Gentle Giant HAS BEEN HIP-HOP SAMPLED!!!

But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician.

hegelec wrote: hegelec wrote: But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician. i think you and i are on the same wavelength, the ryan.

Poetry is a written form of art, it has it's own value, repeating a stolen or ripped chord ad nauseam is not an art form it's plagiarism (A FELONY). If he wants to be a poet, he should write books.

But no, poetry is not profitable, poetry doesn't win grammys or million dollars contracts.

It's much easier to rip a real musician's work and don't even mention him. Remember Vanilla Ice when he ripped Queen's music, he said that it was an original work because he changed one note .

If this DJ or whatever term you want to give him, was so talented he would write his own music, you don't even need to be mnediocre to create a chord and repeat it adding drum beats (electronic BTW), this guys don't have imagination at all.

And don't compare this guy with Led Zeppelin, this band had more original and 100% own tracks, hip hop andrap are heavily based in sampling.

I won't give my opinion about hip hop because I already wrote it repeteadly.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: hegelec wrote: hegelec wrote: But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician. i think you and i are on the same wavelength, the ryan. Poetry is a written form of art, it has it's own value, repeating a stolen or ripped chord ad nauseam is not an art form it's plagiarism (A FELONY). If he wants to be a poet, he should write books. But no, poetry is not profitable, poetry doesn't win grammys or million dollars contracts. It's much easier to rip a real musician's work and don't even mention him. Remember Vanilla Ice when he ripped Queen's music, he said that it was an original work because he changed one note . If this DJ or whatever term you want to give him, was so talented he would write his own music, you don't even need to be mnediocre to create a chord and repeat it adding drum beats (electronic BTW), this guys don't have imagination at all. And don't compare this guy with Led Zeppelin, this band had more original and 100% own tracks, hip hop andrap are heavily based in sampling. I won't give my opinion about hip hop because I already wrote it repeteadly. Iván

 Again, has anyone made an attempt to contact Gentle Giant somehow?  E-mail?  Letter?  Carrrier pigeon? 

I suppose telling you guys that can has been sampled before would get your panties in an uproar too.

The Ryan wrote: I have emailed the webmaster of the official Gentle Giant website in hopes that this information will reach the musicians soon. I would love to see the band try to prosecute this man to the fullest extent (assuming this really is fraud and Gentle Giant never gave permission), and for now I will be dreaming of a court case. Something about thieves really turns me off.

Again, if I wa GG's lawyer, I would advice them not to say a word (not even to you despíte your good intentions) .

If this copy is not well sold (lets say 10 million copies) it0's useless, the profits are too low to pay the legal costs, and probably this hip hopper will declare himself in bankruptcy so he's not forced to pay.

If this song sells more than 10'000,000 coipies I would go to a judge and ask them for an order to freeze the acounts of the hip hopper and the label, so I ensure that my client will recieve every cent that came from that song.

Iván

I have emailed the webmaster of the official Gentle Giant website in hopes that this information will reach the musicians soon. I would love to see the band try to prosecute this man to the fullest extent (assuming this really is fraud and Gentle Giant never gave permission), and for now I will be dreaming of a court case.

Something about thieves really turns me off.

Are you crazy Inferno, this is absurd, there are two copyright symbols for albums:

• Circle P  : Means Phonogram, this copyright protects the music itself.
• Circle C © : Means Copyright, protects the lyrics and art of the album, even the artistic covers.

If they only sampled music and few words (witch seems to be only 4) it's legal!!

I will have to use the same example, Vanilla Ice only copied a bass riff from Under Pressure, not a single lyric, the Queen Bowie version uses no lyrics in that part and VI's version uses the words Ice Ice Baby over the bass, This was enough for Queen lawyers to obtain a settlement out of court.

They would have been a lot of court case with Dream theater if Music had rights

Again, this is the copyright law Title 17 (British law is almost identical because it's part of an international convention), but even if it was different, I'm sure GG label copyrighted the album before selling it in USA.

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 102  | § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general Release date: 2005-08-01 (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0 0000102----000-.html

I want to ask you something, Do you believe that the Vangelis Charriots of Fire and the soundtrack of Blade Runner are not protected??????

Every intellectual work can be protected, a judge will decide if another work is a copy or simply casual similarities, but music is protected in any country of the world.

No company will accept to release instrumental albums if music coouldn't be protected, because the next day a successful instrumental love song is released you would have 30 artists recording the same song.

You can evenn read in some cases Music by X and lyrycs by Y artist.


And I'm pretty much sure that the musician of Gentle careless if they have been sampled or not! This thread is quite ridiculous and pretentious over the genre! This only prove that the hip-hop artist had an idea over a sample of a Gentle Giant and worked with it!

This is also illegal:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 103  | § 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works Release date: 2005-08-01 (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

This also prove that Prog fans are too much elitist to understand other genre like Hip-hop.

This only means that you are not informed about the law, the text is clear, I don't care if somebody samples Yes, Queen or Donna Summer, a theft is a theft, and the law protects the author that copyrighted his intellectual work (Elitist or not ).

Iván

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication (NOTE: This is a legal fiction includes the first 25 years of the publisher which I explained on a previous post, after that the right passes to the author or his family until 70 years after his death. Being that in this case the name of the author is unknown, the law indicates a fictional death date in the day when the 25 years of the author expire) or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date

These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

^ correct. you wont see a rapper sampling a soul singer (or whatever the hell its called) in the way ulver did on 'blinded by blood'