-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
GTA 5: Rapper Wants Game Recalled Over Track Inclusion
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
Ninja Scooter
Member
He can't figure out how to ask for a lawyer properly so maybe it'll be enough to fool him.
He successfully sued Suge Knight and Death Row and supposedly won like $20 million. I think he's doing alright for himself in the legal department.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Maybe he thought his shit was worth more than 4k for 2 songs.
Maybe he figured the "free publicity" wouldn't amount to much more than random people tripping over classic Dogg Pound songs on YouTube would net him.
Maybe, had he agreed to the 4k for 2 songs on this soundtrack, the number of people who would have really given a shit that "Nothing but the Cavi Hit" was on one of the hip hop stations in-game wouldn't seem like it was worth it to knowingly shortsell his own catalog.
This argument seems to assume that being in a GTA game automatically equals a huge boost in record sales and recognition, when that's never really a guarantee, and honestly, the frame of reference here is probably a little skewed.
2 songs out of what, a couple hundred on a video game soundtrack?
vs.
Helping produce and rapping on multiple multiplatinum albums at a regular clip in the late 90s.
Which do you think Daz legitimately considers "good exposure?"
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
To all the people saying 4K is low since the game will make millions, you do realize that it wouldn't make millions if they gave every song license a large amount of that? Also, do you really think someone just licensing out a song deserves a good chunk of that money? GTA would sell with or without his song. That being said, if he is correct, it was shitty and wrong of RS to steal his songs.
HamsterPackage
Member
Can I steal your stuff then call you a baby when you want it back?
Tevious
Member
I don't know about others, but I agree it should be patched out. I don't know the details, but if Rockstar really did violate the copyright, then they obviously should pay the guy for his "damages". I don't think people are suggesting that patching it out would be some sort of magic eraser deal where Rockstar could just then say "my bad" and everything's cool.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Nah, there's multiple people in the thread suggesting just that.
polyh3dron
Banned
It's usually safe to assume that a record label owns the masters to anything it releases. Also, this is a Mack 10 song featuring the Dogg Pound. Mack 10 had a deal with Priority at the time which is most likely why this song was on the album. Priority most likely owns the masters to whatever Mack 10 recorded for them while he was signed to them. The Dogg Pound (Kurupt and Daz) were featured and most likely paid a fee for the feature and also Daz was probably paid for the production of the song. They also have publishing rights distributed among Mack 10, Daz and Kurupt. They very well could have sold these off to a publishing company who then can license the songs at their leisure without the writers' permission.
There's rights to the recording which are usually held by the record company (which some people like you refer to as "the masters"), and publishing rights to the composition which are usually held by the performing artist, writer and producer unless those people decide to sell off their publishing rights.
It's like when Rush Limbaugh licensed Peter Gabriel's "Sledge Hammer" without his express consent and then when Gabriel got all pissed there was nothing he could do. Same with the McCain/Palin campaign licensing and using Heart's "Barracuda".
TheRedSnifit
Member
Why will there be a settlement? As long as R* pays royalties (which, btw, aren't determined by the artist or label), there is no case.
And it's pretty unlikely that the label doesn't own the masters.
CambriaRising
Member
I'm going to steal something you created and put it into something i'm selling without your permission, that cool with you? Thanks.
Only if the label agrees to that term. They have a clear case of copyright infringement. They wouldn't even have to settle (Barring financial liabilities), they would win no matter what.
The hell is with people defending Rockstar? If this is actually true, it isn't right at all to use someones property without permission/being paid for it. At all. If this was any other company everyone would probably wanna burn em at the stake. Embarrassing.
The problem with patching it out is that some people don't have internet so it would still be in many discs out there.
The problem with patching it out is that some people don't have internet so it would still be in many discs out there.
HamsterPackage
Member
Okay but what about all the people that play xbox offline. Songs are still there. pretty hard to "patch" those copies of GTA5.
nephilimdj
Member
Come on, the hiphop and pop stations are the main stations for most people, reason why they have dr dre doing intros and a famous british model ranting.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Because he didn't give permission to put the songs on the soundtrack.
Again - if Rockstar didn't have to offer Daz the money, or even go to him at all to secure the rights - why did they? If it was solely a matter of putting the song on the soundtrack and just paying whatever set percentage was mandated, why did they even contact him and ask permission if they were going to just put the shit in their game regardless of his answer?
How does that change the fact that 2 songs out of a couple hundred probably doesn't seem like all that great "exposure" compared to the exposure he got as one of the main cogs in the Death Row camp during the late 90s?
People are trying to frame Daz like some sort of hungry has-been, when it's a lot more likely that as an artist who has been COMPLETELY FUCKED OVER by people looking to use his music, he's a lot more cognizant of making sure he gets what he feels he's worth UP FRONT, as opposed to trading his works for the possibility or opportunity of more money coming in some vague future.
I think that's for covers, though.
Don't know if there's compulsory licensing for directly including a song.
(haven't checked if the song included was a cover but I am gonna assume no)
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
It was tongue and cheek. Rockstar was in the wrong when they used his material without his permission and I do believe they owe him the money.
I do think the analogy of stealing something physically from me is bad. A better analogy would be to use a piece of artwork I made that had my name signed to it on a website without receiving permission to do so. They used a creative work without permission but I'm guessing, in the game, it still includes his name and the title of the song. That doesn't make it right, however and he should get the money he deserves especially considering Rockstar is a multi-billion dollar company and would be practically pocket change for them to give him whatever he's due.
Jest Chillin
Member
No where close to the full amount of GTA purchasers will even HEAR about this.. let alone boycott him because he's suing due to copyright violations on his own music...
I believe the License is a one time fee, not a fee per copy sold. Licensing for commercials have paid into the hundreds of thousands for certain songs because of this. Commercials get played exponentially more than Movies and TV so they usually pay a ton.
If it is his property and they are using it without his permission then they should remove it. Even if you all really like the game it doesn't change the law.(btw I have no idea if he owns it or not.)
That said I'm sure they are prepared for this kind of thing and can just patch it out I can't imagine they would have to recall everything to remove one song lol.
That said I'm sure they are prepared for this kind of thing and can just patch it out I can't imagine they would have to recall everything to remove one song lol.
8 cent by game sold? That's like 1.2 Million out of the 15 million of unit sold. Do not really make sense.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Well, I mentioned Rockstar is in the wrong.
But I could argue, at least in my case.... Yes you could! So long as I'm credited for it and you have a popular website that might lead more people to purchase my creative work, by all means do so! Thanks!
HamsterPackage
Member
Yeah maybe not the best analogy but you get the point I was trying to make. And why would Rockstar offer him anything if he didn't own some part of these tracks? (for the people saying its owned by sony, priority ....
CambriaRising
Member
I saw your later post, but mine is prefaced on the fact that you said "No" already.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Previous posts I made in this thread before the one you quoted mentioned I believe he should receive the money.
Tevious
Member
Hence why R* pays damages.
Jest Chillin
Member
I saw your post before the edit but post edit it already explains what I was going to ask. Well posted friend.
As I posted earlier, I was under the impression that paying for a Liscense isn't the same as Royalties. Royalties are paid per play. The ASCAP FAQ I posted earlier in the thread seemed to talk about things from a 1 time fee perspective. http://www.ascap.com/music-career/articles-advice/film-tv/how-to-acquire-music-for-films.aspx
It is a bit vague though.
Everything I've seen in regards to Licensing has never suggested any flat or suggested rate. It's all said that fees vary wildly and are negotiated based on a number of factors.
polyh3dron
Banned
yeah they'll boycott his music and listen to Tupac and Snoop instead. that'll learn him.
daz produced on doggystyle, tha doggfather and all eyez on me
He is talking about the fee for covering a song. If you do a cover, you can do it without getting any permission from the original artist, as long as you pay 8 cents per song for each disc you sold (it's more money for longer songs but whatevs) (you can do it for less if you negotiate a license with the owner).
This comes from the time music was distributed as partitures.
But this is not a cover, so I don't know if there's this kind of compulsory licensing. I assume that any license like that would cost more than 8 cents per song given you are including the original, not a cover.
I've seen some licensing contracts for TV and they often go for a flat rate (buyout) because that ends up being cheaper in the end, especially with a product which sells booku like this one. Contracts are written expressly to low ball the other party as much as possible first - then you negotiate. People who take the first offer usually don't have much leverage.
That said, $4k for two songs is one of the lowest offers I've seen in a very long time. It's obscenely low for licensing in nearly anything, let alone GTA V. I think a fair offer for an artist of that stature is maybe... $8-15k a track? Way more than 2k per. And for bigger artists, hoo boy. The sky's the limit.
TheRedSnifit
Member
As long as you pay the standard royalty fee, nobody - not the label and not the artist - can keep you from using the songs. It's actually the law in the U.S. that if a company wants the rights to use a recording, and are willing to fork over the standard royalty rate for it, the rightsholder has to let them have it.
Heart of Black
Member
AHAHAHAHAHA that's not fucking true at all. And that's really all I can say.
Yeah. If Daz does have a case then I would guess they'll settle with him for a decent chunk of change as opposed to recalling the game.
But I'm no legal expert so I could be wrong here.
Daz Dillinger is one of the BIGGEST rap names from the West Coast... so no its not about being "honored" he doesnt need to be feel "honored" by Rockstar..
he need to be PAID...
EDIT -
WOW some of you have really dumbfounded me.. "FREE EXPOSURE"??
You really think a rapper that's been around as long as Daz Dillinger needs "EXPOSURE"?
Whether you like rap, know him or don't know him in the rap community hes one of the best producer/artists from the West Coast and this is about music he owns the masters to being used without his consent PERIOD.
Stop defending Rockstar and use common sense..
Studio albums
1998: Retaliation, Revenge and Get Back
2000: R.A.W.
2002: This Is the Life I Lead
2003: DPGC: U Know What I'm Throwin' Up
2004: I Got Love in These Streetz
2005: Tha Dogg Pound Gangsta LP
2005: Gangsta Crunk
2006: So So Gangsta
2007: Gangsta Party
2008: Only on the Left Side
2009: Public Enemiez
2010: Matter of Dayz
2011: D.A.Z.
2012: Witit Witit
2013: Weed Money
Collaborative albums
2001: Long Beach 2 Fillmoe (with JT the Bigga Figga)
2001: Game for Sale (with JT the Bigga Figga)
2003: Southwest (with Nuwine)
2009: Get That Paper (with Fratthouse)
2013: West Coast Gangsta Shit (with WC)
TBA: Stay of Execution[10] (with The N'Matez)[11][12]
Compilation albums
2001: Who Ride wit Us: Tha Compalation, Vol. 1
2002: To Live and Die in CA
2002: Who Ride wit Us: Tha Compalation, Vol. 2
2008: Who Ride wit Us: Tha Compalation, Vol. 3
2009: Who Ride wit Us: Tha Compalation, Vol. 4
2013: Who Ride wit Us: Tha Compalation, Vol. 5
Id say hes got enough exposure...
For covers there's no permission required, but a royalty must be paid.
A songwriter has the right to first use - they can allow/deny who records their song first - but after that anyone can cover it as long as they pay.
I can't talk American law but it'd never happen in the Commonwealth.
Revolutionary
Member
I think the real question here is how much did the other 90s artists receive for their contribution to the game? I find it hard to believe that he was low balled in comparison to other artists of the time (these are nearly 20 year old songs we're talking about), and therefore I can't help but feel like he might just be a little greedy in light of GTAV's financial success.
That said, the songs are in the game so someone had to have given the ok so I don't think it's a problem for Rockstar in any case.
That said, the songs are in the game so someone had to have given the ok so I don't think it's a problem for Rockstar in any case.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
That would be like millions of suburban housewives boycotting strip clubs. Same state of affairs before and after.
Diss GTA and Rockstar, and your rap career is over. I can't wait to see Daz vs GTA5 on the next Beef DVD.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
So much wrong in one post...
First, where you don't need to get permission in advance is doing a cover on an album, and those royalties go to the people who own the publishing, not the record company.
Using a song mixed with any other media requires sync rights, which require written permission from all publishing owners in advance, and often payment in advance.
And they came to him first, meaning they knew they were supposed to pay him and didn't. That sort of thing is the reason for punitive damages.
you only had a problem almost 3 weeks after the game came out and its financial success was headline news?
sure, neither of those songs are 100% his, if he owned the rights they wouldn't of used it at all cause he would of actually had a legal case for it.
they both were written and performed with other artists on them and were recorded thru other companies music labels.
if he has an issue he can take it up with Universal Music Group who are the parent owner of both record companies that released the albums those 2 songs came from.
sure, neither of those songs are 100% his, if he owned the rights they wouldn't of used it at all cause he would of actually had a legal case for it.
they both were written and performed with other artists on them and were recorded thru other companies music labels.
if he has an issue he can take it up with Universal Music Group who are the parent owner of both record companies that released the albums those 2 songs came from.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
None of what you wrote has anything to do with the allegation that they came to him, offered him money, he turned them down and denied permission, and they put the shit in the game anyway.
If they didn't need his permission, why'd they offer him money in exchange for it?
If they needed his permission, why did they put the songs in the game after he denied them that permission?
if he owned the rights to the songs outright, they wouldnt be able to use it. both those songs have multiple parties who worked on it and if he declined payment, thats on him.
just cause you record a song doesnt mean you own the rights to it, go ask Snoop about that along with pretty much everyone else from those Priority Records and Death Row days, other than Dre who made sure to get it in his contract he could keep control of his work.
the Housers got connections in the music industry which is why it was a large part of the entire GTA series, i find it funny that all these games later with millions spent on royalties, one artist past his prime of relevancy and also isnt exactly in good terms with the other artists on those tracks either, is all upset, then again, hes probably just using this as buzz for some new project hes working on
"now i got a reason to act pissed, an yall can believe me cause of this headline, feel sorry for my struggles, its real in the hood"
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I don't think you've actually been reading the thread. Am I wrong?
Are you arguing that Rockstar's offering him payment in return for permission to use the tracks was some sort of formality or something? You seem to be completely subtracting any possibility that someone at Rockstar fucked up. Maybe not maliciously, but the possibility that a mistake was made doesn't seem to factor into your posts at all.
He owns the publishing to the Cavi Hit. Hell, the credits IN the game show this.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Even if it was a cover, I'm pretty sure they'd need permission from the publishers in advance for that cover to be used in a game.
The GH1 devs' most wanted song was Jump by Van Halen and they couldn't get it. The game was all covers. (because the owners of the masters wouldn't release the multitracks for some noname game)
The GH1 devs' most wanted song was Jump by Van Halen and they couldn't get it. The game was all covers. (because the owners of the masters wouldn't release the multitracks for some noname game)
I'm sure plenty were low-balled.
The problem is that he IS directly contributing to their success in a very small fashion. Regardless of arbitrary valuation, that's probably worth more than $4k. You can say it's an old song and bla bla bla, but they're using it in their wildly successful game now aren't they? We don't talk about that enough. We just sit here and go in circles about oh he's so greedy, look at how much exposure's he's gotten. Look how much fucking exposure Rockstar's gotten. Look at the praise they've gotten for the radio stations they put together - using not the songs they made, but other people made. They owe some debt of gratitude.
And it's not even that much money. Let's say the average song was licensed at $20k. 200 tracks makes that about $2M in licensing fees for what? 2/3 or 3/4 of the all the music in the entire game? That's peanuts compared to spending $275M all in. It's an INSANE value for a game which cost that much.
Rockstar has nearly become Valve around here - they can do no wrong. Sorry but having looked at a bunch of entertainment contracts in my time, I'm not shocked.
Fahrenheit
Banned
So to be clear Rockstar never had rights to use the songs? If that's the case then shame on R*.
If it's a case of the rapper making a deal then waiting to change it after the fact the shame on the rapper.
If it's a case of the rapper making a deal then waiting to change it after the fact the shame on the rapper.
if you think the Housers are all of a sudden new to the music licensing game, you must of been under a rock since 2001.
im gonna side with them that they didnt go out of their way to licenses 2 songs that could of easily been replaced by a million others if there was going to be some sort of legal issue in using them, and not a guy who should be grateful to even be relevant again almost 20 years after the height of his career, by having a song in the game and saw the headlines of its profit and now wants more money.
we've seen that a million times with actors who do a movie that does well in the box office and all of a sudden want more than their contract which they were perfectly fine with, entitled them too. or in this case, was offered money, clearly didnt own 100% rights and now is mad just cause of the offer. and him spouting off some number means nothing since you have no idea what any other artist gets paid for their appearance, but people know the "1 BILLION DOLLARS in 3 days" headline and then see he just got 4 grand and jump to conclusions.
this is the same crap we saw at last years movie awards when the artists who worked on that CGI-laden film, all of a sudden wanted more money just cause it won some awards, months after already happily cashing the checks they received before the movie was even released
Revolutionary
Member
Exactly. Difference is that I don't see Stevie Wonder, Hall & Oates, Wham!, Dre, MC Eiht, etc complaining about their compensation for the game.
His cousin is probably the one that signed off on the deal anyways lol
Jest Chillin
Member
People really need to stop with this garbage argument. He's not a rapper who just rhymes over stuff. He's a well respected producer who was instrumental in defining the 90's Hip Hop sound and the songs in question are songs he produced.
The songs he's produced will be relevant FOREVER. His name doesn't need to be on the tips of the tongues of the populace because he created the music to songs that are well recognized classics in the genre.
Please people. Read the thread. This stuff has been mentioned multiple times by now.