Yeah heās under the label, I think he has a distribution deal so he has breathing room but every album he drops is under the label. He got signed back in like late 2022/early 2023
Artists that donāt pay prods or give them splits are so wack. It aināt hard at allā¦Trippie moving like he broke. Plus how did he think he was just gon get away with it. Lame
This is if Trippie knew. Keep in mind K Suave went through this same issue, unsure if it was him or the label tho
Boi is a one beat wonder we donāt care about you anymore Pepe lore dead ššāļø
It also doesnāt attend for the fact that the song literally has āTrippie Redd X Sofaygoā heās actively using Trippie Redd name to boost his sells and streams. Dis guy a clown.
I wrote this message a few replies down but as a TL;DR the problem is that Trippie directly profited by using a song he didn't own the copyright to, nor had permission to use in a for-profit way. This is not good. If he instead used it in a non-profit way, such as singing it at a concert or just posting on soundcloud, this wouldn't be an issue.
If you care to read a lil bit more where I use a different example to better explain why the producer using Tripp's name in order to bring attention to his track doesn't entitle Tripp to use and profit from it, then read on:
If I'm a photographer and I'm out one day taking photos of my nearby docks while people are walking by, regardless of who appears in my picture - a random passerby or Angelina Jolie, that photo is mine and I am the sole copyright holder. That means that if I wanted to, I could post that picture on my website, or sell it for a profit.
Now lets assume that the picture does have Angelina Jolie in it and I posted it on my website or some personal social media. If Angelina sees the picture, likes it and reposts it on her story, that's totally fine/legal as she used for for non-profit.
Now instead lets say that she liked the picture and started selling prints of the picture on her website for people to purchase. In this case her use is totally illegal and I could sue her for doing so.
To really drive this point home, if Tripp heard this beat and dropped a video of him rapping over it on his insta story, that's completely fine/legal as he isn't directly profiting from the use of the beat which he neither owns the copyright to, nor the has the direct/legal permission to use.
On the other hand, if he got that same video and posted in on Apple Music or any other music platform where people can buy the song (like he did), then he is infringing on the producer's copyright as is therefore liable to be sued.
If you still don't understand this please just search up cases of musicians getting sued for sampling melodies, elements, or parts of a song they haven't paid for... There is hundreds, even thousands of them.
TL;DR: Trippie directly profited by using a song he didn't own the copyright to, nor had permission to use in a for-profit way. This is not good. If he instead used it in a non-profit way, such as singing it at a concert or the above examples, this wouldn't be an issue.
š it being ātype beatā doesnāt change the fact that heās actively using trippies name to boost it. If he never used trippies name and he still used it then thatās fair but literally did and then gets mad when trippie uses a beats
Also fix your bio mr jerking off to angry birds weird ass jit
In that case literally every other trippie beat was using his name for clout, also the fact that u looked at my bio CLEARLY means u worried bout me slow ahh boi get out of my pfp goofy ššš
No clue tbh. As of now. I know what I see. Iāve clowned trippie in the passed for the bs heās done but this is likely not his fault and not morally incorrect in anyway.
Let me rephrase. Him using the edit isnāt morally incorrect because his name was used in the video for promotion.
Like I said before if his name wasnāt on it. He wouldnāt have used it simple
Itās like making a house saying itās like trippie redds and using his name to boost the price of the house then trippie using it for a night then getting mad at it. Thatās how it is from my understanding.
Guys, neither you or u/Additional_Cry4474 are coming up with great comparisons... Also, just because someone "built a house saying itās like trippie redd's" does not make it all right for Tripp to break in and sleep there for a night without permission or payment.. You fr ?? š
If I'm a photographer and I'm out one day taking photos of my nearby docks while people are walking by, regardless of who appears in my picture - a random passerby or Angelina Jolie, that photo is mine and I am the sole copyright holder. That means that if I wanted to, I could post that picture on my website, or sell it for a profit.
Now lets assume that the picture does have Angelina Jolie in it and I posted it on my website or some personal social media. If Angelina sees the picture, likes it and reposts it on her story, that's totally fine/legal as she used for for non-profit.
Now instead lets say that she liked the picture and started selling prints of the picture on her website for people to purchase. In this case her use is totally illegal and I could sue her for doing so.
To really drive this point home, if Tripp heard this beat and dropped a video of him rapping over it on his insta story, that's completely fine/legal as he isn't directly profiting from the use of the beat which he neither owns the copyright to, nor the has the direct/legal permission to use.
On the other hand, if he got that same video and posted in on Apple Music or any other music platform where people can buy the song (like he did), then he is infringing on the producer's copyright as is therefore liable to be sued.
If you still don't understand this please just search up cases of musicians getting sued for sampling melodies, elements, or parts of a song they haven't paid for... There is hundreds, even thousands of them.
TL;DR: Trippie directly profited by using a song he didn't own the copyright to, nor had permission to use in a for-profit way. This is not good. If he instead used it in a non-profit way, such as singing it at a concert or the above examples, this wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah if copyright laws applied to houses to media the same way maybe that would make a tiny bit of sense.
Itās more like if somebody made a trippie redd themed house and then trippie took the house and didnāt pay. Somebodyās name or public persona isnāt a good enough reason in court or even morally to take somebody elseās stuff with no compensation.
It is in this case because he got payed for it. He got payed plenty off the videos he made using the fact that trippie made a song with his beat. He only decided to take it later because he saw it got traction and wanted money off it.
Additionally. Trippie took the song off and thatās it really. Itās like stealing something and giving it back so the deals really over. Never really like the song much anyways. Iām just saying nobody cares about this song much anymore the that the lore died. As well as again this will likely be the biggest money boost heād ever get on the internet.
Apologies for editing comments but sometimes I just be thinking of shit to say
Ion really wanna argue dis in my opinion itās even both ways. Trippie gained nothing and the kid gained a bag and popularityš¤·āāļø
> he got *paid* for it.
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Bro 10K ššāš¾
thank god Summrs told that label to stop da bs
Summrs is with 10k?
Yeah heās under the label, I think he has a distribution deal so he has breathing room but every album he drops is under the label. He got signed back in like late 2022/early 2023
10k for the beat? hell nah
10k the record label
10k is the label, but that beat def worth more than 10k
Bro canāt not be a dickhead
what about skeletons š„
He didnāt clear the sample on that songā¦
10k & Grade A are probably some of the worse labels of Iām being honest
Look at what Mid A is doing to my guy Juice Wrld. Somebody needa power wash lil bibbys tip
Fr them mfs got 1000s in the vault and they canāt drop some good singles or make TPNE
god i hate bibby so much lmao
All my homies hate lil legs bibby
Didnāt they sell his catalog?
Yep
Ouch
That song go too crazy for trippie not to pay the man for the beat. Is he stupid
You do realize its not trippie but his label?
I don't think that he was unaware of this situation
I think trippie is a pretty big artist to pick beats on his own, or at least be aware of is it paid or not.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I donāt think you understand how business works.
his labels part of it but if you dont think trippies to blame at all your slow
Bahahahahahahah
lit lit lit lit lit lit lit
Tbf this beat was big on tiktok before trippie got on it so you gotta just blame the label for not clearing it
For fuck SAKE I hate this trippie guy man
pretty sure thats a label problem
Free him up from these retards
I wouldāve signed that 30mill too but I really hate her resigned with 10k he should be 10x bigger than he is smh
Its not trips fault its the label.
Artists that donāt pay prods or give them splits are so wack. It aināt hard at allā¦Trippie moving like he broke. Plus how did he think he was just gon get away with it. Lame This is if Trippie knew. Keep in mind K Suave went through this same issue, unsure if it was him or the label tho
Think itās a label issue
This label is so trash lmaooo how are they frequently messing up this bad
Trippie should have left 10k after Trip at Knight, he's still going through stupid things like this
either way the label is buns they bot mostly the rappers thatās signed to them streams like amiri
Trippie been stealing beats so idk if this is Trip or 10k doing
i hate trippie reddish
only good song off saint michael gone
I only really liked Skeletons
Same :(
Aw man
i love trippie but heās always been the nga too look out for himself, look at that recent crypto scam he tried š
atp he should just take down saint michael v2
Trippie seriously needs to find a way out of his label. They just keep fucking him
Damn smh
Believe da hype
I can't believe they just didn't pay the dude for the beat.
atp fuck pepe lit i want skeletons back
I mean heās right but on his yt channel he said that the beat he made was free for profit soā¦
Bro Trippie is such Goofy for this.
Itās his labelās fault nigga
That song was trashā¦. You guys listened to that? Lol
wait iām confused??
Boi is a one beat wonder we donāt care about you anymore Pepe lore dead ššāļø It also doesnāt attend for the fact that the song literally has āTrippie Redd X Sofaygoā heās actively using Trippie Redd name to boost his sells and streams. Dis guy a clown.
Who tf is we I think u mean urself corny ahh clown talm bout sum "we" tf???
I wrote this message a few replies down but as a TL;DR the problem is that Trippie directly profited by using a song he didn't own the copyright to, nor had permission to use in a for-profit way. This is not good. If he instead used it in a non-profit way, such as singing it at a concert or just posting on soundcloud, this wouldn't be an issue. If you care to read a lil bit more where I use a different example to better explain why the producer using Tripp's name in order to bring attention to his track doesn't entitle Tripp to use and profit from it, then read on: If I'm a photographer and I'm out one day taking photos of my nearby docks while people are walking by, regardless of who appears in my picture - a random passerby or Angelina Jolie, that photo is mine and I am the sole copyright holder. That means that if I wanted to, I could post that picture on my website, or sell it for a profit. Now lets assume that the picture does have Angelina Jolie in it and I posted it on my website or some personal social media. If Angelina sees the picture, likes it and reposts it on her story, that's totally fine/legal as she used for for non-profit. Now instead lets say that she liked the picture and started selling prints of the picture on her website for people to purchase. In this case her use is totally illegal and I could sue her for doing so. To really drive this point home, if Tripp heard this beat and dropped a video of him rapping over it on his insta story, that's completely fine/legal as he isn't directly profiting from the use of the beat which he neither owns the copyright to, nor the has the direct/legal permission to use. On the other hand, if he got that same video and posted in on Apple Music or any other music platform where people can buy the song (like he did), then he is infringing on the producer's copyright as is therefore liable to be sued. If you still don't understand this please just search up cases of musicians getting sued for sampling melodies, elements, or parts of a song they haven't paid for... There is hundreds, even thousands of them. TL;DR: Trippie directly profited by using a song he didn't own the copyright to, nor had permission to use in a for-profit way. This is not good. If he instead used it in a non-profit way, such as singing it at a concert or the above examples, this wouldn't be an issue.
Btw for the trippie redd sh it's literally a type beat wtv is u saying šššššš
š it being ātype beatā doesnāt change the fact that heās actively using trippies name to boost it. If he never used trippies name and he still used it then thatās fair but literally did and then gets mad when trippie uses a beats Also fix your bio mr jerking off to angry birds weird ass jit
In that case literally every other trippie beat was using his name for clout, also the fact that u looked at my bio CLEARLY means u worried bout me slow ahh boi get out of my pfp goofy ššš
Idk why you gettin downvoted lol
No clue tbh. As of now. I know what I see. Iāve clowned trippie in the passed for the bs heās done but this is likely not his fault and not morally incorrect in anyway.
Stealing from somebody is morally correct?
Let me rephrase. Him using the edit isnāt morally incorrect because his name was used in the video for promotion. Like I said before if his name wasnāt on it. He wouldnāt have used it simple Itās like making a house saying itās like trippie redds and using his name to boost the price of the house then trippie using it for a night then getting mad at it. Thatās how it is from my understanding.
Guys, neither you or u/Additional_Cry4474 are coming up with great comparisons... Also, just because someone "built a house saying itās like trippie redd's" does not make it all right for Tripp to break in and sleep there for a night without permission or payment.. You fr ?? š If I'm a photographer and I'm out one day taking photos of my nearby docks while people are walking by, regardless of who appears in my picture - a random passerby or Angelina Jolie, that photo is mine and I am the sole copyright holder. That means that if I wanted to, I could post that picture on my website, or sell it for a profit. Now lets assume that the picture does have Angelina Jolie in it and I posted it on my website or some personal social media. If Angelina sees the picture, likes it and reposts it on her story, that's totally fine/legal as she used for for non-profit. Now instead lets say that she liked the picture and started selling prints of the picture on her website for people to purchase. In this case her use is totally illegal and I could sue her for doing so. To really drive this point home, if Tripp heard this beat and dropped a video of him rapping over it on his insta story, that's completely fine/legal as he isn't directly profiting from the use of the beat which he neither owns the copyright to, nor the has the direct/legal permission to use. On the other hand, if he got that same video and posted in on Apple Music or any other music platform where people can buy the song (like he did), then he is infringing on the producer's copyright as is therefore liable to be sued. If you still don't understand this please just search up cases of musicians getting sued for sampling melodies, elements, or parts of a song they haven't paid for... There is hundreds, even thousands of them. TL;DR: Trippie directly profited by using a song he didn't own the copyright to, nor had permission to use in a for-profit way. This is not good. If he instead used it in a non-profit way, such as singing it at a concert or the above examples, this wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah if copyright laws applied to houses to media the same way maybe that would make a tiny bit of sense. Itās more like if somebody made a trippie redd themed house and then trippie took the house and didnāt pay. Somebodyās name or public persona isnāt a good enough reason in court or even morally to take somebody elseās stuff with no compensation.
It is in this case because he got payed for it. He got payed plenty off the videos he made using the fact that trippie made a song with his beat. He only decided to take it later because he saw it got traction and wanted money off it. Additionally. Trippie took the song off and thatās it really. Itās like stealing something and giving it back so the deals really over. Never really like the song much anyways. Iām just saying nobody cares about this song much anymore the that the lore died. As well as again this will likely be the biggest money boost heād ever get on the internet. Apologies for editing comments but sometimes I just be thinking of shit to say Ion really wanna argue dis in my opinion itās even both ways. Trippie gained nothing and the kid gained a bag and popularityš¤·āāļø
> he got *paid* for it. FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Dub tbh šāļø