Those of yall who think Lord Finesse is going to easily lose this case must not know about the ongoing copyright dispute going on in music right now. Frank Ocean also got a cease and desist from Warner music for his rendition of a 'The Eagles' track. At the very least they made it so he cant perform the song anymore.
Frank Ocean Vs. the Eagles: The Plot Thickens | News | Pitchfork
Those of you who are saying its setting a precedent, ya damn right it is.
But real talk this is hypocritical as hell from a hiphop prespective. Hiphop was based on sampling others music and now producers who did that in the past are trying to condemn others for doing what they used to do
I know about the copyright disputes happening at the moment, but the fact is that a cease-and-desist isn't legally binding, and there (to my knowledge) hasn't been a ruling made in a case like this yet. I agree that it's some hypocritical bullshyt though.
I haven't been able to find the a copy of the claim yet, but the claims revolve around "copyright infringement, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, interference [and] deceptive trade practices".
Copyright infringement is easy - he made no money off the mixtape, but he probably performed it live. If Finesses lawyers can successfully argue that, they'll probably be able to extract fees relating to the performance of a copyrighted work. Now, there might be something to be said of unjust enrichment, but what
expense has been suffered by Finesse? It's not as if the kids at the Mac Miller concert would be going to his shows anyway. Same story with unfair competition - what loss has been suffered by Finesse? He might successfully argue loss of profit, but it's not as if Mac Miller has made any money
as a result of the release of the song.
Deceptive Trade Practices is weird - it implies that there has been some communication between the parties before the filing, but there's nothing to say about that because we don't know what was communicated.
