"SEPTEMBER 16--A 70-year-old California grandmother is suing Eminem over the rapper's unauthorized sampling of a musical piece authored by the woman's late husband, a veteran movie composer. In a federal court lawsuit filed last month, Harlene Stein alleges that the rap star (real name: Marshall Mathers) used a piece of one of her husband Ronald's compositions on "Guilty Conscience," a cut from the rapper's acclaimed 1999 debut "The Slim Shady LP." The Stein instrumental composition at the lawsuit's center is titled "Pigs Go Home" and is part of his score for Getting Straight, a 1970 film starring Elliott Gould and Candice Bergen (what's next, 50 Cent sampling "Papa, Can You Hear Me?" from Yentl?). Stein's lawsuit, a copy of which you'll find below, also names producer Dr. Dre (real name: Andre Young) and Eminem's music publishing companies and record label as defendants. While "The Slim Shady LP" liner notes mention that "Guilty Conscience" contains "an interpolation" from "Pigs Go Home," Ronald Stein, who died in 1988, is not credited as the piece's composer. Nor has his widow, a grandmother of five who inherited Stein's publishing rights, been paid for the use of "Pigs Go Home" (which sounds like something NWA should have sampled). While her lawsuit does not specify monetary damages, Stein could see quite a windfall since Eminem's first album sold nearly five million copies. (9 pages)"

Wow!

So I say go for it, and I wish her all the best.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BMikeJ:
Yeah, you're probably right. She probably doesn't care one bit about her husband's legacy. Seventy years old and still diggin' for gold...

---

You got it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff78:
I think she is just doing because she needs money or something. Alot of rappers sample some type of old music. And they always put it in the credits. She probably has nothing better to do.

Jeff

---

The point is that whoever owns the rights to the music should be fairly compensated, regardless of their age or general lack of things to do.

You don't think Eminem would be pounding down someone's door if he was sampled and not compensated?

Also, there are legal ways for widows or widowers to get back their husband's or wive's copyrights from the original owners depending upon the circumstances of that particular case. The Library of Congress recognizes these, and they are part of the copyright code. So just because music was written for a film doesn't tell you who actually owns the music. That would be up to legal minds to determine.

I'm no lawyer, so I can't say how a judge will interpret the suit, but Harlene is well within her rights to file. She'd be foolish NOT to. Imagine if one of you composed and copyrighted a little guitar or piano riff and held the copyright ... then Eminem used it in a song that made millions. Before you engage in mean-spirited remarks, read the actual text of the lawsuit:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/harlene1.html

Harlene appears (APPEARS -- again, I'm no lawyer) to be acting within her well-documented contractual rights. At first glance, I'd guess this was a case of sloppy business on the part of Eminem & Co. Sure, frivolous lawsuits against celebrities are a genuine problem. But does that mean that celebrities can't be held just as accountable as anyone else when they DO cross the line?

What sort of lamer gives their "entity of unknown form" a name like "AIN'T NUTHIN' GOIN' ON BUT *****IN'?"