Talk:Timbaland plagiarism controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated B-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Timbaland steals from even more musicians[edit]

Two more musicians/producers had parts of their tracks stolen, without getting credits or compensation. Youtube proofs:

Could anybody write a paragraph about it and add it to this or Timbaland's main article? Guest Account (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


not a valid reference, but not meant as one either, just a piece of chronology? i think it might as well stay. // Gargaj 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to draw up a timeline of events ... feel free... but posting an IRC "initial date" which cant be verified or referenced has to go from the primary article body. Remember our policy is "verifiable" not "truth"... while it may be true it was first mentioned on IRC... we have no way to validate that!  ALKIVAR 23:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's okay like it is now. I just took offense because Pouet definately did not find it out. It was in fact a friend of mine, Søren Lund aka Jeff who located the SID after Mr.Ammo's comment, and from that the MOD (the source for the SID was mentioned in the HVSC STIL Info Database), and Tempest was informed right away, so if needed he could confirm this himself. But it's not that important i guess.. User:deekay64

FWIW, the German news site covered this on December 21st: [1]. (They are not quite a mainstream medium, but do get cited by respected IT magazines every now and then, on de: there is an article about Two months ago, they were - to my knowledge - the first to break this story about hackers trying to spread malware via Wikipedia, which later appeared internationally.) Regards, High on a tree 12:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Seattle Radio station Kiss 106.1 played a clip this morning of ANOTHER song Timbaland has stolen, this time for Justin Timberlake's "My Love". Trying to find the details, but the evidence is damning ... the song was originally by a woman, and in her own remix, she fades out Justin's song into her own and the resemblance is almost perfect, right down to the "My Love" chorus.

I believe you are reffering to this? -- she has made a version with her vocals on top of the backing track to Timberlakes "My Love" to "prove the simliarities". The song she claims is ripped off is a UK Garage-tune, and does in fact not match the Timberlake song at all.. at least, as far as I can hear. :) 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If your referring to the song "My Love" by Marit Bergman (she's swedish) then your mistaken and so are they, she did a cover of my love ... not the other way around.  ALKIVAR 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This thing has now hit Rolling Stone's www-frontpage.

here translated iltalehti section (important part)[edit]

Bear with me, as I'm not native Finnish, but I can understand a lot of it ;)

Onko Nellyn hitti Suomesta? (Does Nelly's hit originate from Finland?) Furtadoa Suomessa edustavan Universal-levy-yhtiön kotimaisen tuotannon päällikkö Hannu Sormunen kuulee Iltalehdeltä ensi kertaa konemusiikkipiirejä raivostuttaneesta tapauksesta. «Jos artisti aikoo viedä asiaa eteenpäin, on hänen mentävä Amerikkaan ja kohdattava sikäläinen lakikäytäntö. Se vaatii aikamoista uskoa asiaansa ja tietysti rahaa,» Sormunen toteaa.

The manager who represents Furtado in record company Universal's local office, Hannu Sormunen, got to know the first time from {Finnish tabloid} Iltalehti about the controversy which presently lets the computer music scene fly off the handle: «In case that the {computer music} artist decides to pursue the matter further, it's on him to go to America and confront them with the local use of law. It will require a considerable amount of faith and, of course, money», Sormunen states. -andy 09:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice:) I am finn myself,and I don't see anything to edit there;) Solarius 21:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That was no "andy goes bragging about language knowledge" exercise, but it was rather meant to include some snippets from it into the main article, if anyone wants to. :P -andy 22:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I would've translated "konemusiikki" as "electronic music" rather than "computer music", but otherwise ok. --Viznut 10:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, good point, I added that cite and I edited it little bit, mostly text within { and }. check it out, and edit if there is something wrong;) Solarius 12:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Did I ever state I love teamwork? No? :) BTW, it would be a good thing to remove the superfluous second reference in the list far below. I'd rather not meddle my dirty fingers into it and break something ... -andy 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
A minor grammar correction - in the original Finnish text Universal represents Furtado and Sormunen is the manager for domestic production. The English version should read something like "Hannu Sormunen, the manager for domestic production of Universal, the record label representing Furtado in Finland". (My first time editing something on Wikipedia, please feel free to correct the layout if I screwed something up) 15:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
OK me again...Please change to who and do not use "which" with people. Thanks :) -andy 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, this is interesting!! They say those echoing effects are actually based on Martin Galway's engine! So GRG's own tool is actually based on MG?! Well, read yourself ... -andy 00:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. You did see ? The player source code is included. Also, there are limited ways to create sounds with the SID chip, and obviously many of those will sound the same, regardless of the editor/player routine used. I bet most of these support "Galway" sounds. 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, same here, this is bullshit. SDI is just a music editor like DMC or the JCH editor, and you can use almost any editor to make the Galway Effect, which is pretty well known... Nobody needs to steal code from Galways player for this, especially because modern players/editors are much more advanced than the ones they used back then anyway (which is the reason why they make them, you know! ;-).. The Galway effect itself is just a technique for playing the "instrument" (in this case the SID-chip), kinda like playing a guitar with an empty bottle on your finger in guitar-playing is. It's not copyrighted by anyone, and i would imagine it would be hard to do so in the first place, you'd have to file for a patent probably... Besides: "WarezNews" (sic), the guy that brought this up, obviously doesn't have much of a clue when he asks why people prefer to make music on the c64 rather than the Amiga.. Ever wondered why there's no Amiga Remix scene with millions of downloads (in contrast to Well, maybe it's because programmable analogue synths are pretty different and offer a more distinct sound than digital samples, which are kinda pointless in 4/8-bit (Amiga) compared to today's 16/24bit-hardware! ;-) DeeKay64
That's pretty off-topic. However, most songs at do not contain SID samples. They are just based on SID tracks. If you had followed the links at RKO, you'd also discovered Nectarine Demoscene Radio exists too. If you wanted to start a Amiga vs. C64 flame, you're 20 years too late. -- 03:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's offtopic, that much is true, it was just to prove that the guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. However, "most" tracks on RKO is stretching it quite a bit. And I did say "with millions of downloads", didn't i? With 1802 (c64) vs 341 (Amiga) remixes the situation is clear I'd say. ;-) There's also no "HardPaula" or "PaulaStation" available last i checked... DeeKay64

xxl blog post[edit]

Is this really relevant ?

Yes, XXL is the #2 most popular hip-hop magazine (the #1 would be Source). Regardless of the fact they write it off as sampling (and are wrong) the fact that they are the #2 site makes their coverage noteworthy.  ALKIVAR 08:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I know the arguments from XXL magazine sound pretty lame. However, not only is it covered by XXL magazine, there have been many similar comments on YouTube. So it is popular belief, even if it's wrong. Monkeyman334 16:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, my personal bias is known, and I'd just like to state that I'm not against criticism, but the XXL article has some serious flaws: a) This isn't the 80s or 90s, and Timbaland isn't some poor home-recording hobby-producer who cannot be expected to clear his samples. If he was, *nobody* would make such a fuzz. But he's not, he's making lots of millions selling his (well, in this case "his"!) music.. Apparently he does clear his samples mostly ("mostly" because according to his official forum there just was a similar incident with some indian musician that he sampled without credit!), so why shouldn't he be in this case? Just because the artist is "obscure"? Gimme a break! b) As for finding the artist being supposedly difficult: Timbaland sampled GRGs SID, not the original MOD. And in the SID the author is embedded (and cannot be changed, like with e.g. mp3-IDtags!). In this case it says "Glenn Rune Gallefoss", and if you enter that in Google, the third hit is his CSDB-Infopage with a valid email address! c) The "happens all the time, but most musicians don't have an army of geeks banging the drums"-reasoning: Well, and because it mostly goes unnoticed, it means it's bad when it *doesn't* go unnoticed for once? Millions of people shoplift every day, but only a fraction are caught - does that mean that shoplifting is okay and that the judge should let the ones off that are caught, just because of the millions of shoplifters that succeed? What kind of twisted logic is that? d) He has more inaccuracies in the article (like the demoscene only working on "old computers" or its music being "internet only" music - The Demoscene was around since looong before the Internet became popular!) , but these aren't directly related to the controversy.
IMHO, the special criticism/XXL section should go completely, because his reasoning is flawed (see above) and should hence not be quoted verbatim on Wikipedia. I'd say include it in the normal media section with a sentence like "A blog on XXL Magazine has chimed in on the issue on the 16th, siding with Timbaland (or "criticizing the high amount of media buzz", which is mostly only his opinion, but atleast it's not flawed like his reasoning! ;-) DeeKay64
I'm not here to defend anyone but you're spreading false information. The Indian sound used in Jay-Z's "Big Pimpin" was not sampled. It was recreated which was apparently legal. Whether that's morally correct is another question. However copyright laws aren't straight forward. Did you know that live-performances don't require giving credit to an original artist? That's only required if you want to sell it in recorded form. So making huge loads of money by performing other's songs isn't illegal at all. Life isn't fair, neither are laws. -- 03:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough! ;-) I just read about it on the Timbaland-Forum (thread has -ofcourse- long been deleted), and they talked about sampling...DeeKay64
I don't think this section has anything specifically to do with the XXL article. I've seen similar opinions in many blogs, discussion board comments etc. so it's just a matter of choosing a valid source. I also think it's quite important to document all the viewpoints even if some of them seem totally wrong. --Viznut 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've seen a lot of bullshit in comments from people that actually do not have the slightest clue about a) the Demoscene, b) SID-music, c) copyright matters and d) the record business, but there really is no need to re-print false logic here on Wikipedia. We're not here to re-print (illogical) personal opinions... Just because lots of racist commenters say "those fuckin stealing niggers", do we need to put that on Wikipedia, too? The XXL link is still in there, and their criticism on the controversy is noted. That's already way more than you can ask for for such a lame article, people can just go there and read for themselves, no need to re-print their complete logic. Oh, and Monkeyman, just once more for you: THIS IS NOT JUST SAMPLING! He took almost the whole damn song! So XXLs "criticism" is void by this fact alone... DeeKay64
There's no reason to put people's illogical opinions. However, there's nothing wrong with noting that many people share the same illogical reasoning. I know it's not sampling. I know the article presents the facts wrong. But people might come here and wonder why people are backing up Timbaland. There's no point in including one comment from XXL magazine if you think the article is void. So ... if you want, delete the whole paragraph and leave the reference at the bottom, but if any part of the XXL magazine gets a paragraph, it should include all the arguments. Not the arbitrary one that's there. Monkeyman334 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If people coming here wonder why people back up Timbaland, in how far does re-stating what's in the XXL article help if we don't point out the inaccuracies and false logic? I could do so (like i have done here), no problem, but refuting his bullshit here on Wikipedia would most definately be considered biased, would it not? That there has been criticism (as little as there is) should definately be noted in respect to neutrality, so the paragraph should remain. It should however focus on the authors personal opinion ("too much fuzz by an army of nerds") and not his false reasoning! He does not have any "arguments" at all, as they are easily proven wrong! Oh, and monkeyman: Can we please discuss this *here* instead of having revert-wars? After all that's what the talk page ist for.. DeeKay64
Read the YouTube comments. There's a lot of people saying that it's okay to use samples. If you want to say "XXL Magazine writes that sampling is okay (although it incorrectly identifies the stolen music as a sample)," then edit it in instead of reverting. My only issue is including criticism from a single article, and then paraphrasing only one paragraph from that article. Either delete the criticism section or include more of the article. You can rebuke it will still be NPOV. There are plenty of references that point out that is more than just a sample taken. I *know* why the XXL magazine article is BS. So instead of telling me about it more, tell me why you chose to include that one paragraph. Monkeyman334 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Didn't I just do *exactly* that? Yes, i did - "That there has been criticism (as little as there is) should definately be noted in respect to neutrality, so the paragraph should remain. It should however focus on the authors personal opinion ("too much fuzz by an army of nerds") and not his false reasoning!" You cannot argue with opinions, but you can easily refute the claims of "obscurity" and "sampling"... But I don't think i should refute it on Wikipedia, we're here to list what other sources have writen, not to comment on it! What do the others say? DeeKay64
I don't know the exact Wikipedia policy but if this "criticism" is included, the article should be able to note that it directly contradicts with what it says above about how it is not in fact a sample. It does seem too selective to include only one part of the only sourced criticism. The "obscurity" claim may be harder to define in order to defend, however. Pomte 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Description of media coverage[edit]

This is a very comprehensive and well-sourced article, so well done to the user(s) who wrote it. I'm a little concerned about the level of detail in the description of the media coverage of the controversy; it seems as if every article or website reporting it has been mentioned in this article. Perhaps a couple of the not-so-notable ones should be removed? Extraordinary Machine 22:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. There are an awful lot of references for such a short (albeit great) article. 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the media coverage section still seems to reflect the situation some weeks ago, when there were only a couple of "reliable" sources to refer to. As the story continued spreading into more and more notable media, people just collected them in the media coverage section. Now that we're past the peak of the media coverage, it's perhaps the right time to remove the excessive sources. Some information (such as the speculations about SidStation and the comment from Universal's representative) could also be moved to other parts of the article. --Viznut 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Myspace / Kele Le Roc Allegation[edit]

IF you read the myspace blog, she doesn't accuse anybody of anything. She says that the *chorus* is *similar*. She also gives no information (from what I can see) about when her version was released, or where I can hear it. There is also no 3rd party confirmation or details on what was similar. So I think it's really baseless. Please provide more info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyman334 (talkcontribs) 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Timbaland's answer[edit]

--Neptuniandroid 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, he's screwed. I didn't have time to look up who owned it. His definition of "sample" is basically "Steal" and if the MPAA sides with him? Then copyright is gone. He should have listened to his lawyer and not said a thing. McKay 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone transcribe the relevant parts into text so we can include them in the article? --Viznut 08:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at a transcript here: There are a few bits I'm not clear on (Swissair?) and far too many places where the presenter says "Right" which could be chopped out, but in the interests of accuracy I've preserved them... Slovakia 11:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Real" link: // Gargaj 11:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC) is similar but without the comment censorship. --Viznut 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"T: Er - I haven't *ripped* nobody else off. But have I sampled? Hell, yeah." = "Have not nobody" = "have somebody". He admits it, good game, okay, thank you, bye, owned. -- 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true. In the English language double negation does not follow logic rules instead it is used as amplication. So he's saying "I have ABSOLUTELY not". See Double negative. -- (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not true yourself. In the English language, a double negative does, indeed follow both logical and grammatical rules (i.e., it is, in this case as in most, both a technical and rhetorical error). In whatever sub-literate patois Timbaland uses, it may, indeed, be used for amplification. But that's not English. That's Timbalese. (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have an academic citation for that, I would be most interested. However, all the corpus evidence supports that double-negation, where it occurs in natural English, is used as an emphatic device. In fact, if we look back at the distinction between either...or and neither...nor, you can see for yourself that double negatives have always been accepted in the language. That prescriptivist grammarians decided to impose the rules of algebraic logic onto the language (and were quite successful in removing double negatives from "educated" speech) does not mean that they were correct.
Unless, as I say, you have good evidence to the contrary. Prof Wrong (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
By "corpus," you seem to mean "in common usage." Yes, at various times in history, otherwise well educated people have used double-negatives. They also used to randomize spelling, even of proper names, and well-bred 18th-century gentlemen said "ain't" all the time. That does not change the fact that it is not considered standard English at this time. Timbaland's language here is incorrect, both rhetorically (inasmuch as he sounds like an idiot) and grammatically (inasmuch as he violates the rule against double negatives (See Longman Handbook to Writing, 44H, section 10, or the Simon & Schuster, 7th edition, page 259 - that's the one we use in my classrooms). (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to get my two cents in here, when we say something like She has neither brains nor money, this is not a double a negative but a coordinating conjunction. That means that the sentence can be split into two pieces: She has no brains and She has no money. If you say something like She has no brains or money that is also okay and would usually be construed to mean the same as the above but really can also present us with the possibility that the or means she has either no brains or no money. 'Nor' is not a double negative. It is also not the same as a 'Not Or' (NOR) used in logic. Just demonstrating... Darkpoet (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The day that Timbaland demonstrates the brains necessary to use an archaism like "nor" correctly in a sentence, I shall personally eat his Casio keyboard. (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Tag[edit]

I removed weasel tag because I think the article is very well cited. What weasel words are compromising the article? I'm sure they can be easily fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyman334 (talkcontribs) 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Assuming good faith, I left it in, and put a message on his talk page. This solution works too. McKay 16:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an expert on wiki when it comes to tag. What I meant to add is something like "The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by sources" cause sources do contain weasel words, sources also include forum pages, which is not reliable IMO and contain Finnish language which not everyone speaks. User:Neptuniandroid 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert either :) Personally, I think the article is very well documented. I think if there's a problem with an article it could be taken out and the claims could still be backed up. Maybe take out the sources if they aren't reputable. See the IRC discussion above...
The forum sources have only been used for tracking down the early history of the controversy - that is, the dates on which the discussion threads started. I think these dates can be considered quite reliable even if the content itself can't. Most of the non-English sources are also used for similar purposes ("articles about the subject were published on this and that source on this and that day"). Currently, the only information that exclusively comes from a totally non-English source is the comment from Universal's representative, and that's only because comments from record companies haven't come up in English sources yet. If you disagree with how some specific source has been used, please tell us. --Viznut 08:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there's always someone complaining like a fan obviously in this case. It is clear to anyone what Timbaland is about with idiotic comments like "I dunno if its copyright or PD" speaking volumes about his intelligence, which is further demonstrated, or rather the lack of, whenever he opens his mouth to speak, which he does in a manner. I'm sorry, but the only ridiculous thing here is Timbaland himself. -- 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this toward me? Think again and answer this "who's been "complaining" for months about stuff that doesn't even concerned them?" certainly not me. Stay out of affairs that don't concern you. And whether I'm a fan or not, it's obvious that this turned into a "Bash Timbaland" page". Don't waste your time answering this, I won't read it and won't post in here anymore, this doesn't concern me, I just wanted to give my opinion.I did. Bye. --User:Neptuniandroid 19:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I got blocked because I put in coverage that supported Timbaland, and I think the article is fine. Timbaland stole music, that's what the WHOLE article is about. If you see the section on controversy vs the entire Timbaland bio, you'll see that it isn't taken out of proportion. Bye. Monkeyman334 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


The pouet link goes to a nonsensical, unrelated different thread. It should go here: Gigertron 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for noticing. --Viznut 07:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link[edit]

The link to Mercury News "Did Super Producer Timbaland copy the track of "Do It" off of Finnish producer Janne Suni?." is broken and the article does seems to have been removed from the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Scott Storch?[edit]

Perhaps a mention of Scott Storch dissing Timbaland for not making his own beats? [2] // Gargaj 07:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Plagiarism cases[edit]

what about the other 3 Arabic songs Timbaland illegally sampled for Aaliyah's and Utada's music? You can see the 2 videos here: 1st Video 2nd Video - Omernos 00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The charge isn't simply that he used someone else's song, but that it was used without permission and no credit was given. I would like to see more evidence of that before making an accusation. Monkeyman334 11:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What about this one? [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Pimpin' section[edit]

Why are the sources I cited for this section unacceptable?

Asharm 05:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Zelda[edit] I think it was on the Ice Box page- I don't know exactly how this page is being organized, so if someone would post this, it would be appreciated.


I added some info that Tempests' website was recently updated.

This is clearly not NPOV, so I'll add it here.. : My guess is that Tempest was simply paid off some $, where a part of the deal was that he had to keep his mouth about the case to prevent more bad PR. Media generally seems to have forgotten about it, and more headlines surely wouldn't be a good thing for Timbaland at this point.

Poor integrity on Tempests behalf? Maybe. But everyone probably got what they wanted. Chroz 15:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, though maybe Tempest was becoming uncomfortable with the exposure he was getting. It was undoubtedly a very stressful time for him and I know that if I were in his shoes, I would also have taken the safe option and reached a cash settlement in exchange for keeping quiet. I'd RATHER he have not settled for that and took the case further and and have Timbaland officially exposed for the thief that he is. But I understand why Tempest didn't do that. And I suppose it took a lot of strength for him to take the case as far as he did, many would have crumbled much earlier. Drumnbach 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No headers[edit]

Good work creating this article in such short time!--HamedogTalk|@ 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Very good article for something that happened so recently. - JNighthawk 15:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a bunch of related links at [4]. --Viznut 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Covered by now. [5]

Excellent article at [6] 00:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this: "The case was also reported briefly by the Rolling Stone website.[21]" -- actually, it is now covered again, in a much larger article, which also appeared on the top-spot of their website for several hours. The new link is and the proof of the first-page posting is here

Suni has updated his website [7] with the following statement:

"I'll correct one persistent misconception: I have been using the services of a law firm since September 2006. I expect to have more information to publish by Tuesday." 15:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ars Technica is covering the story [8]. 18:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Also is running it [9]. 18:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC) WIRED Blogs: Listening Post, too [10]. 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Reported by Music Television News [11] and The Commonwealth Times [12] 00:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why has no one mentioned that the original C64 track in question is pretty much ripping off Giorgio Moroder's "I'm Left, You're Right, She's Gone" from 1977? User:mczapp

Maybe because you're the only one seeing a similarity? Compare for yourself, it's beyond me where there should be any similarities:'m+Left,+You're+Right,+She's+Gone User:deekay64

I hope your username is an indication of how unbiased you are on the issue. User:mczapp

You bet I'm biased. But I don't let that get into my additions. And this doesn't change the simple fact that Mr. Moroder doesn't sound like Acidjazzed Evening *at all* User:deekay64

C64 tune isn't the original btw, the Amiga module is. So next you're telling us it's ripping off "street fighter 2 turbo"? 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One final comment about these allegations that the Acidjazzed Evening would itself be infringing: Assembly rules do not allow copyright infringement. Entries are pre-screened by musicians. Also, hundreds of fellow musicians listen to the entries at the competition, aswell as by hundreds if not thousands other geek participants. If the music would be infriging, you would expect such audience to notice it (note: I am not ruling out the possibility that it could be, just trying to point out it is highly unlikely). 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Other cases[edit]

  • What about this, which was removed from the Timbaland article itself?

"Another song in Nelly Furtado's album Loose has the same allegations as 'Do It'. 'Wait for You' is told to be plagiarized from a Turkish folk music song 'Allah Allah Desem Gelsem' by Muhlis Akarsu, famous folk music singer. It is believed that the Bağlama (a kind of traditional instrument) sample is used in Nelly's song by Timbaland illegaly. A video comparing the two songs was posted on Youtube.[1]

The owner of the record group of Muhlis Akarsu has referred to IFPI about the issue.

However, there are several other Middle Eastern songs where it is believed that Timbaland has illegally sampled from them. A video posted on Youtube claims to show proof that Jay-Z's song Big Pimpin has stolen samples from Abdel Halim Hafez's song "Khosara" and Aaliyah's songs "Don’t Know What To Tell Ya" and "More Than A Woman" have the whole background from Warda's Batwanness Bik and Mayada El Hennawi's Alouli Ensa respectively.[2]

Another posted video shows similarities between Utada Hikaru's Exodus ’04 and Aitha Al Menhali's Meshkeltek.[3] +

Yet another video shows how similar are the songs Ne-Yo and Fabulous' Makes Me Better and Sherine's Aal Saaban Aleh. The common point of these videos is that Timbaland took big parts of the songs without making big alterations and without giving credit to the artists.[4]" Funkynusayri (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the way Timbaland allegedly stole the riff from Crystal Castles' Courtship Dating on Ayo Technology? (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case maybe you should rename the article Timbaland plagiarism controversies and list each of them. SharkD  Talk  08:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "eDome" :
    • [ Yhdysvaltalaistuottaja pölli suomalaismuusikolta] ('''Finnish''')<!-- An English alternative for this source would be appropriate, as it is not too hard to find (an American matter, after all). -->
    • [ Yhdysvaltalaistuottaja pölli suomalaismuusikolta]

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened?[edit]

The latest news is about a case had been filed in Florida in 2009. What happened then? // Liftarn (talk) According to this the case was dismissed since the judge did not see it as a US work. // Liftarn (talk) (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC) (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If I understand these links correctly, it would probably still be possible to sue elsewhere in the world... (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The case is on appeal. Oral arguments were held May 2012, so a decision is pending, probably a few more months still. Hartboy (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It is very disgusting that this already-rich rap thug can win such a case by throwing money at judges, and the guy who did the compositional work gets nothing. Definitely a case of "one law for the rich". (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this ruling wasn't more widely reported, because with the volume of software being published via the internet, it implies that most of the stuff originating outwith the US is completely unprotected inside the US's borders. That would include a hell of a lot of GPL code. That's... pretty big. Prof Wrong (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Case dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Timbaland plagiarism controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)