Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

On Dec 30, 2004, at 3:34 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> >> And the Rolling Stones thing... where the Vervepipe has a hit
>  >> song Bittersweet Symphony which used a string sample from
>  >> a Stones song, and the Stones sued them, and these guys did not
>  >> get a nickel from their only hit song. Is Mick Jagger so hard
>  >> up for money?
>
>  > In other words stealing is OK as long as you are stealing from
>  > someone with more money than you?
>
>
>
>  Of course not. Regarding the Stones lawsuit, I would think that a 
> reasonable settlement would have been at most half, or more fairly 
> maybe 1/10 of all profits.

Why?  I mean really how do you figure? The VervePipe use that riff 
through the whole song and it is the one and only hook of the song.  If 
they really have so much to bring to the party then they should have 
brought their own riff too.  But it would appear that they did not, so 
they had to not only use the stones riff but the stones recording as 
well.

> The Vervepipe's were just too lazy or inexperienced to re-record the 
> string riff.

"Dumb" is the adjective that springs to my mind.  I mean they were not 
even creative in who they ripped off.  They could have lifted a string 
riff off of any obscure symphonic CD and the chances are no one would 
have ever noticed and the tune would have been public domain besides.  
But no they rip off the stones.  It's like a pick pocket deciding the 
US president looks like a good mark.  Surely all those body guards 
won't notice, surely the president won't mind since he has lots of 
money...

duh.

> But it was their creativity to write the song and the vocal 
> performance and so forth, that made it a hit song - which is 
> immediately clear because the Stones never released the 5 second riff 
> as a song themselves.

No they released it as a part of a larger work that had a whole lot of 
other ideas on it as well.  I don't see where repeating one idea (that 
isn't even your own) ad infinitum is supposed to be so creative in 
itself.


> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

"Mommy mommy is it "art" yet?"

"No dear":


> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity

> But it was their creativity......

<sigh>

> I think this is a bit of a technicality to take all of their money, 
> and I think its mean spirited for one of the richest bands in the 
> world to take every penny from some guys who have thier first (and 
> last) success - just from a human point of view.

I think it was more than the Stones right to take all the money for 
that song it was the stones *duty* to take all the money for it.

Without a system for the protection of intellectual property we would 
not have the music we have, in fact would would not have the medicine 
we have, we would not have the internet, we would probably not have 
cars or any other technology that requires any kind of expensive 
research to develop.