4 ms·

Except as noted in the linked BBC coverage, Four Tet's case was settled out of court (because he could not afford to fight it) and thus establishes no legal pre

Except as noted in the linked BBC coverage, Four Tet's case was settled out of court (because he could not afford to fight it) and thus establishes no legal precedent for other artists to leverage.

scoofy 4y ago
>Four Tet Wow... Haven't heard that name in a long time. Saw him at the MFA in Boston so long ago i can barely remember. Great artist, I'm glad he at least showed it could be a reasonable line of argument.
- isoprophlex 4y ago
  The album "new energy" has become one of my all time favorites. Check out some recent work. He still produces some insanely hi quality tracks, not all under the "four tet" moniker. Some of the ungoogle-able "unicode hell" releases are very good, and his "KH" tracks are dancefloor killers.
pessimizer 4y ago
Yeah, there's no chance that this golden goose could ever be killed in a modern democracy. If the companies would still be profitable paying 50% royalties, then the 38% difference between that and 12% royalties represents the amount the industry will be able to spend (without thinking about it for a moment) to bribe politicians, create fake public-interest organizations and think-tanks, and settle cases like this.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  > to bribe politicians, create fake public-interest organizations and think-tanks In other words to fool you, the voter. But if you've been fooled, how do you know these things? Are you acting on your knowledge and voting against those corrupt politicians and against those who agree with the propaganda? How does nobody else know this?
  - ntoskrnl 4y ago
    I'm sure people know but have given up since it's hopeless. It doesn't really matter who you vote for. Republicans and democrats alike can be bribed, er, sorry, I meant lobbied. I'd love to be wrong about this. Someone tell me which politician I can vote for to restore the length of copyright back to its original 14 years.
cco 4y ago
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the appropriate term, but though not a precedent it certainly is a smell. Settling out of court might mean the label in question was of the opinion that they very well might lose if they went to court, this is bolstered by your point that the artist probably couldn't afford to fight it; this implies that the record label could have gone to court, confident they could bleed the plaintiff dry, but the risk of that strategy was too great. So whatever the term is, it does crack the door open a little bit (hopefully).

Except as noted in the linked BBC coverage, Four Tet's case was settled out of court (because he could not afford to fight it) and thus establishes no legal precedent for other artists to leverage.

scoofy 4y ago

>Four Tet Wow... Haven't heard that name in a long time. Saw him at the MFA in Boston so long ago i can barely remember. Great artist, I'm glad he at least showed it could be a reasonable line of argument.

isoprophlex 4y ago
The album "new energy" has become one of my all time favorites. Check out some recent work. He still produces some insanely hi quality tracks, not all under the "four tet" moniker. Some of the ungoogle-able "unicode hell" releases are very good, and his "KH" tracks are dancefloor killers.

pessimizer 4y ago

Yeah, there's no chance that this golden goose could ever be killed in a modern democracy. If the companies would still be profitable paying 50% royalties, then the 38% difference between that and 12% royalties represents the amount the industry will be able to spend (without thinking about it for a moment) to bribe politicians, create fake public-interest organizations and think-tanks, and settle cases like this.

sacrosancty 4y ago
> to bribe politicians, create fake public-interest organizations and think-tanks In other words to fool you, the voter. But if you've been fooled, how do you know these things? Are you acting on your knowledge and voting against those corrupt politicians and against those who agree with the propaganda? How does nobody else know this?
- ntoskrnl 4y ago
  I'm sure people know but have given up since it's hopeless. It doesn't really matter who you vote for. Republicans and democrats alike can be bribed, er, sorry, I meant lobbied. I'd love to be wrong about this. Someone tell me which politician I can vote for to restore the length of copyright back to its original 14 years.

cco 4y ago

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the appropriate term, but though not a precedent it certainly is a smell. Settling out of court might mean the label in question was of the opinion that they very well might lose if they went to court, this is bolstered by your point that the artist probably couldn't afford to fight it; this implies that the record label could have gone to court, confident they could bleed the plaintiff dry, but the risk of that strategy was too great. So whatever the term is, it does crack the door open a little bit (hopefully).