《野狼 disco》這首歌使用的伴奏是合法的嗎？

如何認定？

以下所有時間都是北京時間。

ihaksi 到目前為止（2月8日 23:00）的所有回復的翻譯已經更新完成，他基本上把這件事情的來龍去脈說清楚了。

2月6日 23:35 更新

補充一點我對版權費的看法，如有錯誤，請告知。

我想提一下音樂播放平台之外的版權收入，首先講一下節目製作方的版權支付。

江蘇衛視跨年晚會使用了ihaksi的編曲但是沒有標註ihaksi為編曲人，只不過我看其他歌也沒標註作曲人，都只是標註了現場演唱者和演奏者；北京衛視跨年晚會使用了ihaksi的編曲並且標註了ihaksi為編曲人；湖南衛視跨年晚會沒用ihaksi的編曲；央視春晚雖然看簡介是沒使用ihaksi的編曲，但是仔細聽伴奏很明顯是在原伴奏之上改編的，這個我覺得編曲人中應該要有ihaksi（哈哈，我打我自己的臉）。

寶石在上述節目中通過自己或別人演唱由ihaski編曲的《野狼disco》所獲得的版權收入要給ihaski分三成以上。歌手在一次表演中一般能獲得兩類收入，一類是表演費，表演費類似CEO在公司的收入；另一類是版權費，版權費類似CEO所持有股票的股息，只不過版權費是節目製作方付給版權代理機構的，類似於股票經紀公司。

關於音樂版權行業的具體情況我會找時間補上來，最近看了不少介紹美國音樂版權業現狀的文章。

2月6日 19:48 更新

下面是ihaksi自己的回復，我翻譯了一下。

原視頻鏈接：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsozyHE6OKE

2月6日 0:00 左右回復

For all the people who are wondering: All sold leasing licenses are still effective as agreed and the rights granted in a leasing license cant be taken back by anyone. Unlimited lease allows uploading and monetizing on all streaming platforms, but it doesnt allow usage on TV, films or games without a separate license. Im personally taking no actions against anyone. Hope this clarifies things!

P.s. Its hard for me to know what has been told in China and honestly Im a bit afraid that all the parties are bending and manipulating the facts for their own benefit. Above are facts

以下是我給所有對這件事好奇的人的回復：所有已經賣出的租賃型許可證仍然是有法律效力的，並且已經授予這些租賃型許可證的權利不能收回來了。無限制租約允許持有人在任何流媒體平台上傳作品並且以此獲利，但是不允許在電視、電影或遊戲中使用，除非另外再和我簽一個合約。我本人不想起訴任何人。希望以上澄清了這個問題。

備註：我很難搞清楚中國人目前在爭論些什麼，實際上我有點害怕各方都為了自己的利益而歪曲事實。以上都是事實。

2月6日 3:00 左右回復

Yeah no problem, I do get that its confusing! Well first of all I couldnt know this was him because he didnt actually address that in any way. Usually people tap out around $600 or so on the exclusives, so often I just assume they dont have the capita to invest thousands on a beat. Thats why I usually just recommend the unlimited lease unless they really insist on a price or actually give me an offer.

沒問題（樂於回答），我有點被搞懵了。首先我不知道這就是他（指寶石Gem），因為他沒有以任何方式告訴我（他就是寶石Gem）。通常大家對exclusive版本的出價都在600美元左右，所以我一般都假定大家不願花幾千美元來買exclusive版本；因此我通常都會推薦他們買unlimited版本，除非他們真的願意買（花幾千美元）。

At the same time someone actually made an offer. It was the first decent offer Id gotten on the beat. It was for that $5,000 which is a really good price so I agreed on it. Again I want to point out that, like I said, all leasing licenses are still valid as agreed.

但是這次還真有一個人要買exclusive版本（台灣陳某），這是關於這個beat我第一次收到的那麼高的出價（暗示了之前想買more sun的人大概只願意出幾百美元），也就是5000美元，所以我成交了。我想重申，所有之前賣出的租賃型許可證仍然是有法律效力的。

All my exclusive licenses always include a paragraph that actually states that all leasing licenses are still effective and the new exclusive license holder cant make copyright claims against any leasing license holders. This is specifically to avoid any contract breaches and to respect all leasing license rights. If someone is telling otherwise its not true. As long as one sticks to their leasing license terms theyre still good to go!

我賣的所有exclusive版本的合約里總是會有一段聲明，即所有之前已經賣出的租賃型許可證仍然有效，並且新的exclusive版本許可證持有人不能因為版權問題控告租賃型許可證持有人。這一特別聲明是為了避免版權糾紛、尊重所有租賃型許可證持有人的權利。如果有人（exclusive版本許可證持有人）還是要說你侵權了，那麼只要你是繼續按照你的租約行事就不用怕他。

Nothing more to it really. Hope that sheds some light on the matter!

其實關於這個問題沒什麼好繼續再談的了，希望我的以上回復能給大家有所參考。

2月6日 3:00 左右回復

I think the live performance refers to gigs that you do. Performances on festivals, clubs etc, not actually TV performance. Got to admit Beatstars doesnt really give all the appropriate options on the "quick screen" to really represent the true nature of the license, but the full contract can be read before hand I think. That I can guarantee that I always sell only one exclusive license to any beat. I think people have mixed the unlimited lease with the exclusive there.

（有人問他Live performance到底指什麼）我認為live performance指的是表演你的音樂作品，例如在音樂節、俱樂部等場所演奏它，但是實際上不包括電視上的表演（根據後文，表演了也沒太大問題，畢竟合同里沒說清楚）。我必須承認，Beatstars這個網站並沒有提供所有應有的合適的選項給我選擇，所以最後生成的合同很難表達出我真正要表達的意思，但是我認為大家拿到合同後還是能讀懂我的意思的。我可以保證每個beat我只賣出了一個exclusive版本的許可證，我認為大家可能混淆了無限制租賃型版本和exclusive版本。

2月6日 5:00 左右回復

I honestly want to believe that there was no intentional copyright infringement to begin with and as said several times now there shouldnt really be a problem if they just stick to the terms of their leasing license. Its kind of weird though that the publisher didnt approach me about the license and just be straight with me about what happened. Assuming theres a huge company behind this track its odd that they decided not to handle licensing of a mega hit themself, instead the artist sends a random email himself without proper introduction. That still feels kind of shady to me.

坦率地說，我願意相信沒有人是要故意侵權的。正如我之前多次說的，如果你一貫是按照租約行事的，那麼你就完全不用擔心侵權的問題。令我感到很奇怪的是，版權公司（指北京颯娛文化傳媒有限公司）沒有和我商談購買(exclusive版本)許可證的事項並且直截了當地告訴我到底發生了什麼，如果有一個大公司看上了這個伴奏，但是他們卻不打算親自為一個即將誕生的爆款歌曲購買許可證的話，我會感到很奇怪；相反，是藝人（誤以為是寶石本人，其實是他朋友）親自給我零零星星發了幾封郵件，而且他沒有好好地介紹自己，對此我至今仍然感到很疑惑。

2月6日 22:00 左右

Im not quite sure what is the confusing part? Like I said Gem didnt address himself in the email nor did his team approach me (at least not so that they would have told me its them). They already had a huge hit in their hands so why didnt they just made some good offer right off the bat. Ive never actually asked for $5,000 on any beat if someone asks for an offer because it usually is way too much for an average Joe. If they would have just made the same type of offer I wouldve accepted it. I want point out that Im not actually the one making the lawsuit (even though its been falsely reported otherwise apparently) and I wont gain anything from this thing no matter the outcome!

我有點搞不清我上面的回復中到底哪裡沒有說清楚？就像我之前說的，寶石（誤以為發件人是寶石）沒有在郵件中說清楚自己是誰，並且他的團隊也沒有和我談購買事宜（至少他們沒有告訴我他們是寶石的團隊）。他們已經有一個爆款歌曲在手了，為什麼他們不直接給我一個合理的出價。實際上如果有人要買我的任何一支beat，我從來不會開價5000美元，因為通常5000美元對於一個普通的rapper來說太高了。如果他們直接出價5000美元，我是會直接接受的。我希望指出的是，起訴寶石團隊的人並不是我（雖然很明顯這已經被錯誤報道了），無論訴訟結果如何我都不會得到任何東西。

And again, his unlimited lease is still valid. What confuses me is what part of this people dont understand. He has a valid license, he has a clear documention of the license and hes allowed distribute his track within those terms. All my exclusives always include a paragraph that states that all previously sold leasing licenses will stay valid. That applies in this case too, he just has to stay within the terms of his license. I never make deals that contradict with other licenses.

我再次重申，他的無限制租約仍然是有效的。我搞不懂這些人到底哪裡沒弄明白（前面有人說不太明白他的意思）。他有一個有效的許可證、一份清晰的合約說明，只要不違反合約條款他還可以繼續使用這個伴奏。我的所有exclusive版本合約中總是有一段聲明，即所有之前賣出的租賃型許可證仍然有效。對於這次事件也是一樣的，他只要履行合約條款就行了。我從來就沒有賣出過和其他租約條款有衝突的exclusive版本許可證。

Theres no specific reasons for my long reply times though. I often just postpone anything that feels not so urgent. I already agreed on the one offer I got so basically there was nothing to answer.

關於我間隔了很長時間才回復其實並沒有什麼特殊的原因，我經常推遲處理所有不那麼緊急的事情。我已經賣出了exclusive版本所以其實我沒什麼好回答的了。

2月6日 23:00 左右

This is exactly why I want to stress the fact that all leasing licenses are still valid, Im not the one acting on this thing nor trying to break any already existing licenses. The original contract didnt actually even include the paragraph about the leasing licenses staying valid, I insisted that part to be included so that it wont breach previous licenses (also had it checked by my own lawyer so its definitely legit). The fact that the exclusive holder still feels like they have something to sue for just isnt honestly in my hands. There was some contradiction whether I actually even made the beat or not, so I was asked to a make video proving that its my original production and that I was authorized sell licenses in the first place. I did that and unfortunately its been misleading people to think that Im part of the law suit.

（有人說他和寶石都不是那種為了錢不擇手段的人）

這就是我為什麼要強調所有的租賃型許可證仍然是有效的，我不是那種見錢眼開的人，我不會違反已有的合約（條款）。實際上最初的合同里甚至都沒有包含那一段「其他已經賣出的租賃型許可證仍然有效」的聲明，是我堅持要加進去的，只為不和之前的租約衝突，而且我還讓我的律師核查了一遍，因此這肯定是合法的。exclusive許可證持有人仍然覺得他們有什麼可以用來起訴，這我管不了。據說有人質疑我是否是more sun的原作者，所以我被人（台灣陳某）要求製作一個視頻來證明我就是more sun的原作者以及我是第一個被批准可以賣許可證的人。我照做了，但是很不幸這讓人誤會我就是起訴寶石的人了。

2月6日 23:00 左右

And further more I have to point out that $5,000 isnt really that much money. Its about my months salary, good price, but definitely nothing to pull any scams for on my part.

此外我需要指出的是，5000美元對我來說並不是一筆多可觀的錢，畢竟這和我的月薪差不多，這的確是一個不錯的出價，但是這絕對不至於讓我去搞詐騙。

2月6日 23:00 左右

I hope Gem didnt sign anything if hes acting within the terms of his lease. If he is actually breaking the terms though then its obviously a different story. Ive provided facts about the contract and made the video to proove its my production. If someone is questioning the legatimazy of any license I can definitely confirm those. Respecting the realms of a license is still in the hands of the license holder.

如果寶石沒有違反租約條款，我希望他不要再簽別的合約了。如果他真的違反了合約條款，那就又是另一回事了。我已經給出了關於合同的事實，並且也做了一個視頻來證明我就是原作者。如果有人質疑任何許可證的合法性，我可以隨時給出證據。違不違約要看許可證持有人打算怎麼做了。

2月7日 2:00 左右

I dont know whats an accessory contract so I assume not. But I did have a lawyer to go through the contract so theres no small print and it doesnt contradict with leases. They asked for the video for proof that Im the producer of this beat (nothing surprising there and I definitely want the credit for it), but they published it without my permission. I asked them about all this and they claim that they have never implied to the public that Im the one behind the lawsuit. We even had an article here in Finland that said Im suing a chinese rapper. I corrected them, but obviously there is some false information that Im the one with the lawsuit. I sold the licenses yes, and I dont want either party to abuse their license, but Im definitely not in the actual lawsuit. Like said, if Gem sticks to his license nobody can complain, but if he does actually breach the terms then exclusive license holder can act on it.

（有人問他有沒有和台灣陳某簽什麼附屬合約）

我不知道什麼是附屬合約，所以認為我沒有簽。但是我的確有一個律師通讀了（exclusive版本）合約，保證合約沒有顯示不清楚的地方以及不和租約衝突。他們（瑪西瑪公司）讓我做一個視頻來證明我就是more sun的原作者（沒什麼好驚訝的，而且我的確想證明我就是原作者），但是他們未經我同意就把視頻公布了。我問他們（瑪西瑪公司）為什麼要這麼做，他們說他們從沒告知公眾我就是起訴人。甚至我們芬蘭這邊都有一篇文章說我起訴了一個中國說唱歌手。我糾正了他們的錯誤，但是很明顯還有一些消息在說我就是起訴人。我的確賣出了許可證，並且我不想雙方濫用他們的許可證，但是我絕對不是起訴人。就像我前面說的，如果寶石堅持按照租約行事，那麼沒人能抱怨什麼，但是如果他的確違反了合約條款，那麼exclusive許可證持有人可以起訴他。

2月7日 2:00 左右

I truly want to believe that and honestly at no point Ive been mad untill all this escalated. I actually kind of hope that we could just leave this case behind and maybe even do a collab track afterwards, just without the drama and in mutual understanding right from the beginning!

我真的願意相信（寶石無意侵權），我一直都很冷靜，直到現在事態升級我才開始有點抓狂。實際上我還有點希望我們能讓這件事翻篇兒，甚至如果可能的話我們之後還可以合作一首歌，從一開始就互相理解對方。

2月8日 23:00 左右回復

There seems to be more and more false rumors going around so I will make my last comment now and be done with it. So in conclusion. Both licenses the $99 lease as well as the $5,000 exclusive license are valid. Anyone with a license from me needs to follow the terms of their license. I do not have part in the lawsuit and my comments have no real legal effect and Ive just wanted to inform you guys about the situation to avoid any confusion. Im no longer the license owner in China so I simply have no power over any of this, well just have to let those parties involved solve the matter in court.

現在謠言似乎越來越多了，這是我最後一次回復，以後不會管這件事了。下面是我的結論：99美元的租賃型許可證和5000美元的exclusive許可證都有法律效力。任何向我購買許可證的人都需要遵守他們的合約條款。我沒有參與起訴，我的回復沒有真實的法律效力，我只是想告訴你們到底是什麼情況，以防你們產生誤解。我不再是中國地區的許可證擁有者了，所以我無權干涉任何事情，我們只需讓這些利益相關方在法院解決這件事就行了。

Id just like to continue the work that I love which is producing. Im sure we can all learn something from all this (I know I have) and I truly hope nothing like this will ever happen again during my career.

我只是想繼續從事音樂製作工作，我確信我們能從這次事件中學到一些東西（至少我學到了），我真的希望在我的職業生涯中不再發生這種事情。

2月5日 9:16 更新

指出幾點合同中的基本事實：

99美元的租約顯示可商演。49、99、5000美元的合約都顯示可商演，只有29美元的不能商演。
29、49和99美元的合約有效期限只有5年，5000美元的合約一直有效。
版權費分成情況：29、49、99美元的要給原作者ihaksi分三成，5000美元的要給ihaksi分七成。
購買了5000美元版本的人沒有權利控告在這之前就購買了租用版本（29、49、99美元版本）的人侵犯了他的版權，這些人只要不違反自己所簽的租約就行。

我主要談一下有爭議的商演問題。合同和網站上的簡介（For Profit Live Performances）沒有衝突，董寶石購買的99美元版本確實是可商演的。有兩個條款可以證明，一個是Miscellaneous條款，「The license******, does convey or grant the right of public performance for profit 」，意思是可以商演；另一個是大家都提到的Performance Rights條款，「Licensee may receive compensation from performances with this license」，意思是可以從表演中獲得收入，也就是可以商演。

那麼為什麼原作者不在Performance Rights條款里明確指出可以商演，而要把這一句話放在Miscellaneous條款里呢？看完四個版本合約的Performance Rights條款和Miscellaneous條款就能明白了。

29美元版本的Performance Rights條款內容是：

The Licensor here by grants to Licensee a non-exclusive license to use the Master Recording in unlimited non-profit performances, shows, or concerts. Licensee may not receive compensation from performances with this license. 注意最後一句是「may not」。

49美元版本的Performance Rights條款內容是：

The Licensor here by grants to Licensee a non-exclusive license to use the Master Recording in unlimited non-profit performances, shows, or concerts. Licensee may receive compensation from performances with this license. 注意最後一句是「may」。

99美元版本的Performance Rights條款內容是：

5000美元版本的Performance Rights條款內容是：

The Licensor here by grants to Licensee a exclusive license to use the Master Recording in unlimited performances, shows, or concerts. Licensee may receive compensation from performances with this license.

29美元版本的Miscellaneous條款內容是：

This license is non-transferable and is limited to the Composition specified above, constitutes the entire agreement between the Licensor and the Licensee relating to the Composition, and shall be binding upon both the Licensor and the Licensee and their respective successors, assigns, and legal representatives. 沒有「The license does convey or grant the right of public performance for profit」。

49美元版本的Miscellaneous條款內容是：

This license is non-transferable and is limited to the Composition specified above, does convey or grant the right of public performance for profit, constitutes the entire agreement between the Licensor and the Licensee relating to the Composition, and shall be binding upon both the Licensor and the Licensee and their respective successors, assigns, and legal representatives.

99美元版本的Miscellaneous條款內容是：

5000美元版本的Miscellaneous條款內容是：

The license is non-transferable and is limited to the composition specified above, does convey or grant the right of public performance for profit, constitutes the entire agreement between the Licensor and the Licensee relating to the Composition, and shall be binding upon both the Licensor and the Licensee and their respective successors, assigns, and legal representatives.

這下明白了吧，4個版本的合約應該都是用的一個模版，只是根據版本不同改幾處地方就行了。例如29、49和99美元版本的Performance Rights條款內容除了「may not」和「may」的區別外完全一樣，而49、99和5000美元版本的Miscellaneous條款內容完全一樣。

被禁言了一天，本來昨天就應該發上來的。。。

高贊回答關於商演問題都沒講到點子上。最令我驚訝的是，很多法律專業人士看合同也這麼草率，合同都不讀完嗎？這個話題在知乎上發酵了一天多，我沒看到一個人是認真把合同讀完的，否則大家也不會對能不能商演產生質疑。

作為在微博上看了董寶石解釋的吃瓜群眾，感興趣可以去董寶石微博，他在一直播做了解釋，我簡單提煉一下，圖片都是我自己從直播里截的：

1、最初創作時是用的免費版本，後來買了使用權後覺得大家聽習慣了就沒有改成去掉水印之後的版本。

2、提供了付款記錄，時間：2019年7月12日下午3:43:42。99美元。（有憑據和合同截圖）也就是說在近半年前就已支付版權費。