Fred Durst Wants To Steal Your Stuff!!!

God dammit, and I told myself to stay out of this thread, damn you PonyOne! ;)

But I still stick to my point.
I am SURE a lot of music gets stolen in the way you described.
Yet, going around the country, for the sole reason of ripping off(it's not stealing, they get the stuff handed to them basically) musical ideas from your fans is a whole different thing in my opinion.

The way I see it, Limp Bizkit probably asked their managment and lawyers to build up an idiot-proof contract that would prevent legal action against them in case they decided to release any filmed material in the form of a documentary.
Also, I don't think they did this whole quest for a new guitarist in order to rip off music from fans, but it was just a big ass publicity stunt. We all know Fred is a major media horn dog.

Now, I'm not saying my theory on this is the truth. And I'd be happy to be proven wrong. But I think some people here tend to overlook the legal part behind all of this.

Isn't the band Fozzy Chris Jherico's (From WWE(Formerly WWWF)) band? Yes I think so. He's a musician as well but is doing that band for fun as his seriouse job is wrestling.

Originally posted by trendkillah
Yet, going around the country, for the sole reason of ripping off(it's not stealing, they get the stuff handed to them basically) musical ideas from your fans is a whole different thing in my opinion.

Nevermind that it was handed to them, they're still using other people's stuff rather than writing their own. And whether the stealing's true or not it seems though a lot of people got treated like **** due to the so called 'publicity stunt.' Okay so a long queue is unavoidable with the kind of turnout they had but the band not playing and making appearances when they said they were going to just isn't right. And that issue with that woman and the guitar...? w.t.f was that for a way to treat you fans??

Originally posted by trendkillah
...(it's not stealing, they get the stuff handed to them basically)..

Yeah right it's not stealing.
Ever heard of obtaining something by false pretence?If you think it's not a crime,you go try and pull one off,then get caught.You'll see what happens.Tho' I suspect you won't be able to tell us what happens,coz the jail they put you in might not have access to the net(they won't put you in a fed club,trust me.)
Bottom line is,if bizkit made this "contest" as a way of collecting new material from unsuspecting wannabes-a-bizkit,it's stealing.
If they don't actually hire any of the people who turned up(they could argue that none was good enough)but end up using the material from those same people who weren't good enough,it's stealing.
And let's face it,they we're looking for a guitarist,not songwriter.Why the insistence on new material?Strictly?

kingdavid, aren't people supposed to read a contract and agree with it before they sign it?
If it says in the contract that Limp Bizkit will own the rights of anything that gets played, can you even talk about false pretence?

I'm no legal expert, but this seems to be pretty much legit to me.

These things look very straight forward on paper,but in a real court of law in a real case,the story is very different.
Look at this:
A company wants to change their logo.So they put out and ad to all and sundry with fine art skills that they're having a competition to get a new logo.They give you a rough idea of how it should look like.(Fred wants you to go in there and play a guitar,as opposed to say,a violin).They tell you it shouldn't have any similarity with their current logo,coz hey,that's what they're changing(Fred says not to play bizkit pieces.He want's original material).They'll tell you that all submissions made to them will become their property,and by entering to this competiton,you're agreeing to those terms(Fred says to sign that thing people were made to sign,about copyrights and all.And hey,if you own copyrights to something,you can use it however you want,right?That's the meaning of copyrights,right?).The company promises an award of so much to however wins(Fred is promising you bizkit membership).
Now,the company refuses to say who won.Or they say that none of the submissions weren't good enough(they reserve the right of judging quality,they reserve the right of refusing any or all entries without giving a reason,they set out all these conditions in the ad,and entering the competition binds you to those conditions).
Then you see you logo submission intheir letterheads or something.Can you say anything?Trendkillah thinks you can't coz,hey,it said so in the contract.Did you win the competition?NO.The company said so,and they'd reserved the right to say so.Who owns the logo?The company,duh!!The contract said so.
If this scenario was to unfold in a real court of law,somebody would be made to pay.
That is real life.No legal theory.Real life.
Ever heard of somebody being sentenced to a day in prison,for something like murder,because the circumstances of the case dictate he doesn't go in for the usual 10,20 years,but the law requires he be jailed if found guilty,so the judge puts him away for a day?
Or a guy commits a crime on which there's no life imprisonment.But the particular acts are so severe,the judge puts him away for 300 years?
The law is not as straight forward asyou seem to think it is.The actual truths are the ones that count.
And if in this case,Fred wanted to rip people off,if he had no real intention of hiring a guitarist,if he's using some tricky means to obtain copyrights from unsuspecting guitarists,as opposed to simply asking people to come in and then paying for the pieces that impress him,that would be strealing.And a sober court of law would find the case as such,that contract notwithstanding.
Look for a lawyer friend and ask about these things.
Or go to a forrum for lawyers,put this story forth(perhaps in a nutshell,with a link to the full story),and then listen to their views.
I'm sure you'll get some enlightment.
And by the way,I'm not a lawyer.

Nice explanation, but it doesn't convince me.
I just can not comprehend that when you agree to give your music away in order to enter a competition, and sign a contract on it, how it can be illegal for the owner of that music to actually use it.
Isn't this basically what bands do when they sign a record contract? They sign a contract agreeing that the record company gets to own their music.

In the example of the logodesign contest, it would be pretty stupid to not let anyone win, and still use one of the contestant's logo. Then why make a contest out of it at all?
However, even if they do declare someone to be the winner, they can still use any of the other entries. They probably won't use the losing logo's as their own main one, but they can still use them.

Limp Bizkit was not looking for musical material in their contest though, if they were, the contest would have been formulated like this "If your song gets chosen, you win blahblah and blah...". Giving away the copyrights of music you play during your audition is just a side effect(so to speak) of entering the competition.


HOWEVER, if it is true what you're saying, then you have proved my point that Limp Bizkit probably didn't put the copyright thing in the contract in order to rip off music from their fans.

Limp Bizkit DID go for the music of the others. Do you think that if they made the competition "If you win your song will be..." would get that many participants. It would prove that they are lacking ideas this will mean loss of many fans and respectively loss of $$$$.
In the way they did it it was as if they are looking for a player and they are indeed looking for a player. And probably gonna find it among some of the proved guitar players that are currently unemployed.
And here comes the tricky part: Here we have Fred Durst sitting and cursing the whole damn world because his guitar player left him for being too comercial. They have thir new mwmber selected but this means that they should start from scratch and this requires lots of work, work, work. Now little freddy feels overwhelmed and he starts thinking of other not so rough way. One day after hearing "Now you really wanna hate me.. " thing for the n-tieth time( I forgot its name) he remembers that it is not necessary to play songs that are entirely yours, you can actually borrow stuff from other people. And the corporate operating mind of Fred Durst comes up with the plan of making this "we are searching for a guitarist" tour in order to get some other people's stuff for free. Basic calculations show that if 0.1% of the stuff is a potential hit if we have 10000 mwbers then we have 10 hits which is enough hit material for at least 3 albums.
THat's how I feel things happened. Fred Durst is just too good buisenessman to allow his complany called Limp Bizkit to go backwards. Can anyone prove that this happened that way? Noooo. If it was possible this buiseness deal wouldn't be effective
What is
the digusting thing in that story? That little freddy is feeding on the enthusiasm of his most devoted fans who thought that he was "4 real" and not a corporate b!tch.
I thik that with this we must put an end of this thread-- what is done is done we cannot do anything at this point. Period. Full Stop. End. Konez. Krai. Fin

Originally posted by Slow Diver
I thik that with this we must put an end of this thread-- what is done is done we cannot do anything at this point. Period. Full Stop. End. Konez. Krai. Fin

All I can say is that you have a wild imagination. :)

Originally posted by trendkillah
...I just can not comprehend that when you agree to give your music away in order to enter a competition, and sign a contract on it, how it can be illegal for the owner of that music to actually use it...
It becomes illegal when there's something of a promise to it which is not fulfilled.The only time it would be completely legal would be if Fred makes an announcement that he wants people to give him their original material for free,just like that,then you go and volunteer.Then that would be OK.But you see here there was supposed to be some quid pro quo.It's that quid pro quo that the law is supposed to protect.

Isn't this basically what bands do when they sign a record contract? They sign a contract agreeing that the record company gets to own their music.
Bands get paid by labels.Fred didn't pay anyone.

In the example of the logodesign contest, it would be pretty stupid to not let anyone win, and still use one of the contestant's logo. Then why make a contest out of it at all?
Who would prove that they're the ones who dedsigned that logo?Who can say that,for instance,it wasn't someone in the company who offered to do it?Who can say it wasn't done by some outsider who was specially contracted by the company?Remember you'd have absolutely no basis to make a Judge compel the company to prove that indeed,they was the ones who made it.The onus is on you to prove you did it.

Limp Bizkit was not looking for musical material in their contest though, if they were, the contest would have been formulated like this "If your song gets chosen, you win blahblah and blah...". Giving away the copyrights of music you play during your audition is just a side effect(so to speak) of entering the competition.
Like slow diver said,it makes them look untalented(which maybe they are,who knows?I'm not a particular fan of theirs).I mean,ever heard of a con(coz con's use tricks,as opposed to gunpoint/violent robbers) who tells beforehand that they're going to con you?Of course not,coz then you won't be connable.Lack of information is the cornerstone of conmanship.


HOWEVER, if it is true what you're saying, then you have proved my point that Limp Bizkit probably didn't put the copyright thing in the contract in order to rip off music from their fans.
If they hadn't put that copyright thing in there,they wouldn't be able to use your music without your permission.and your permission would be more than just,"Hey,you guys wanna use my music?Cool!Anytime homiez!I'm a big fan of yours you know."It would be more.Maybe money.Maybe joining them.You'd at least get them to at least autograsph your guitar.The quid pro quo thing.

[Edited by kingdavid on 11-01-2002 at 01:29 AM]

Here's the plan, find a slick lawyer and someone who entered the contest, sue Fred under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claim that because of the participant's tone deafness is a disability and that was the reason Fred discrimanated against the participant by not awarding him the LB gig, a couple million bucks should be ample to repair the participants damaged psyche, of course if Fred were to let it slip that their never was any intention of anybody landing the gig, then all those who signed copyright waivers may have a legal recourse in a fraud case, .......... or maybe I just saw too many episodes of Perry Mason as a kid?....................