[Dark_Lorde]

Originally posted by ezra

Why did you capitalize "Me"?

-

Anyway, I hope Gaga gets her money back from this person; at least in part. How would any of you guys feel if some poor person just came up to you and took 300 bucks from you and then you got judged for daring to ask for it back? I'd take my cash back even if it was 5 bucks. This Rebecca person brought this on herself and there's no creepy, sneaky logic that can ooze out any other answer.

I must have hit the shift button accidentally. I type properly (evidently not very well)

I give 300 dollars to the poor all the time. I'm a saint.

[Moonchild]

Originally posted by Dark_Lorde

When someone sues someone else, if the case is not strong enough it's thrown out immediately. That is when one party should be responsible for the other parties legal costs. In that initial "hearing" to decide if the case should go forward. In this case, the judge agreed that Rebecca had sufficient evidence to proceed and he/she agrees to hear that evidence over the course of more than a year.

I agree that in this initial instance if the case Wasnt strong enough gaga's legal fees should be paid (they wouldnt be 1.4m) however if the judge agreed that he/she would hear the case, go over the evidence and preside over it for more than a year based under the legal parameters set - I don't see why she should have to pay gagas fees. At the end of the day, the judge felt Rebecca's case had merit and he made the decision to proceed.

That's almost exactly like saying that, in a criminal case, a defendant should receive a sentence because the grand jury approved the case, even though the defendant won in trial. Your logic doesn't make sense in a legal context.

[Dark_Lorde]

Originally posted by TheGreatestThing

That's almost exactly like saying that, in a criminal case, a defendant should receive a sentence because the grand jury approved the case, even though the defendant won in trial. Your logic doesn't make sense in a legal context.

Interesting point. I'll pay that.
Well done.

[HonourableVomit]

Originally posted by TheGreatestThing

And the fact that this is the only excerpt out there leads me to believe this is one of the only comparisons she could draw up between the two songs.

I'm not wishing bankruptcy on Rebecca F., but nor do I think she should be so vocally complaining when A) this is apparently commonplace in US civil law and B) she filed the lawsuit against a person that she had little to no direct evidence about. If she were to file against the boyfriend or the original thief, that's one thing, but seriously, someone with no possible direct connection to you or the song?

https://soundcloud.com/honourablevomit/juda

[MissedTheTrain]

Originally posted by HonourableVomit

https://soundcloud.com/honourablevomit/juda

The songs sound absolutely nothing alike, I really don't understand her logic here

[iStanGaga]

Doesn't trolling the same subject matter over and over get boring for you?

[Bang Up]

Our choruses are nearly identical (I repeat “Juda Juda Juda Juda Juda” over and over and she repeats “Juda, Juda-us, Juda, Juda-us, Juda, Juda-us” over and over), accounting for roughly 20% of each song.

The repeating/stutter hook has been a trademark Gaga thing since she debuted with "The Fame". 'Poker Face', anyone?

Our verses are both percussive and monotone in style (roughly 44% of each song)

You literally cannot copyright/claim to own the way someone sings. Much like with Gaga's repeating/stuttering hooks, there are plenty of examples of Gaga singing in a monotone style.

Our breakdowns are nearly identical (12% of each song)

Not according to the judge.

A prominent melody line written by my violinist is the same as her “Oh oh oh oh oh I’m in love with Juda-ah, Juda-us”

This woman wants us to believe that she's intelligent when it comes to music, yet she doesn't get that pop songs share melodies all the time.

She pronounces “Judas” as “Juda-us.” <– Whaa??

Much like Gaga's repeating/stuttering hooks and monotone singing style, Gaga also employs various pronunciation techniques in order to get certain words to rhyme.

This woman has a ****** lawyer since I'm pretty sure this can be considered defamation. You tried to sue, it was determined the songs don't sound alike, and you're still trying to defame Gaga's name. If anything, this will make it easier for Gaga to counter sue.

There is no case here. There has never been a case here. This woman is doing nothing but making things harder for herself, and she deserves it. I hope Gaga sues her for defamation, especially since she tries to say Gaga doesn't write her own music.

[teresaguidice]

i'm not a gags fan by any means but this chick clearly wanted to score big on a frivolous lawsuit about a super low-rent fiona apple rip off that sounds nothing like judas and is pressed as hell that it backfired in a huge way.

[QueenBLadyG]

Not Gaga being accused of stealing songs and writing credits...

[Bang Up]

Originally posted by TheGreatestThing

That's almost exactly like saying that, in a criminal case, a defendant should receive a sentence because the grand jury approved the case, even though the defendant won in trial. Your logic doesn't make sense in a legal context.

I don't blame Dark Lorde for not understanding the American judicial system since they don't live in America, but this should be common sense. ******** is sent to court all of the time simply because that's how the system works, but that doesn't mean what's being put on trial is valid.

In addition, the time it took for this matter to be resolved is entirely irrelevant. Claims like these are not considered important in the eye of the law, so they don't get top billing and they're not rushed. It can take years for these types of claims to be seen in court simply because the system is busy. This girl knew that and her lawyers knew that. She was trying to get Gaga to settle to make a few bucks and it backfired. Her problem.

Originally posted by ezra

My exact ****ing thoughts. He needs to be under very heavy SSRIs, medicated and locked away in solitary confinement forever.

Google Alerts, sis. Anything posted about Gaga gets sent to their alerts.

Originally posted by Giliap

in most other cases, sure, but the other party is filthy rich... I'm sure it made a dent in her fortune but c'mon, she ended up making that tenfold since. there is no other reason to countersue a poor person, whether or not they were wrong, other than flat out evilness. they could have easily let her go with the loss and go back to her life without the money but no... it's not enough. They have to ruin her life when ultimately she had no impact on Gaga except this puny million she had to pay in legal fees.

You can't be serious. You don't get to sue and defame someone and get away with it, especially if that someone is famous. Gaga doesn't **** around when it comes to people defaming her talent and music, so that is why she would counter sue if she chooses to do so. It's how law works.

[YSL]

This pretentious woman should really watch what she says. Gaga's team could easily slap on further fees for claiming that Gaga has people write her hits. If there's anything Gaga takes seriously, it's her songwriting and she's always more than generous when it comes to givin credit.

She can go somewhere else with that communist mentality. Essentially she's saying that she shouldn't be paying for wasting other people's money. Just because Gaga is rich, doesn't mean she's not entitled to get her hard earned money back.

[Infinite]

lmao poor thing. gaga always win

[♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚]

Originally posted by Nicole

Who the **** is Rebecca? How do Madonna stans find this ****? So damn creepy

RIGHT? LIKE how the hell do you find all this ****? Even us stans knew nothing about this Rebecca person's blog.
I completely agree with what Retro, Thor and what the other monsters posted in this thread. This woman thought she's slick enough to get a few coins from Gaga. Good luck paying the 1.4M.

[IVY]

I feel for her and I do believe that her song was the original base of Gaga's Judas, so I don't know how she lost and she's now being sued to pay for Gaga's lawyers.

[♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚]

Originally posted by TheGreatestThing

That's almost exactly like saying that, in a criminal case, a defendant should receive a sentence because the grand jury approved the case, even though the defendant won in trial. Your logic doesn't make sense in a legal context.

Well said

[Haribo]

[ezra]

Originally posted by IVY

I feel for her and I do believe that her song was the original base of Gaga's Judas, so I don't know how she lost and she's now being sued to pay for Gaga's lawyers.

Well, if that's true then Gaga really wins. A free song + free money. No downside.

[Tristan]

She seems so ****ing bitter and this screams bull.

[Iris]

Originally posted by Giliap

People in here pissed off at her so much that they think she should be billed into bankruptcy

When stanning goes too far... I mean, y'all are acting like it's your case
.

+1

It is not nice of Gaga to sue that poor person for that amount of money. Where is she supposed to get it?
On the other hand Gaga has millions so she doesn't need that money anyway.

Monsters thinking she deserves to get ruined financially for "wasting Gaga's time "

[Lights and Waves]

The songs don't even sound alike. This poor woman needs help.