Slashdot Mirror
Et Tu Brute? EMI to Sue AOL Over Musical Infringement
QGambit writes "Salon.com is running an AP story about EMI Music suing AOL Time Warner for using songs from its music catalog on TBS and the AOL service without paying for them."EMI's publishing unit contends that AOL Time Warner is illegally using songs for promotional purposes from "The Wizard of Oz," "Singin' in the Rain," and other classic Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer movies."
Good. Now that they are turning on themselves, they will leave us alone for awhile."
This is just mundane copyright violation. If the allegations are true, then AOL is breaking core, noncontroversial copyright law. Really pretty straightforward and irrelevant.
...I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers to go around...
Semi intelligent post, actually...
I always wondered about this sort of thing, for example, how many movies in the 1990s used the Aliens soundtrack for preview clips aired on TV, and how many of them actually had permission to do so... I mean there were roughly 10 seperate movies from 2-3 seperate movie companies other than Fox, all using the same track (I forget the title, but lets just say it's from the "escaping from the fusion atmospheric convertor plant" theme... You know which one I'm talking about...
Anyhoo, who did they get permission from? Did they get it from Fox (the copyright holder on Aliens at least), ASCAP, the guy who orchestrated and copyrighted said soundtrack? Who gave permission?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
--
Damn the Emperor!
they will take on you , AOL , and your teenager all at the same time.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
Well, what else are you going to call the RIAA versus AOL? ;)
I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
all 2^6,000,000,000 possible CDs that aren't currently covered by copyright and I license them under the GNU GPL. Future commercial music is dead. Britney will have to flip burgers now.
Seriously, though, at some point songs like this should be considered enough of the "public consciousness" to be de facto public domain...
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
--Winston Churchill
The meat of the story is at the bottom of the article. Apparently TBS owns the rights to the movies that contain these songs. TBS is in turned owned by AOL/TW. But EMI claims that TBS cannot transfer the rights to its own parent company! The exact quote is:
This just seems like an argument between lawyers about the fine print in an old contract. Not really relevant to the whole IP debate. (I'm sure that won't stop the /. hordes from descending, though.<g>)
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
hahaha that's great. The RIAA (ideals) take a bite out of the AOL-Time Warner (hahah again) company. I love irony
:)
Don't you?
--
I like mod +5, funny
Hehehe... The songs they mention are so damn old (How old is The Wizard of OZ, anyway?) that the copyrights should have expired a long time ago if we lived in a sane world. But thanks to the lobbying efforts of Disney, Time Warner and others in the record industry, they get to take their bitter medicine. I only wish they'd learn from their stupidity. I'm personally hoping that they spend oodles and oodles of money on $400/hr star trial lawyers, and maybe (if we're lucky) to reach an unsatisfactory conclusion for both sides - sort of like that recently passed retroactive webcasting fee is being groaned about from both sides. Only this time it would be a pleasant sound to hear Time Warner and EMI groan.
EMI knows that AOL-TW is in the hurt locker big time. They want to kill the jolly "You've got spam" giant and move themselves into position to take AOL's chunk of the communications pie. This would make EMI a direct rival to companies like Disney. With Enron well on its way to the treatment plant, WorldComm swirling it's way down the bolw with the other terds, and now an AOL-sized "crap-on-deck," what's next?
I'll only be happy when Microsoft bows out or gets its act together...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
that sharks sometimes attack each other when in a feeding frenzy....
not just the 1990s, it was in the minority report trailers too. really annoyed me, i guess most people dont have a good memory for audio but i cant hear that without thinking "aliens".
Ted Turner purchased MGM and its classic film library back in 1986, In the 90's Castle Rock and New Line hooked up with Turner Broadcasting and then New Line Cinema. Then of course Turner orchestrated the gigantic merger of his company with Time Warner in the late 90's. It would follow that since the songs were long ago attached to those films and there wasn't a clause in the agreement saying specifically that promotion is forbidden... Time Warner would be in the clear. Besides that geez what a bunch of nit picking wussies.
Okay, I hear clips of movie audio played during radio station morning shows and as sweepers between songs advertising the radio station (god, how they annoy me!) and yet nobody says a word, nobody complains, nobody sues - is it illegal? It sure SEEMS illegal; using somebody else's copyrighted data to your own benefit without (I assume) reimbursing them or even getting their approval...
Likewise, I hear music dubbed into low-budget films and shows on public TV; yet I somehow doubt that proper authorization was secured before they did so.
Does anybody know if I'm correct in my assumption that these things are, indeed illegal; and if so, why people get away with it and practice it so blatantly?
Thanks!!
You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
All of us are to blame because we watch, if our tv's would prevent the viewing of unauthorized pieces of music then none of this would ever have happened. This is why we need DRM to keep us from being forced to listen to/see illegal broadcasts!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
"Now that they are turning on themselves, they will leave us alone for awhile"
The will settle out of court, and then come to you. They will take your recorder and junk it in the loo
they will break your burner and scare you wil their boo
AOl bit the dust, and you will too
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Hoodlum, Mullhullin Falls, Star Trek Nemisis, and a few others I can't named used some of the scores from the Crimson Tide soundtrack... you do make an interesting point about that, I've always wondered why it was that movie previews tend to use music from existing movies.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I think the best thing to come out of this might be bringing the IP battle a bit more into the forefront in the minds of the average consumer - people who don't normally follow the whole DMCA, **AA, etc threads.
Doesn't even matter who does what in this situation - as it was mentioned somewhere else, it's most likely just a quibble over legalese that won't really change anything for us, but the social implications could be great.
I for one would love to see everybody sit up and say, "hey, if they're making this sort of stink among themselves, how long until it affects us?"
grin... wouldn't it be great if, instead of just a few thousand outraged slashdotters, there were millions of consumers that all of a sudden started a backlash, and changed the way we approach copyright and licensing? I feel it's long overdue and overlooked.
You don't need Geeksintraining if you're on Slashdot.
or lawyers.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
If that one law would have passed would it be ok for EMI to DOS AOL??? hmmmm
timothy timothy timothy... It's not an opera, it's Latin! It means "Why'd the fuck y'all stab me in the back like that for?"
Check out the Public Domain Information Project for information on copyright and public domain issues as they pertain to music.
Already submitted this but Time Warner is also being sued for copyright infringement by the author of a 1997 screenplay called The Funk Parlour, and also by the company which has filmed it. Both cases allege that Time Warner's HBO series Six Feet Under was heavily inspired by the original screenplay. The BBC story lists the alleged similarities. So is this as bad as running a Harry Potter site? Or skipping ads?
How long will it be before executives and investors finally realize that the only people making money off of all these crazy copyright/anti-piracy/region control legitslationing/lawsuits/scheming are the lawyers, modchippers, and Macrovision?
Hello, McFly?
I imagine in the bizarro world of Slashdot, bad cases which bring bad law are somehow good for the rest of us. But I fail to see how thickening the legal morass surrounding licensing is going to bring us to a better world. Being a part of the hoard standing around while Ceaser goes down doesn't mean there won't be plenty to smack us with too, before long.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Has slashdot even reported on the recent web casting fee's the copyright office and CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel) is setting up?
From the article.
The official fee's come in at a rate of .07 cents per song which is streamed live online and a lower rate of .02 cents per stream for simulcasted and / or archived broadcasts. There is also an additional fee to keep copies
of the music on the web server of 8.8 percent of the entire royalty fee, which is tacked on top of the total cost of the royalty rates.
Now some of you are wondering, why does this matter? Well for one thing one of my favorite webcasting stations is gone now. Soma
FM had to close shop because of this.
I think this story is much better than internal conflicts at some huge corporation, don't you? Talk about greed, CARP wants 15,000@ month out of somafm. Total BS
--toq
I think we are beginning to bump up against fundamental problems with the current definition of copyright.
Copyright was intended as a temporary right to benefit creators and encourage innovation/creation. Copyright was not intended as the permanent (effectively so) monopoly over ideas it has become.
Classic songs and other media become popular and are never freed to public license. Consequently, cost increases for the meime. "Happy Birthday" is a good example.
Insidences of copyright violations will continue to increase imo due to the lack of entry of ideas into the public domain. Digital technology will make these violations easier to commit and easier to track.
Protection for creation is intended to benefit society not the creator. It is only an insentive to create so society and culture can reap a benefit.
Unfortunately, what we have now is a strong perversion of the original intent. Perhaps, one could almost say an inversion of the original thought. Creators are rewarded, but almost absolutely. Society never gets the free benefit.
As an example of the danger of unlimited monopoly over ideas, consider what would happen if patents lasted 100 years? Would society be better or worse?
Every economy needs a wealthy core population which is happy to spend its money on over priced luxury items - from plates of soup to Mercedes.
Lawyers were getting bored with chasing ambulances, and many were considering getting out of the business and starting a small organic farm in Provence.
Now they just need to dust down their 'media rights 101' material and find an abuse - preferably where the accused can afford to defend - as the case will last longer and therefore cost more money.
Too cynical?
It's yet another "proof" why DRM is needed. This one is at corporation level so I'd imagine it weights even more than the consumer level "proofs".
I can already see EMI testifying at some instance how without DRM they lost their "fair compensation" when AOL used their IP.
when more of the world is commercialised we are going to be seeing increases cases (no pun intended) of this 'problem' where anyone saying anything related to anything trademarked/copyrighted/ip'ed/etc will face the ugly face of the law.
EMI: We gave them personal use only
AOL: We have only made copies to ensure that they we don't lose the originial.
EMI: But they didn't keep it just for themselves they gave it to their parents.
AOL: Well the kids just can't be trusted not to lose this stuff.
EMI: Then the parents shared it with their friends
AOL: No Way, we played it for our own personal use, its not our fault 30 million people were watching.
Judge: Isn't this just what you guys complain about with people copying CDs ?
EMI + AOL: OH NO, that is TOTALLY DIFFERENT, that is ILLEGAL AND PEOPLE SHOULD BE HUNG, this is just verification of a fine point of legal detail.
Judge: Ah right.... lets go have lunch, you guys are buying as you'll bill it to your clients.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Legal departments are NUMA, not "massively parallel". They can quite happily sue other people over things they are currently being sued for and defending against, and not see the contradiction, because they are running seperate instances of the law in question.
For example, RIAA has a "Beowolf Cluster" of lawyers...
-- Terry
Brutae !
It would have been far more interesting if the suggested DOS laws had been available.
> Good. Now that they are turning on themselves,
> they will leave us alone for awhile.
That's quite optimistic: these folks have legal departments large enough to sue half the planet and still find the resources to write EULA that would make Mephisto wince.
Stéphane "Alias" Gallay
Now, where did I put this witty quote?..
...I thought you were talking about slashdot.
I think I'll give my coffee a few more minutes to kick in before I post anything else.
Ali
Ph33r m3!!!
what does "et tu" translate to in english?
couldn't find it anywhere.
dont mod this up please.
If approved, could they then hack their systems to erase these files? Which gives me an idea... post a song for their use, then revoke their useage permit, then hack their computer and 'accidentally' fawk their sh1t up
This isn't good, it's bad. Bad Scenario - they sue us and win. Good Scenario - they sue us and lose. Worst Possible Scenario - they sue themselves and lose intentionally just to set a court precedent to make it far easier to sue us.
11*43+456^2
As we continue to cling to the absurd notion of "intellectual property" we will create more and more of these ridiculous situations.
Consider:
You're a movie producer. You need some automobiles for a scene in your movie. What do you do? You call up a local car dealer and have them send over some cars. You use the cars in the movie and you pay the car dealer. End of story. At no time are you required to make any payment to Ford or General Motors (the creators of the cars).
Now you need some music for your movie. You go to a local store, you buy a CD and use the music in your movie. Guess what, you're getting sued big time because you didn't pay the creator of the music. Despite the fact that you legitimately purchased and paid for the music, just as you paid for the automobiles.
Sorry, but this makes no sense.
I mean, this is just like when an animal, so starved for food, starts to eat its own body parts.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
Except that, under your law, isn't it illegal for that to happen? If two parties collude to bring forward a civil suit in order to set legal precedent, isn't it considered contempt of court or something?
Oh, right. I forgot. The law doesn't matter anymore - it's whoever has the most money to throw at the system. Silly me.
And the winner will come out stronger and with no serious rivals. Prepare to be crushed.
of these rampaging hordes of lawyers from EMI. Thousands of them running around attacking anything that looks like they can attack. At least now they are going to run into another rampaging horde of lawyers from AOL.
They don't all have to attack AOL, but part of the blob will be occupied while they try to find other things to do.
A lawyer with nothing to do is a very dangerous thing indeed.
It's like a nightmare.
~ kjrose
Blah...after a bit of searching, I found the article that I just read last week about the "Signs" trailer by Ant Farm:
L ERS.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/28/magazine/28TRAI
They said that some of the most re-used music comes from "Dave", "Hoffa" and "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story".
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
EMI? Goooooooood BYE!
i could live a little longer in this prison
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
IIRC,
The movie (from which the songs in dispute stem) was released in 1939.
The Book was published in 1900.
You can get a copy of the Book (and most of the other works of Frank L. Baum) from project Gutenberg
-- this is not a
either that or John Madden is lurking...
Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes they cancel each other out.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".