I feel you. Your talking to a guy that has been screwed out of litterally hundreds of thousands of dollars. Getting jerked in this business is kind of par for the course and you learn how to protect your ass and minimize risks.
That said, bear in mind that maybe you lost a couple hundred in consequential damages, but you stand to lose an ASSLOAD if you infringe on copyrights. It's not worth it; trust me. It's kind of like if some kid pushes you on the street it doesn't give justification to pull out a gun and shoot him.
Not saying it doesn't suck for you. I'm just saying that it's important to keep things in perspective. I see a LOT of people in the hip-hop biz try and use street logic to solve conflicts and it generally bites them in the ass because the law is very different from the street.
So I would recommend NOT having the beats recreated and save yourself the problems. I know you've got skills and I know from our conversation that you have a very good head on your shoulders. You can knock out the heat on a lot of different beats - you aren't the kind of talent that is beholden to one single beat that will make or break you. And to all the beat-makers replying, you are putting yourself at great legal and insane financial risk if you remake someone elses beat.
All sympathy. Just trying to break down the real-world consequences.
You logic and analogies are like fear tactics, bro. Someone has gotten to you in a bad way.
You're not thinking clearly because of your obvious phobia of getting sued over music and that's due to the media.
How many people have you EVER met has been sued over ANYTHING music related? How many actual court cases can you list on this particular issue that actually went to court? I can think of maybe 3 if I went back and looked up the cases I have in mind.
I am definitely NOT saying commit copyright infringement or to not copyright. What I AM saying is that you're fear over this matter has made you completely blind to what is actually taking place here.
The man bought a beat legit. Lets take this into the courtroom...
What exactly is the prosecution suing over in the first place? Copyright infringment? No...impossible. HE PAID FOR THE RIGHTS.
Now you can go as far to argue that he didn't pay for the right to recreate the beat. True, but he doesn't need it because HE PAID FOR THE BEAT.
But lets say for some reason that doesn't hold up. What next? A/B comparison? If the beat is identical and there is a document that says he paid for THAT beat then wtf is there a courtcase for? That is exactly what the judge will say without cursing haha.
Also keep in mind, if you were to change notes then the case is also going to be thrown out, but in this case you don't even have to change notes. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO THOSE NOTES, SOUNDS, ARRANGEMENT, everything and anything that IS that beat. Get it?
Have you ever watched a comedy or spoof that played familiar music but then changed a note or two around? Example, scary movie uses John Carpenter's Halloween theme. But it changes only two notes and has a slightly different rhythm, but everyone says to themselves "Halloween." They didn't need the rights from that song.
Lets look at the defense...Not only did he pay for the rights, the defendant probably never received their full end of the deal. So what now? Prosecution is now either PAYING FOR the recreation costs of those beats because the stems weren't provided even though it said so in the license (don't know that...just going by the complaint here), or if they DO still have the stems they can be forced over.
Even worse...their website can be shut down due to fraud. You can't sell beats exclusively and then continue to sell that same beat to others. That is NON-exclusive so he is getting into some trouble here. A lot more trouble than op.
And no, I'm not from the streets so this isn't "street logic." This is having some sense of the matter. It didn't sound like much sense when you were comparing recreating a beat to shooting and killing someone because they pushed you.
Like I said, it's clear this issue has gotten deep into your fears to the point you aren't thinking rationally about this particular situation. You're just saying all of the same bs that you've probably been told over the years.
And no, copyright isn't bs. I'm talking about you ideas like him "losing an ASSLOAD." And the gun analogy and etc. None of this is true or relevant to this case.
You are thinking above and beyond a worse case scenario. The idea here is one guy was being legit and the other was hussling. Who should sue who? Especially of the other guy IS making money from his business, he has a lot more to lose than the guy sitting at his computer just trying to get some beats together.
Just stop and think before coming in here and immediately bashing everyone who posted just because of your personal/unrealistic fears in this situation. I hope you see better now.
---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------
This is actually not true. Buying a beat does not give you ownership of the copyright for the composition. In music biz speak "buying" a beat means acquiring the rights to the sound recording and NOT to the composition. The copyright in the composition is always retained by the beat-maker, unless they are insanely stupid. Some are that stupid, but it is rare, especially among professionals. And of all the leasing purchasing terms of read from beatmakers selling beats online, I have yet to see one where they transferred ownership of the composition to the buyer. Transferring both copyrights is often referred to loosely as an "all rights buyout" (the general term used; not the legal term, and it can apply to all kinds of things besides selling beats). Now if this beatmaker sold both copyrights (which would be very obvious from the contract) then yes, you could recreate the beat. I just would consider this a rare situation so I'm assuming it's not the case... but it COULD be the case - I'd need to see the contract.
Now, if it is the case that the buyer owns BOTH copyrights, then eithr the buyer OR any of us would be able to recreate the beat for the buyer. If for example, I recreated the beat, the buyer would still own the composition becuase that hasn't changed. At the same time, the sound recording copyright would be owned by the buyer as well because as a normal term he would pay me for it (notice how it's technically possible to own the sound recording copyright, but not the composition copyright).
As for people not tracking you down to sue you... oh the stories I could tell!!!!! Some, and one in particular, I can't discuss because on non-disclosures related to settlements. If you have any success, they won't have to try very hard to sue you. If you don't plan on blowing up, then you will be breaking the law, but you'll likely get away with it. But the funny thing is that if you need a beat that is that good and you need it that bad that you feel it could make/break your career, then you ARE pretty much counting on it to make you some noise. If you make noise with it, then congratulations, but the dude who owns the coypright to the composition won't have any difficulty finding you.
Good point.
This all said, here's the deal. One of the things that frustrates the hell out of me is that there are a lot of people that get into this business that don't understand the legal aspects of what you can and can't do. I'm not saying this stuff is easy to understand, but if you are going to go into ANY business, it is in your best interests to understand the laws that govern it whether you are a plumbing contractor, a retail store owner, OR A RAP ARTIST.
I spoke as a panelist on this, and other, subjects for four years for California Lawyers for the Arts. I'm not an attorney, just a guy with 10 years in this business as a producer, songwriter, record label, artist manager, and has gotten into legal disputes with some pretty big folks. I'm just saying that I'm pretty well versed in this stuff.
Again, you are basing everything on the wrong things here.
I can see where you would THINK I was talking about ownership of the composition and I'm not...
Like I said, I didn't read the license, but I am assuming due to the complaint that this person was supposed to receive stems AND to be honest he should have received both mp3 and wav from a business perspective. But lets just stick with the stems....
You don't need the rights to composition...ever. You have the exclusive rights to the track(s) discussed. And if he was supposed to get stems then those are included.
If this went to court and he shows them a license that states the agreement with the stems, he wins. He could argue two ways...
He got the stems and did what was within his rights to recreate the beat (YES YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OTHERWISE ALL STEMS WOULD BE ILLEGAL...they are not illegal.) OR he could legitimately say he never received the stems in the first place so their end of the agreement was botched from the get go. So if he walks in their with an exact recreation there is absolutely NOTHING they can do because HE HAS THE RIGHTS TO HAVE THAT ORIGINAL BEAT. You can't prove it was recreated AND if you could prove that the beat is different/recreated then the case is thrown out due to it being just a different beat.
But again, this case would never happen because of what I said earlier. One guy is a hussler the other was trying to buy a beat and got hussled. Who should be sueing who?
Also, you say you can't tell me how many stories you have...I'm sorry to hear your many encounters with this...now I know where you're coming from with your angle on this. I just don't agree with it.
I would like to hear just one of those stories that fits this same situation that led to a lawsuit.
Also, the idea of being tracked down. Yeah, you can be tracked down. But as the op said...the guy won't even respond to him right now, let alone keeping track of his sales AND what he is selling AND how closely that new beat sounds like his old beat.
This is NOT the type of person looking to sue anyone. They are doing illegal business and are trying to keep at it as long as possible. Not trying to go to court over a couple hundred. He can make another beat lol.
It would be a different case if the stems were never supposed to be provided, if the producer wasn't selling exclusives non-exclusively, and if the buyer was blowing up with the producer's stolen beat.
None of that applies here among other things.
Again, the right to re-composition does not apply here. He has the rights to those stems. That's all that matters. It is implied that the stems are meant for re-composition. Even if they weren't provided in the first place. All he needs to do is provide the copy of the license that says what all he is supposed to get. If it says he was supposed to get the stems, the judge will rule in his favor whether or not the stems were or were not provided. If they weren't provided but there is no way to prove that they were or not (there is no proof here) then the judge has no choice but to listen to the "remake" and assume it was legally remade with the stems that the license gave him the rights to even if he DID NOT use the stems.
The producer needs to prove entirely too much...none of which they can. They are prosecution not defense. And even worse, the roles would ultimately switch if the defendant decided to sue based on the producer not complying to the agreements in the license.
All evidence shows op is in the right. He wouldn't be on here asking for someone to recreate anything if he got the stems he was supposed to get in the first place. But that doesn't even matter because the end result is going to be exactly the same. A whole new mixdown. There won't be anyway to prove how it was done. The only evidence will be that license that actually says he HAD/HAS the ability to use the stems.
