>first of all, i'll ignore the baseless and petty insults.
>

I'll decide what's basless and what's not, chump


>the logic for charging "copious amounts of money" probably has
>something to do with the idea that the breaks we are talkin
>about have acquired worth over the years.
>

it has something to do with Aaron Fuchs being a douchecaptain, it's not about the value of the shit
he's throwing out high numbers just because he can


>so maybe in 1985 it would have cost $5k to clear impeach the
>president (that's a random figure). but after it has been used
>by numerous artists, its market value has likely gone up. do i
>think $1Mil is reasonable? hell no. but that's not my
>determination to make. the market determines that. if someone
>is going to pay $60k for it, then that's what it costs.
>

you have blind faith in the market system apparently
but that's not the point-the point is this guy has been doing this for years and does just what you're doing: 'the law says...'
you can make anything you want illegal and hide your fuckboyism behind the law, happens everyday
doesn't make it okay or excusable


>First, you can't make a statement like this without actually
>being privy to what did/did not go on behind the scenes. do we
>know what kind of contracts these guys signed in the first
>place?

yes we do


>maybe they were screwed. maybe they weren't. maybe they
>signed away their own rights for good compensation, maybe they
>didn't. my point is that many of these guys are not well off
>now, it's very true. but it is not the case in EVERY situation
>that a musician dying poor is the fault of some crooked record
>exec somewhere.
>

in this case, it is (both on the front AND on the back)


>i have no idea about melvin bliss' individual circumstances,
>but as howisya stated, if producers in 2012 are really worried
>about Melvin Bliss, then maybe they should book the Melvin
>Blisses of this world for sessions instead of sampling their
>previous work and being upset when they are sued down the line
>by an unrelated party.
>

he was too sick to travel and do session work, so that's not an option
besides that, nobody minds paying for samples, we're talking about a person that buys shit and jacks up the price on it because he's legally allowed to do it, which is wrong regardless of legalities


>it's unrealistic to expect anyone who acquires the rights to
>any art down the line, to double back to see how well the
>creator is doing in life. it's a nice sentiment and it would
>be great if that happened every time, but it's not always
>practical.
>

fuck unrealistic, and fuck practical
he could cut people checks if he wanted to
you mean to tell me a guy that can bloodhound samps without knowing shit about the music business isn't smart enuff to get an address?
the same guy you said shouldn't be faulted for usage of said smartness?
th' fuck outta here


>Sorry. how am i saying "any sort of tactic to get over" is
>acceptable? lol Explain how you got from A to B?
>What i explicitly said was that in the present landscape,
>being sued for sample clearance is very much a reality that
>anyone who uses samples should be prepared for. Whether or not
>you get sued by the guy who actually played the drums or a 4th
>party who later acquired the rights to the drum loop will not
>change the fact that YOUR bank account will be $X lighter at
>the end of the day. That was my point.
>

first off, check the post above this one for you saying that
also this isn't about niggas paying for samps, that's not the issue


>Let's put it this way.
>Your neighbor (X) paints a painting.
>Y likes the painting and starts selling a copy of it, without
>consent.
>The painting becomes famous, and Y is making money off it,
>without consent.
>X sells you rights to the painting.
>You find out that Y has been infringing upon your rights in
>the painting.
>
>Under copyright law, you are entitled to go after Y.
>particularly if his use of Y is infringing upon your rights in
>some manner.
>it's bigger than just samples.

that example only works is there's a Z and Z gets the rights to something after finding out that people are getting money for those sorts of paintings and he wants in
THEN the Z nigga has to birddog 5o Y niggas so he can cop those paintings and pull the same shit over and over and over and over again, and even after that he decides to go after niggas that are 3o yrs removed from using the shit


>what if Y is a hate group that is using the painting to
>promote their message.
>should you not go after them because they started using the
>painting before you acquired the rights to it?
>

your side of the argument isn't about ethics, it's about someones legal right to do fucked up shit
don't confuse the two


>them not knowing why he was doing it doesn't really make a
>difference, imo. the onus is ultimately on the guys who used
>the samples to clear them. you have to expect that samples
>will be discussed, and its not farfetched that whoever owns
>the rights will come after you.
>

you're making 'coming after niggas with larger than life prices just because the law backs you' into 'fuck niggas that want you to pay for samps'
that's not the deal here, chief


>As far as the guy in question allegedly being a scumbag who
>stffs kids their rightful wages, that has no bearing on this
>specific issue. he might very well be a jerk. i don't have an
>opinion on that.
>

it's not alleged, and it has ALL the bearing on it because it shows you how low he'll go to get paid
if he's not above stiffing kids and most people he associated with have left him alone, that tells you a lot about his exploitative business practices
also if you don't know shit about the subject, don't try to engage in the conversation on any sort of stance one way or another
we know what the law says, that's not the issue here


>where did i say anything of this sort?
>

you said it when you stepped up to bat and said it was okay because copyright law is in his favor