31–40 of 124 posts
I wonder how well the 1987 album [1] would do in this new climate? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_(What_the_Fuck_Is_Going_O...
At least with streaming you won't have to go through the trouble of pulling physical copies from stores and destroying them. It's sad though that file sharing is no longer a big thing, since that allowed illegal remix culture to really thrive.
Zeppelin have long been known to be notorious plagiarists: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/led-zeppelins-...
I wonder how well the 1987 album [1] would do in this new climate? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_(What_the_Fuck_Is_Going_O...
One day we received in the mail a cassette tape and a letter from a law firm representing a composer or publisher (I can't remember which) of a famous Broadway soundtrack from the 1960s. The letter accused the KLF of infringement. The cassette contained one of the songs on the Broadway soundtrack, an instrumental section of which repeated a three note riff that sounded a lot like the same three-note sequence from one of the KLFs biggest hits. The rhythms and song structures were otherwise nothing alike.
It didn't seem like an obvious example of copying, and it was quite possible it was a coincidence or some obscure influence on The KLF or their core musical collaborators, who would have been youths when the Broadway soundtrack was released.
"Are you going to fight this?" I asked the label's president.
Her answer: "No."
From The KLF's perspective, it wasn't worth a long, expensive legal fight they might lose. I think a lot of it related to the problems it encountered with the "1987" album you mentioned, which had been partly done to ridicule the record industry but really took a lot of energy to deal with when the legal troubles emerged.
Also, the label president didn't say it, but potential bad press could have also been on her mind. At the time, the KLF had the British music press eating out of their hands, and a public legal fight could change the narrative of the KLF as being brilliant pop iconoclasts to something less favorable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't pay for this site, but can see the full article just fine. I don't know what the rules are exactly, but some of us do have access (and ublock takes care of ads)
what browser, etc are you using? I'm on FF with uBlock in Canada and always get the NYT's own login/subscribe overlay that while not an ad is essentially a redirect to a login or register page. I guess it works though; I'm not about to sign up to the NYT or WSJ and I don't even bother clicking their links, so mission accomplished!
My (least) favourite example of this is that Iggy Azalea gets a song-writing credit for Classic Man. http://www.mtv.com/news/2215334/iggy-azalea-fancy-classic-ma... If you listen to the two, you can spot the similarity but... it’s nowhere close to sampling or plagiarism. They’ve got different melodies, different feels, just a similar prominent keyboard sound. But no-one wants a court case, so the writers of Fancy get…
My least favourite was Quentin Tarantino demanding a songwriting credit for Fun Lovin' Criminals' Scooby Snacks, just because it sampled a few seconds of dialogue from Pulp Fiction.
I wonder how well the 1987 album [1] would do in this new climate? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_(What_the_Fuck_Is_Going_O...
I've told this story before. In the early 1990s I worked for Jimmy Cauty and Bill Drummond's record label, back when they were dominating the UK and European pop charts as The KLF ( https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/07/20/537708922/... ). One day we received in the mail a cassette tape and a letter from a law firm representing a composer or publisher (I can't remember which) of a famous Broadway soundtrack…
I can only assume others did the same...do u know the bigger story?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My least favourite was Quentin Tarantino demanding a songwriting credit for Fun Lovin' Criminals' Scooby Snacks, just because it sampled a few seconds of dialogue from Pulp Fiction.
Would you prefer he demanded royalties instead, as their label would if he used a few seconds of their output in one of his films? Or that they just be able to use the sample without credit or royalty?
If I repeatedly linked to my own site with a title that interested you but all you could see on my page was an unskippable ad demanding that you sign up and pay for my unrelated product, wouldn’t my site be banned from HN? Why do sites like nytimes get a free pass with their paywalls?
Papers of record/highly reputable sources should be held to a different standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what browser, etc are you using? I'm on FF with uBlock in Canada and always get the NYT's own login/subscribe overlay that while not an ad is essentially a redirect to a login or register page. I guess it works though; I'm not about to sign up to the NYT or WSJ and I don't even bother clicking their links, so mission accomplished!
Use ublock to disable javascript
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My least favourite was Quentin Tarantino demanding a songwriting credit for Fun Lovin' Criminals' Scooby Snacks, just because it sampled a few seconds of dialogue from Pulp Fiction.
Would you prefer he demanded royalties instead, as their label would if he used a few seconds of their output in one of his films? Or that they just be able to use the sample without credit or royalty?