Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Eminem Sues Apple for Sampling his Samples

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the isn't-it-ironic-don't-you-think dept.

Music 690

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."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hey! Look! It's a cash cow! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377759)

Let's go slaughter it... who cares if it would've produced more for us in the longrun.

Of course hes sues apple, emenim hates FAGS! (-1)

ThinkAboutYourBreath (735770) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377892)


Yes that's right, THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING. Why you might ask? Well it's simple!

Your brain usually takes care of breathing FOR you, but whenever you remember this, YOU MUST MANUALLY BREATH! If you don't you will DIE.

There are also MANY variations of this. For example, think about:




In conclusion, the THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING troll is simply unbeatable. These 4 words can be thrown randomly into article text trolls, into sigs, into anything, and once seen, WILL FORCE THE VICTIM TO TAKE CARE OF HIS BREATHING MANUALLY! This goes far beyond the simple annoying or insulting trolls of yesteryear.

In fact, by EVEN RESPONDING to this troll, you are proving that IT HAS CLAIMED ANOTHER VICTIM -- YOU!

GREY TUESDAY (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377964)

Here [] is the google cache of the Grey Tuesday site. A site that is resisting the censorship of the 'Grey Album'.

To give Eminem some credit, he doesnt endorse any commercial product.

Sampling (1, Insightful)

cdailing (95424) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377763)

Dont artists sample each others music freely anyway?

Re:Sampling (5, Informative)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377909)

No. They sample all the time, espescially in hip hop/rap, but they clear it with the copyright holders.

The Verve lost a huge lawsuit for "Bittersweet Symphony", the sample they used was from a Rolling Stones concert, for instance.

Re:Sampling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377925)

ooh which song? I love bittersweet symphony so I would love to know where it really came from.

Re:Sampling (5, Informative)

the Man in Black (102634) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377940)

Not "freely". Publishing rights and royalties are always worked out ahead of time, even for the smallest of samples. Failure to do so results in disastrous lawsuits and LARGE royalties being paid out to the original artist/publisher. This happened when Peter Gunz & Lord Tariq sampled Steely Dan's Black Cow for their Deja Vu (Uptown Baby). Steely Dan was awarded six figures plus sole writing credit and rights to all future publishing, which pretty much meant that Lord Tariq & Peter Gunz made about $5 off the platinum single.

Re:Sampling (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377944)

Nope, .

Musicians and Royalty-Free Sampling (1, Informative)

Bluetrust25 (647829) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377945)

They're supposed to obtain approval from the orignal artist. Often it's easier to simply re-record the same bass line or drum beat themselves to avoid copyright problems like that rapper did with the police "I'll be watching you" bass line a few years back used in the tribute song to the other rapper that was killed in a stupid east vs. west rapper feud. (Vague enough for you?)

Most electronic musicians avoid the hassle by buying huge collections of royalty-free samples. There's a whole industry built up around it. Funny, I'm selling a huge collection of 19 Sample CDs for making electronic music [] right now on eBay.

Plugging slashdot rocks.

Snbfgs (-1)

Ads are broken (718513) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377764)

Thddsd nsdhds?

Gotta do it! (-1, Offtopic)

graveyardduckx (735761) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377765)

All your samples are belong to Slim Shady.

Would it be cheaper? (4, Interesting)

PurdueGraphicsMan (722107) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377774)

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.

Well, from the sound of Eminem's going rate ($10million plus) it might be cheaper to just use the songs and then pay a smaller settlement fee. Just maybe...

Re:Would it be cheaper? (5, Funny)

UnixRawks (705739) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377840)

Even so, the sampling could use more cow bell.

Re:Would it be cheaper? (-1, Troll)

adamshelley (441935) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377858)

or maybe that surplus money in their bank accound is burning a hole and they like being sued.

Apples done quite a bit of-- I don't wanna say stupid, but i have to-- stupid, things recently that were/are obvious litigation material?

If you rip of a song and share it, you are going to get sued. We're not talking p2p here, we're talking using them for their own financial gain. Hello?

Eminem rules. Buy 8 mile. Buy his C.D.'s.

Re:Would it be cheaper? (3, Funny)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377900)

Eminem rules? Who told you that? The world is REALLY ruled by those crazy lizard people who run the oil companies, set up Israel and all that shit. I think they're called the illuminati or something.

Re:Would it be cheaper? (1)

ramzak2k (596734) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377866)

What makes you think that the settlement (if reached) is going to be less than that ? Settlement claims are usually like = actual settlement price + penalty + stuff like compensation for emotional distress on having heard the song being sung so badly by someone

Re:Would it be cheaper? (4, Informative)

DroopyStonx (683090) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377886)

It wouldn't be cheaper because you could sue for the rate that you were asking plus "damages". So what would normally have cost them $10 million will now probably cost them 15-20.

Unless you want to pull a Ray Parker. The studios who made Ghostbusters (name eludes me at the moment) asked Huey Lewis for rights to use his songs in Ghostbusters. When he denied them permission, they took the music to "I want a new Drug" and sped it up. Put lyrics in by Ray Parker and made the Ghostbusters theme.

Of coursse, it went to court and they had to pay out the azz, but they still got what they want.

Re:Would it be cheaper? (2, Interesting)

blogboy (638908) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377941)

This sounds alot like how Apple Cp. dismissed the agreement the company made with Apple Music, in which Apple Computer agreed never to enter the music business when they started. Despite being unable to talk Apple Music into backing down, Apple Co. went forward with iTunes, the iPod, etc.

Before this Apple Co. fray it was "Apple Music who? " Apple Music gained much more than they lost IMO. I think 8 Mile it just trying to capitalize on something that has already helped more than hurt them.

Eminem (0, Interesting)

gspr (602968) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377778)

Who cares about that dickhead anyway? I'm surprised they wanted to sample him in the first place...

Re:Eminem (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377820)

What a moron too... "Eminem"? I mean geeze come on, can't you come up with something better? Couldn't he try to invent some name that didn't sound like a candy name? (M&M's, obviously)

Re:Eminem (5, Informative)

bad enema (745446) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377891)

Eminem, or M&M as you call it, comes from the fact that his real name is Marshall Mathers - hence the M and M.

Slim Shady...well that's just pure egotism.

Re:Eminem (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377974)

... and in related news, the Mars Candy Company is reportedly suing Eminem for trademark infringement to the "tune" of $10M.

Re:Eminem (0)

BloodSpite (751523) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377834)

Because while we may not like his music, or may not agree with his views, It is appealing to hundreds of thousands of people nation wide, and his name associated with countless groups, stigma's and other wise.

Want to get attention for your product? Hire a celebrity.

And wether you listen to rap country or otherwise, you know his name.

Sweet Jesus (5, Insightful)

Djarum (250450) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377783)

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.

Re:Sweet Jesus (1)

Mick Ohrberg (744441) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377826)

There seems to be a theme going... Vanilla Ice and Queen, Weird Al and Coolio, Apple and Eminem... Although, some of these cases are ridiculous on different levels.

Re:Sweet Jesus (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377980)

bah, Emminiemm is a pussy pottymouth that is nothing but a poser to begin with..

I'm betting that most blakc rappers make him their bitch on a regular basis...

My understanding... (1)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377784)

Is that it was a totally original song (from 8-Mile), so there's nothing ironic at all...

Re:My understanding... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377860)

The mayor of San Francisco is my new hero!

Is this your subtle way of coming out of the closet?

Re:My understanding... (-1, Offtopic)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377874)


Re:My understanding... (1)

Zonekeeper (458060) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377862)

Your heroes are people who break the law?

Now, back on topic, Eminem (spit) isn't suing. His label is. They're the ones who feel they're getting "ripped" off. Emimem doesn't own the music anymore. They do.

That said, they're suing because they have to protect their rights. THAT said, those rights need to be seriously looked at. Otherwise, they'll soon implant chips in our heads and deduct a use fee from our bank accounts everytime we hum it.

Sound far-fetched? Maybe, but I don't want to give them that chance.

Re:My understanding... (1, Insightful)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377932)

Not in general. In this case the fellow is standing up for a widely abused group of people who just want their fair, equal, rights.

Careful on that slippery slope there... you might fall and hurt your argument.

Re:My understanding... (0, Flamebait)

OmniVector (569062) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377864)

i was under the impression that artists (if you can call eminem that) didn't really have control over how their music was used, but the label did since they are the ones who own the music due to we-own-your-first-born licenses. course, typical IANAL applies.

Re:My understanding... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377935)

One of the comments on spymac [] about this sums up the suit.

The song is 5:20 long. A ten year old kid sang 10 seconds of the song or 3.125% of the song. They used no actual music or clips of the song just a kid saying 3.125% of the words to the beat.

So it's a bit either way IMHO. has no music, tunes, singing or the original recording by eminem. I don't know about the legality of it, but I presume with such a minor amount of 'copying', apple's ad agency thought there was no need to get permission, but eminem obviously disagrees.

Insightful (-1, Offtopic)

FractusMan (711004) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377787)


My (1, Funny)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377789)

My name is what! My name is who!

Damn now im getting sued for $10,000,000!!!!

free.... (2, Insightful)

Seoulstriker (748895) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377791)

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...

Re:free.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377821)

I thought RIAA had something up their asses...

Avril Lavigne?

Re:free.... (2, Informative)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 10 years ago | (#8378006)

Radio stations have ALWAYS had to pay to play music on the air. It just that record companies often pay "consultants" to encourage "read: Pay" radio stations to play their songs. They also often sign liberal agreements with stations (Pay us $x a month and you can play anything from our catalog). Dance clubs have to pay as well, as technically does the DJ who charges you to play at your Bat Mitzah. Restaurant chains don't sing the traditional "Happy Birthday" song because they would have to pay royalties to the song writer.

The issue is that these people are using other people's IP to make money. There are situatons where the owner might agree to license the IP for free (or even pay the "player") but its up to the owner to decide that.

Floyd (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377800)

I want to be a part of Floyd's generation.

The Register (5, Informative)

Eezy Bordone (645987) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377802)

Also has a story on this [] . The kicker is it all rhymes!

Re:The Register (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377865)

Here's the text so you don't tax their servers too much.

Eminem sues Apple
By Tony Smith
Posted: 24/02/2004 at 16:07 GMT
The Register Mobile: Find out what the fuss is about. Take the two week trial today.

Eminem's publishing company has claimed Apple used one of his compositions in a TV ad without the the hip-hop star's "yo!"

And, according to Associated Press, the Mac maker is now facing a copyright infringement lawsuit, don'cha know.

Eminem's publisher, Eight Mile Style, filed the suit this past Friday.

Also named are MTV and Apple's ad agency, TBWA Chiat Day.

The song in question, "Lose Yourself", was rapped out by a ten-year-old in an iTunes Music Store commercial shown on MTV last summer.

"Lose Yourself" was the theme song to the movie Eight Mile, which starred Eminem and is based on his life story. The critics called it a "hummer".

Now after Eight Mile, you have to file, then it comes to trial, there's no denial.

"Eminem has never nationally endorsed any commercial products and... even if he were interested in endorsing a product, any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10m," the lawsuit states, putting a figure on the kind of money it wants to get out of Apple and co.

Eight Mile Style appears to have attempted to negotiate a resolution, to the complaint with Apple, but those talks broke down with no solution.

The lawsuit claims Apple CEO Steve Jobs called Eight Mile Style chief Joel Martin and asked him to "rethink" the company's position.

Get Jobs on the blower, he says it's a no go-er, won't settle 'til Hell freezes over.

At the time of writing, dozens of Eminem songs were available for download from iTunes Music Store. (R)

Re:The Register (5, Funny)

zfractal (170078) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377954)

The kicker is it all rhymes!

Very appropriate for these times.

michael: RTFA (4, Insightful)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377810)

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...


Well, it -is- an election year... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377812)

This is long, but you'll see how I tie it in with Eminem...

It may be too early in this election year to determine which will be the biggest of the Big Lies in this political campaign. However, my feeling is that it may be "the working poor." While there are working people who are poor, most poor people are not working full time, not working very long, or not working at all.

These are not matters of opinion. Census data make it unmistakably clear. When it comes to full-time year-around workers, there are more heads of
households who fall into that category in the top 5 percent of income earners than in the bottom 20 percent - in absolute numbers.

There was a time when you could legitimately contrast the idle rich and the working poor. But that time is long gone. Nevertheless, the image is still politically useful, so you are likely to see that image invoked again and again by candidates practicing divide and conquer politics, sometimes known as class warfare or by its more fashionable name, "social justice."

There is even a book by a New York Times reporter titled "The Working Poor." It was previewed by a long article in the New York Times and then given a huge and favorable review in - you guessed it - the New York Times. Journalistic incest lives.

The thesis of both media liberals and political liberals is that there are vast millions of people who work hard all their lives and still remain poor. The next chorus of this song is that only the government can save the day for such people. The grand finale is that politicians need to take more money out of your paycheck to buy the votes of those to whom they give it.

They don't express it like that, of course, but that is what it amounts to. Are there genuinely poor people who stay poor? Yes. However grossly
exaggerated the numbers, there are such people. But studies that follow the same individuals over time find that most of those in the bottom 20 percent of income earners are also in the top 20 percent at some other time in their

Only a fraction of the people who are in the bottom 20 percent in income at any given time will be there for more than a few years. Of those whose pay is at or near the minimum wage, for example, most are young people or part-time workers, or both.

How much political traction can you get by wringing your hands over some high-school or college kid who is picking up a few bucks flipping
hamburgers, while living with mom and dad?

The solution to this problem, in both the liberal media and among liberal politicians, is to ignore the typical person who is simply passing through
the lower income brackets on his way up and talk exclusively about the atypical person who stays at the bottom for life.

By focusing on those who work hard all their lives and still remain poor - no more than 3 percent of the population - and telling their personal
stories endlessly, liberals can present the Big Lie with a human face. There is an even bigger lie behind all this. That lie is the implication that the purpose of all this hand-wringing is to help the poor. But the poor are just the bait in a political bait-and-switch game.

The fraud becomes apparent the moment anyone suggests that there be means tests, so that the taxpayers' money will be spent only on the poor. Those who pose as the biggest champions of the poor are almost invariably the biggest opponents of means tests. They want bigger government and the poor are just a means to that end.

Whether the issue is housing, medical care or innumerable other things, the argument will be made that the poor are unable to get some benefit that the government ought to provide for them. But the minute you accept that, the switch takes place and suddenly we are no longer talking about some benefit confined to the poor but about "universal health care" or "affordable housing" as a "right" for everyone.

Bait and switch advertising is illegal when unscrupulous businesses engage in it. But it is standard operating procedure in politics. especially during election years. l

Gotta love irony.. (5, Insightful)

CeleronXL (726844) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377813)

The most popular "legal" music download service is now taking heat for illegal use of music.

The artists? (4, Interesting)

BigZaphod (12942) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377814)

Do the artists have any say in any of this sort of thing? For instance, is it likely Eminem told his people to go after Apple or are his people going after Apple regardless if he likes it or not?

Re:The artists? (4, Informative)

Darken_Everseek (681296) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377880)

Quoth the FA:

Eminem responded by ending discussions with Apple, according to the suit.


Whoops! (0, Offtopic)

Sharkus (677553) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377815)

Oh dear! Somone is going to get roasted over this one. How could somone have overlooked something as simple as clearing the music rights? Then again, Apple has been known to be a little silly when it comes to things like this, look at the previous names for dev versions of the Mac OS, Copland, Gershwin, and Mozart. I'm pretty darn sure the Mozart foundation (or whatever it's called) actually did sue Apple for use of the name without approval.

Turns out... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377817)

The ad agency bought the song from iTunes for $1 and assumed they could use them.

Funny... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377818)

I thought the iPod commercials were cute, but the "music" in the was so horrible, there's no way I'd consider buying an iPod after that.

Even the billboards with the same artwork reminded me of the awful music.

I was also planning to get an iBook G4, but those commercials turned me off apple so much I decided not to.

How ironic! (3, Insightful)

dbesade (745908) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377825)

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.

Re:How ironic! (5, Insightful)

Rascasse (719300) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377867)

I was always under the impression that copyright happens at the time of content creation. Therefore, the song would have been "legally copyrighted" when the lyrics were conceived.

Re:How ironic! (5, Informative)

dbesade (745908) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377921)

Anyone who creates a work of literature, if it be lyrics, a book, etc, has a copyright, but then if they choose they can become a registered copyright, which is a legal copyright, it holds up in court a lot better than just saying "hey I wrote that you fruity bastard!"

you correct. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377961)

the instant you create something its copyrighted.

Re:How ironic! (3, Insightful)

DoorFrame (22108) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377936)

Are you saying that he released a song with copyrighting it? Copyright occurs at conception, and besides that, why on Earth do you think the Eminem wouldn't have his songs copyrighted when they're released to an outside entity. He may be a rapper, but I'm sure he's got lawyers on his staff.

Reasons not to buy DVDs. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377832)

Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, has suggested that consumers have no legitimate need for such software, telling The Associated Press in November, "If you buy a DVD you have a copy. If you want a backup copy you buy another one." How about, "No", Jack Valenti? While many people like myself do copy DVDs because they don't feel like paying for them, many others want to create backup copies because they have kids and because DVDs are quite expensive. How do you like someone telling you what you can and cannot do with your own stuff? You have every right to create backup copies.

Everyone, purchase a DVD burner for $100-150, get a Netflix account for $21 a month, and download DVD X Copy from any P2P network.

You can get 3 movies out at a time with Netflix. Simply take the 3 movies the day you get them, rip & copy them, send them back. If you can do all 3 in the same day before the last mail pickup, you can get about 9-12 DVDs copied a week.

I have saved over $1000 by doing this. Instead of purchasing DVDs to fund lawsuits like those against 321 Studios, you can spend the money on more important things, like your children.

Re:Reasons not to buy DVDs. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377912)

Look fella, next time some Nurse fills your colon with water, dont come here to to blow your big fecal geyser, OK? Why dont you find another platform to spew your media theft position all over? OK? A lot of us like to buy things legally and own things legally, we're not thieves, you see?

Commercial vs Creative Use (5, Interesting)

Unknown Relic (544714) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377836)

Is it just me, or is this not a big deal? To me this doesn't indicate that Eminem has any problem with other artists sampling his music, but with it being used in commercials without permission. I mean, come on, just because this is Apple and we all love iTunes and the iPod doesn't make it right. Many people view artists allowing their music to be used in commercials as "selling out", and in Eminem's case, I could see this being even more of an issue than normal.

Re:Commercial vs Creative Use (5, Insightful)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377963)

I agree. Even more so this could be seen as an endorsement by Eminem of iTunes. Something he may not actually want to do.

Hooray for unowned IP (2, Funny)

suntoucher (714706) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377841)

Ah, the classic SCO strategy...

Miata (5, Funny)

mrpuffypants (444598) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377842)

It's a good thing that eminem is suing Apple for the lost revenue. Maybe now he can buy that cute little Miata that he's had his eye on...

Not a silly lawsuit (5, Insightful)

maliabu (665176) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377844)

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.

Dude, Chill (4, Funny)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377848)

It was a 10 year old girl singing the song (acapella) for like 8 or 10 seconds. Hardly a sample or anything.

However, laws are laws, as stupid as some of them may be. Apple should have known better.

Thanks to that 10 year old girl, he won't be able to buy his own gold-plated shark tank this year. :(

Re:Dude, Chill (2, Insightful)

Dimensio (311070) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377962)

10 seconds?

Isn't a short segment of under a specified time allowed for "fair use", or would that not apply to advertising?

Re:Dude, Chill (4, Funny)

DjMd (541962) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377994)

"This month he was hoping to have a gold-plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free, he must now wait a few months before he can afford it."

and it was Lars Ulrich [] our favorite fan of MP3s...

Great South Park ep.
"Man must learn to think of these horrible outcomes before he acts selfishly or else... I fear... recording artists will be forever doomed to a life of only semi-luxury."

Reminder (1, Insightful)

Jesrad (716567) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377849)

I would like to remind Mr Eminem that under his "work for hire" contract with his publisher he is not the author of the Eight Mile soundtrack and holds no copyright to it.

and who is the label? (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377977)

I would like to remind Mr Eminem that under his "work for hire" contract with his publisher he is not the author of the Eight Mile soundtrack and holds no copyright to it.

Considering it's his own label that he published it under, he does.

{OT} (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377989)

Dude, your .sig is a 404. I think you want this:

(You forgot the "book" bit).

The Fine Print (3, Interesting)

PurdueGraphicsMan (722107) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377850)

I just thought...

Maybe Apple has some fine print in their iTunes Artist Agreement that states that if an artist places his song(s) on iTunes that apple will be able to use them in any manner that they wish. That would be smart if they did that.

"Every million I make, another relative sues" (4, Insightful)

bad enema (745446) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377851)

What a hypocrite.

It's Fair Use (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377853)

Did they use the whole song, or just a exerpt? (I'm not able to play the ads that the submission links to.) And it looks like they had a kid sing it, so they didn't copy any of the rendering expression at all, just the words themselves. (Not even the melody, since rap doesn't have mel-- oops, I better avoid the flamebait mod and not finish that thought.)

This Eminem (TM) guy's case is probably on shakey ground.

any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million
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.

joining the ranks (1)

pvt_medic (715692) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377869)

i guess eminem will soon be following in the footsteps of other bands like Metallica with going after anyone they can. dont quite have enough money yet, probably wont have enough after the lawsuit, but at least then other people wont have their money.

New Litigious bastard (4, Insightful)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377873)

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.

Copyright registered after the commercial aired? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377875)

Can't remember where I saw it on the web, but one of the articles noted that the copyright for the song wasn't registered until months after the commercials began airing. Not sure whether that really makes any difference in the case, though.

my lawsuit... (5, Funny)

zorcon (111485) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377883)

I'm sueing Apple for using my silhouette!

I'm fed up with this bullshit. (0, Flamebait)

James A. G. Joyce (755532) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377889)

What the fuck is wrong with this guy? In the commercial it was just some gal incompetently singing a capella for a few seconds. What the fuck? Is singing someone's song in a public medium suddenly a crime? If so, when did this situation, arise? Eminem is full of shit anyway; I'm pretty sure he already got sued for stealing someone else's material in the past. He's not even a serious artist, no matter how much he'd like to think so. He has a shitty alias and he makes shitty music. Fuck him.

Re:I'm fed up with this bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8378004)

Is singing someone's song in a public medium sudenly a crime?

Quit defending Apple you stupid boot licker! Apple is a for profit corporation that was caught red handed for used a song in an advertisement that had the express purpose of making money. Apple is not some innocent pedestrian mindless humming the tune to a song.

Still Waiting on Lawsuits... (2, Insightful)

RailGunner (554645) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377894)

Wait a minute - if "sampling" is so bad, then why didn't Queen sue Vanilla Ice?
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?

Re:Still Waiting on Lawsuits... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377959)

well eminem has sampled heavily from dr.dre's stuff and snoop dogg's stuff but i think thats okay cause they are all friends.

in related news, Dr. Dre had to pay a buttload of money to George Lucas for using the THX intro noise in a song.

Bleh (1)

SphericalCrusher (739397) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377899)

If it's a "sample" then how could Apple get in trouble for using it? The only way I can think of is for them making money on his behalf... but I guess that's why he shouldn't be giving away "samples" of his work. Samples are free after all. If I took a sample of one of those AOL disks and promoted my CD selling business... I doubt I could get in trouble as long as AOL made money from the CDs I sold that are theres. (Same way Apple's iTunes sells Eminem's tracks and money goes back to him) It's the same thing as buying his album.

Give it a rest, Slim Shady.

Not just the label - but the publisher too (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377902)

Apple needed permission from the publisher - not the label who released the album.

In case you don't know - the publisher is whomever owns the copyright to the music and the words. The label owns the sound copyright. Two different things

Since the commercial (I haven't seen it) re-recorded the song the sound copyright holder doesn't need to be involved, but they needed a license from the publisher (a sync license) to broadcast the commercial.

new path for rap... (1)

seriv (698799) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377907)

I guess guns will be replaced by equally potent copyright lawyers in future rap. I would like to see a gang war with that!

for the wrong reason... (1)

ThePretender (180143) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377916)

As much as I can't stand his music, I was about to side with him - I think I'd be thrilled to have my music in a commercial but not if it was for something I didn't want to endorse. One statement in the article leans toward this feeling, but then veers off to explain how much money it would cost to have him endorse their product. Ugh. Always about the damn money I guess.

You want sampling irony? Try this..... (5, Interesting)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377917)

One of the most notorious examples of sampling irony is the Negativland/Coca-Cola connection. The California-based band Negativland, copyright infringers of the highest reverence, "illegally" sampled a 1966 religious record and calls their version of the song "Michael Jackson". Samplist Fatboy Slim decides to sample Negativland's song, licenses the Negativland version of the religious sample from SST records, and also calls the song "Michael Jackson." After Fatboy's ensuing popularity, creative advertising executives decide to license Fatboy Slim's song for a Coca-Cola television commercial. Result: Coca-Cola unwittingly engages in copyright infringement. Negativland, whose calling is to debase advertising on all levels, find their music selling soft drinks. Fatboy Slim deposits a huge check in his bank account.

Negativland writes: "The track 'Michael Jackson' from this Fatboy Slim CD ['Better Living Through Chemistry' (Astralwerks) 1998] samples from the Negativland track 'Michael Jackson' from our 1987 release 'Escape From Noise' on SST Records.

"Stupidly, Fatboy Slim went to SST Records to get permission to use this sample. SST charged him $1000, which they are keeping all for themselves, of course. Besides the fact that Fatboy could have kept his $1000 and taken the sample from us without permission and we wouldn't have cared, the Negativland sample he used was itself appropriated by us without permission from a religious flexi-disc originally issued in 1966. [In fact, a Negativland member LITERALLY stole this record from the basement of a church in Concord CA.]

The article I sampled this from is here []

doesn't this count as fair use? (2, Interesting)

enrico_suave (179651) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377924)

Not that I personally care if megamillion dollar rapper X is sueing large company Y about permission of use.

But, aren't they allowed to use small snippets of music in order to *gasp* sell music? Example: the lousey 30 second clips found on most online CD stores... they don't clear each one of those do they?! Granted, I imagine before a commercial airs they usually sort this out, but I gotta think there was some legalese somewhere in whatever contract itunes has with 8mile publishing to allow for this type of use (otherwise sack the legal department)



Acopella (1)

snitty (308387) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377928)

Apple could argue that since the song was song acopella it is protected, as all acopella is, under the first amendment as parody. I don't know how well that would fly though.

just for that... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377930)

I'm going to delete all 103 eminem tracks off my hard disk.

Take That Marshal!

This is how the business works, isn't it? (4, Informative)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377934)

Dr. Dre hires musicians to play baselines differently so that it will fit the legal requirements and he will not be required to pay royalties to the person he is "sampling".

If he copies a baseline verbatim (or actually samples their record), he pays them a royalty.

This isn't his decision, this is the decision made by the politicians that made the laws so restrictive. Paul's Boutique could never be made today, because the sampling is too extensive and it would be impossible for the record company to clear the record legally.

Advertisers must license every song that they use in their advertisements. Unlike "sampling," advertising has always worked this way, afaik. I see very little wrong with The Rolling Stones charging Billy G so many millions to use "Start Me Up."

So, go white boy go white boy go white boy go. Take those fat cats down. They knew they were supposed to get a license.

Getting money for being on MTV ? (1) (102718) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377939)

He should pay for getting MTV airtime rather than complain.

Settlement (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377949)

Maybe they can reach a settlement like Mike Rowe did... hey one of those cool new iPods and 50 songs would be sweet

anyone wanna make a bet? (1)

2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377955)

$5 says they settle out of court and we never know the details...

anyone wanna take that bet?

Publicity Stunt? (1)

DroopyStonx (683090) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377965)

I think this is all being done as a publicity stunt or attention whoring. Maybe he wants to keep up his "bad boy" image, who knows.

If anything, it's free advertising for him. If they used his song in the commercial, people might be inclined to go, "Hey, I like that song!" and plow off to itunes like good little sheep to pay for it and download it.

I know if I was an artist and a commercial that was to be seen by quite a few people played my song, I'd be grateful.

I don't imagine he's in any financial distress as he's sold over 33 million albums and has more than enough money to get by for quite a while, so that's even more reason to think he's just doing this to be all tough.

Law likely on Eminem's side (5, Informative)

saddino (183491) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377969)

This is an interesting case. Anyone has the right to "cover" a copyrighted work, as long as the compulsory license is paid to the publisher (usually a per performance, or per mechanical fee).

However, in the case of endorsement, a specific license is indeed required (my wife - IANAL, but she is, ahem -- handles these from time to time). If the kid "singing" the song can be construed as an endorsement (probably), then Eminem deserves compensation.

Also, his likely fee ($10M) is definitely in the ballpark. You'd be amazed how much established artists make for these licenses. In fact, using an original song is usually so prohibitively expensive, that the licensor usually opts for a license to use a "cover" version only (much cheaper, but still a lot of money). That's why when you hear famous songs in commercials, they're often covers. FYI, in these cases, the language in these contracts usually requires a cover not to sound exactly like the original recording.

MARS (0, Redundant)

vinnieg (704661) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377972)

Maybe the MARS company should sue Eminem (M&M) for copyright infingement.

It's called extortion. (2, Insightful)

Tuxinatorium (463682) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377979)

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)

The pirates cry fowl (0, Insightful)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377981)

Hip hop "artists" are notorious for copying others' ideas. Jay Z is particularly bad. His latest album is called "The Black Album." Oh so original. If only those pirating bastards in Metallica hadn't released a "black album" (unofficial title of course) years before.

There's also the issue of hip hop "artists" copying each others' samples. It's not like most of what gets put out by their labels even resembles music. I wrote a MIDI generator in Java for a class that created music from patterns based on character data from files type-casted to integer notes that sounded eerily similar.

Not to knock electronic music or anything, but most rap is nothing more than bullshit, 2/3 illiterate rubbish rhythmically spoken over badly looped techno. I have seen more complicated bass lines in a beginner's guide to electric bass guitar than most rap.

That said. If they ripped his sample off and God forbid it is actually his (probably half or more isn't) then they should pay a small penalty. It's just a fucking sample. Of course only in the world of rap can a single sound be turned into the basis for a whole song I suppose.

Maybe this will teach the big companies to look more to rock bands, a genre which is far more likely to have the attitude "OMFG THEY WANT TO PLAY OUR SONG GIVE IT TO THEM QUICK DO IT BEFORE THEY GET ANOTHER BAND TO DO IT!!!!!" There are so many rock and metal bands that should damn near go into gladiator combat to get that kind of free publicity that there is no point in taking the risk.

Let's face it. The average big rapper takes their work far too seriously. I doubt even real rock musicians like Tool, Incubus and A Perfect Circle take their music nearly as seriously as Jay Z, Eminem, etc. Oh wait. We're comparing musicians and "artists" so that explains why. Musicianship is a way of life, "artistry" is a term applied to people who can sell an image.

Copyrighted silence. (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377990)

At least Apple and MTV didnt sample any copy righted Silence [] . Slashdot even ran Story [] about it.

Really, how long before everything is copyrighted, every riff and sample. This is crazy.

Torrent for the Album download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8377996)

here []

Darn (1)

Aslan72 (647654) | more than 10 years ago | (#8377999)

And I was half way tempted to bust out my .wav extraction tool and ripz m3z s0/\/\3 3113t grrl r0c| --Pete

Grey Tuesday (1)

samsmithnz (702471) | more than 10 years ago | (#8378001)

What the heck does Grey Tuesday [] have to do with this?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?