that he's human, then you have to agree with homosexual couples wanting acknowledgement that they're no different than any other couples.
I'm on their side on this one, without being gay. It's all part of our great slow march towards true fair and equal treatment by the law.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Why not take it up a notch?
Eg: Talented musicians are good enough to make up their own notes and tonalities, so they don't have to play from the western 12 note scale or use the same V-I cadence that is in 90% of all songs ever written.
Whether or not you play an instrument (I play 5) has little to do with your value as a composer of original music. The same people who decry sampling or rapping as unoriginal probably don't know that all the Greats (from Beethoven to the Grateful Dead) either had people go to concerts to transcribe ('sample' the sheet music) competitors' songs, or based their entire careers on covers (in the case of the Grateful Dead.)
It is always amusing to see people try and establish a relationship between the process used to create music, and the relative originality or perceived value of that music.
"Old man yells at systemd"
But if I pay for the mechanical license to cover a song, and then cover it, why can't I license out my performance to an ad company?
Because that's the way the law is.
Isn't that how the cover versions show up in ads in the first place, because the original artists don't want to license their performances?
No. When you hear a cover song in an ad, it is only because the artist has licensed the song for use "as a cover only." The company then goes and pays someone else to record a cover version.
What you're saying is: Mechanical license is paid for eight-year-old girl to cover "Lose Yourself:" legal. Eight-year-old girl licenses performance to ad agency: illegal. How is that possible?
That's right. If you want to go and record yourself singing "Lose Yourself" you can do so -- and you can sell your cover on a CD (and pay a compulsary license per copy sold to Eminem every 3 months).
But you can't use the song in a commercial. That's the law.
Did you even RTFA? It's not a sample. It's a cover. One would also think from your post that his copyright holds less merit simply because you don't like rap music. Mod parent down, this isn't insightful, it's offtopic.
Two people who love each other who wish to spend the rest of their lives together.
Rather than a sacrament and a union of two people in order to rear children, what is it?
I am married (to a woman, and I am male), but have decided to not have children. Do you think I should not be allowed to say I am married?
Why not let polygamists get married, then?
Good question!
Summary of parent comment: RAP IS CRAP AND ISNT EVEN MUSIC, ONLY ROCK IS REAL MUSIC.
You don't have to like the genre, dude, but don't spew nonsense like claiming you can replicate a hip-hop hitmaker's skill with a simple Java program and arbitrary input. You can't.
Artists dont have to get permission from the copyright holder to release a cover. They DO have to pay them however. Check Lessig's site for related discussion
This is the tact Slim Shady is taking, which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, An 8 year old raps a few lyrics and we interpret this as an endorsement by Marshal Mathers? He must think his fans are more peanut brained that most. Does he endorse every numbskull with a boom box sitting on a corner playing his music? Does he worry that I'll see a blood covered 8-foot killer carrying rusty machete with peices of flesh still hanging off and a boom box playing "8-mile" and think "He must be a nice guy, because Eminem endorses him?
Maybe its some dumb publiscist, like the one that went psycho on Gary Layson while Jane was out of the country for writing this cartoon. Jane later said she loved it and apologized to Mr Lawson.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
I agree that Apple should have cleared the lyrics first.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If your lifelong commitment to the person you love is questioned by the mere act of two other people wanting to enter into a similar lifelong commitment, I hope you get marriage counseling gift certificates on birthdays and major holidays.
The big deal about being able to get a marriage license are the rights and benefits afforded, including but not limited to: purchasing health care for your spouse through your employer, hospital visitation rights, automatic designation of beneficiary, and even little things like getting a family membership at the local gym versus paying for two individuals.
Up until today, I've gotten a hearty laugh seeing the word 'sacred' paired with marriage. Are we talking the same sacred marraige Britney Spears entered into and stuck with for a grueling 55 hours? Is one's first marriage as sacred as the second, third or fourth? And does a couple who decides not to have children, or are even biologically incapable less sacred? Care to say that to their face?
I am gay, but don't need anyone's stamp of approval to live my life. But I'll be damned to have any institution impose on me restrictions on who I can love.
God Bless Will Farrell
Well, it was Christopher Walken who had the fever.
Well, think about it a bit. Everybody here knows that for Apple to use somebody's music in their ads typically requires them to get permission first. Thus many people will assume Eminem gave Apple permission to use his music. Thus Eminem is perceived as endorsing Apple. Which he didn't.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
It wasn't a concert, it was an orchestral version of The Last Time and the sample was barely audible.
Barely audible? It was practically the only thing in the song.
Yeah, I agree with that assessment. If that's the grandparent's definition of "barely audible" then he needs a new hearing aid. The sample was the song, from the first note to the last. A few drums and a base on top of it didn't change a damn thing.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Actually the Beatles are still very big, for everyone.
They were the number one musical act for the year just a few years ago (1999 I beleve).
Not bad for a group that broke up in 1970.
I'm still amazed that there is no one around today that compares with the breakthroughs that the Beatles did. In the span of just 8 years they went from "Love Me Do" to "Sgt. Peppers" and the White Album...AND were loved by both critics and fans alike. I don't know anyone that has done that since...meaning growing so much musically while still being popular and relevant.
But sure, there are people out there that may not like them. But then again, there are also those that just say they don't like something because everyone else likes it. They want to appear different.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
The recording companies and the publishing companies are almost ALWAYS two seperate entities.
The right to sell sheet music of a particular song is held by the publisher, NOT THE RECORD LABEL! The record label has to pay the publisher in order to record the song (this is called a mechanical royalty).
In order to perform a song live the venue (or promoter) must have authorization from a performing rights orginization (SESAC, BMI, or ASCAP). This is usally a blanket license. The record label has NOTHING to do with this!
Also anything that is copyrightable (such as a song or work of art) is copyrighted the instant it is put onto a transferrable medium. It doesn't have to be registered with the US Copyright Office for it to be copyrighted. Registering it with the USCO does help incase there is ever a dispute they can say "it was registered on this date such and such etc"
My degree is in the recording industry. I know what I am talking about:
http://www.MTSU.edu/~record/
Libertas in infinitum