Guitar Hero Maker Sued - Cover Song Too Awesome

volpone writes "The band "The Romantics" are suing Activision over their wedding reception favorite, 'What I Like About You,' which appears in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the '80s. The problem is not copyright infringement; Activision had permission to make a cover version of the song. No, the problem is that the cover sounds too much like the original. 'The band's attorneys have indicated that they are seeking an injunction that would force the game to be withdrawn from sale. Although around half of the songs in the newly released Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock feature recordings by the original artists, in previous Guitar Hero games the majority of songs were cover versions.'" In not totally-unrelated news you can download the Mjolnir mix of the Halo theme for play on GHIII, free, today.

Comments

Of course they did...

[hsdpa]

By taking the Fourier-transform of the song, and then the Inverse Fourier-Transform, you're making a cover. A remix by most - but not a plagiate.

Re:Of course they did...

[cacepi]

By taking the Fourier-transform of the song, and then the Inverse Fourier-Transform, you're making a cover. A remix by most - but not a plagiate. Dude, this is Guitar Hero; speak English for Christ's sake!

Re:Of course they did...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think it was supposed to be funny, if you know a bit math.

Re:Of course they did...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dude, this is Guitar Hero; speak English for Christ's sake!"

"Slashdot, New for nerds and stuff that matters".

Okay, so you failed at math and you are visiting the wrong site. Double-whammy.

Re:Of course they did...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I've got NEWS for you Dr. AC..

Re:Of course they did...

[Anonymous Coward]

i totally agree, i read slash a lot, but this is the first time i felt the need to comment, and I actually joined just do it.... fourier not english?? first thing you learn in any diffy's class or signals class

Re:Of course they did...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, "plagiate" isn't English but rather Italian.

Re:Of course they did...

[MadJo]

How do you perform a double whammy with the whammy bar?

Re:Of course they did...

[Anonymous Coward]

i totally agree, i read slash a lot, but this is the first time i felt the need to comment, and I actually joined just do it .... fourier not english?? first thing you learn in any diffy's class or signals class

You joined up to post a comment, and then posted in Anonymous Coward...

Please, do tell me your user name, I want to keep an eye on your posts: I can see great things coming for you!

Re:Of course they did...

[Bender Unit 22]

I don't think the guitar controllers for the game have any whammy-bars?

Re:Of course they did...

[slim]

They do have tremolo bars, and you should tremolo long notes for extra Star Power, to get extra points.

Re:Of course they did...

[WeeLad]

The same way you get to Carnegie Hall. Practice.

Can we say losers?

[sproketboy]

Yes - we can say that.

Wow, just wow.

[base3]

A washed-up 80's band with two hits to its name sues because a cover band was able to duplicate their syrupy bubble-gum pop sound. The mind boggles.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[aplusjimages]

I'm impressed they have a good lawyer. Guitar Hero must really bringing in the money for them.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[weighn]

A washed-up 80's band with two hits to its name... For those playing at home, the other "hit" was Talking In Your Sleep in 1983. I'd hum a bar for you, but it can't have been too memorable.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[Jarjarthejedi]

Wait...they sang "I hear the secrets that you keep, when you're talking in your sleep"? Oh man...I hope they lose it all in this suit (I kid, I kid...I actually enjoyed both their songs...no please, don't burst my bubble and claim they had other songs...I refuse to believe that)

Re:Wow, just wow.

[vapspwi]

Actually, they had one other pretty decent single that cracked the top 40, "One In A Million" in 1983.

Looking at Wikipedia, "Talking In Your Sleep" was actually their biggest song peaking at #3, followed by "One In A Million" at #37, and "What I Like About You" at #49.

I honestly can't say that I knew that the version of the song in Guitar Hero was a cover, so it must be a pretty accurate rendition. But it's been a while since I played it, and it was one of the songs that gave me the most trouble, so I was generally concentrating more on playing the song than on listening to it.

JRjr

Re:Wow, just wow.

[Wildcat J]

I heard a funny story about them, which may or may not be true:

The Romantics played here in Tucson a few years back for a local festival-type show (either "Nightmare on Congress" or "Fall Crawl"--mostly local bands, including one I played in at the time), and a fairly well-known local band let them rehearse in their practice space. Someone walking through the hallway heard them and commented that it sounded like a really crappy Romantics cover band. If only they knew!

Re:Wow, just wow.

[TheRaven64]

So, if they sound like a crappy cover of themselves, and the track in question sounds like a good cover of them, then by definition it doesn't sound like them...

Too simple a song perhaps?

[mgkimsal2]

It's a pretty darn easy song (many popular songs are) so I'm not surprised to find that it's very 'close to the original'. If they had proper permission to include a 'cover' of it, what did they expect? I love the song, and am a sucker for bubblegum/powerpop type stuff, so perhaps that's why I can't see the problem with the cover here. Won't it potentially drive some more sales for their other stuff from people who learn about them through the game? Or perhaps it's because it's so close people won't bother going to buy the original or other Romantics tunes?

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[BronsCon]

Who cares. Presumably, "have permission" means "paid for permission", which, in turn, most likely means "pays royalties on every copy sold", which translates directly to "the label is being paid", which we all know really means "the artist isn't seeing a penny from the label", which means...

Oh. Right. In that case...

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[Osty]

Won't it potentially drive some more sales for their other stuff from people who learn about them through the game? Or perhaps it's because it's so close people won't bother going to buy the original or other Romantics tunes?

Guitar Hero III is actually driving online sales of songs in the game, though the effect is not so clear on physical album sales. I would expect that even cover songs drive sales, with better covers driving even more sales. Assuming the Romantics have songs available on various online music sites (iTunes, Zune, Rhapsody, etc), and assuming that they still see some royalties from the sale of their songs, this seems like a very stupid move.

Then again, we are talking about GH: Rock the 80s, a lack-luster stand-alone GH game that's only available on the PS2 and has been on the market for a while. It may not longer be driving online sales, so this is a final effort to squeeze a little bit more money out of the license.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[The Evil Couch]

It's a pretty darn easy song

Indeed. For those of you more familiar with Guitar Hero than sheet music or guitar tabs, this song basically goes like this: green, pause, green, pause, green, red, red, pause, red, yellow, repeat. Except it's really that easy IN REAL LIFE.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[aussie_a]

Perhaps they should sue themselves then for signing away their rights for unfair compensation.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[Jay L]

Presumably, "have permission" means "paid for permission", which, in turn, most likely means "pays royalties on every copy sold", which translates directly to "the label is being paid", which we all know really means "the artist isn't seeing a penny from the label", which means...

Not necessarily. I studied this for an entire semester, but I've apparently blocked it all out.

There are a bunch of different kinds of music "rights" - around six or seven basic ones, IIRC.

The important distinction here is between the rights to the song - the melody, chord changes, lyrics - and the rights to the recording. We don't care about the recording here, because we're making a new one.

The song isn't owned by the record company (again IIRC). Whether it's owned by the publisher, or the composer, or various artist's collectives, I couldn't tell you anymore. And, of course, sometimes the publisher is the label; a lot of times, the publisher is the songwriter (who may or may not be the artist).

Some of these rights are compulsory - that is, in lieu of actually negotiating individual agreements, the licensing fees are just declared by law or regulation, and you've implicitly agreed to them by copyrighting something. Some are in theory not compulsory, but are in practice always negotiated by the same group at the same rates (e.g. the Harry Fox Agency). Some are covered by international conventions, some aren't. And so on.

So without seeing the actual contract The Romantics signed, it'd be hard to say if they got money out of Activision's existing license. (Even seeing the contract might not clear it up; naturally, everyone involved is trying to get more than their share, and sometimes that means writing contracts that confuse artists, if you catch my drift.)

And, of course, when the song was written originally, the concept of "videogame rights" was nonexistent, so who knows what part of their contract would cover it now...

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[weighn]

Perhaps they should sue themselves... now there's a plan

1. sign dodgy contract - Sony is always a good agent for this
2. write one-hit-wonder - having your label buy a load of copies helps at this stage
3. sue yourself
4. ...
5. profit

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[ThisIsForReal]

Yeah, the lawyers will tell you the last step is profit, but the small print will read (for the lawyers).

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[Firethorn]

It doesn't have to be 'paid for every copy sold'. Activision and "The Romantics" agreed on a contract. For a sum of money based on a pre-agreed formula, the company was allowed to do a cover song for the game. This sort of stuff is pretty standard, maybe not for a game, but for things like movies, karaoke, remixes, etc...

If I was judge over this case, one of the first things I'd ask if there was some stipulation in the contract as to the quality of the song. If it's not in the contract and they waited until it came out, didn't insist on having editorial control in the contract, too bad.

Normally, I'd support the band against the big company, but in this case it simply sounds like the band is trying to shake the company down for more money. You see, if they asked for too much money in the beginning, Activision would have simply not included that song and gone for a different one.

However, they know that once the game has been produced, the discs pressed and shipped to stores, that it's too late to pull the song without massive expense. So they come up with some bullshit excuse like 'the cover song is too good so it violates our copyright/trademark' I mean 'rights to it's own likeness' is NOT a protected right. They're probably hoping for a out of court settlement.

Personally, if this is the case I hope they get squashed and end up burning what they were paid to have their song in the game to pay their and Activision's lawyers. Of course all this is a reaction based on the story. I reserve the right to change my views if further information turns up that changes the situation.

This is little different than the old scam of finding some reason to sue a company(mental suffering was popular), then carefully asking for a settlement that would be less than what court costs to successfully fight it would be. Many businesses folded, paying to satisfy the accountants until it was pointed out that it was cheaper to fight 1 of these cases than to pay a hundred, which was the case. It's an old principle - you pay the Danegeld, you never got rid of the Dane.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[Lemmy Caution]

For me, at least, a lot of the songs in Guitar Hero are easier in real life than in Guitar Hero!

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[xenocide2]

Actually, I think we do care about the rights to the recording, since their objection is that Harmonic's recording of their song sounds too much like theirs, even though they apparently paid for the rights to make a new recording of it. I think the best we can really say about this mess is that making music records is like making sausage.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[DannyO152]

Wasn't there a standard clause about unknown future media in the publishing agreements back in the 80s? I seem to remember seeing that in the boilerplates shown in the "Business of Music" books. Plus, video games were around in the mid-80s. In answer to your question, I'm sure that the songwriters and their publishers are getting money for the song's use. It is a derivative work. Not that I'm a lawyer, etc.

As I understand it, arrangement is not copyrightable. And what is the "sound" any way except a combination of instruments, amplifiers, effects, and tape? What? Some engineer at Morley gets the copyright on all wah guitar recordings? And I thought the Californication suit was about as dumb as it gets.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[shark72]

"Who cares. Presumably, "have permission" means "paid for permission", which, in turn, most likely means "pays royalties on every copy sold", which translates directly to "the label is being paid", which we all know really means "the artist isn't seeing a penny from the label", which means..."

Huh? We're talking about publishing rights here. Publishing rights typically don't go through the label. If you record a cover version, you're dealing with an entirely different set of people; often the composer and lyricist themselves Record companies, on the other hand, deal with distribution of recordings. This is exactly why TFS started out by mentioning that The Romantics are suing Activision, and not the record company.

Misinformation like yours is dangerous because we're supposed to be supporting the artists. Publishing rights for cover versions and the like are a great way for bands to make money without having to share any of it with the record label. This is a GOOD thing. You are trying to trivialize this very important right by spreading the falsehood that this is in the domain of the record label.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[shark72]

Sorry, another reply to the same post. This is from the Detroit Free Press writeup:

Horton said Activision should have secured a master license for the Romantics' original 1980 recording, then paid appropriate royalties. He said the band became aware of the issue when fans said they'd heard the song in the game but members saw no accounting for it on their record-label royalty checks.

What do you make of the band members' claim that they get record-label royalty checks, when (as you wrote it) "we all know" the band doesn't get royalties? Do you think the band members are lying about receiving royalty checks, in an efforts to build a case for the suit?

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[Kamineko]

Gene sample accepted and cloned. Transmogrification in progress.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[bogwoppit]

This is little different than the old scam of finding some reason to sue a company(mental suffering was popular), then carefully asking for a settlement that would be less than what court costs to successfully fight it would be. Many businesses folded, paying to satisfy the accountants until it was pointed out that it was cheaper to fight 1 of these cases than to pay a hundred, which was the case.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I'm sure it may be cheaper to fight one than settle a hundred, but a successful defense doesn't necessarily preclude other suits. I mean, chances are the claimant expects to lose anyway, so the only effect is to try to convince would-be-claimants that the company will fight future suits.

Devil's advocate here, but if the company was hit by a second suit, would that not give them the impression that defending the suits wasn't going to work...?

Interesting topic.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[slim]

It's a pretty darn easy song

For those of you more familiar with Guitar Hero than sheet music or guitar tabs, this song basically goes like this: green, pause, green, pause, green, red, red, pause, red, yellow, repeat. Except it's really that easy IN REAL LIFE. Except because it has a moderately confusing rhythm which varies as the song progresses, and quite a high tempo, by the time you get to Advanced level in GH, it's a bloody difficult song... and in the recording, it's not purely strumming out the standard chord shapes -- there are subtleties to the transitions between chords.

Yeah, it's not Yngwie Malmsteen, but it's not Crass either.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see someone else say this. I like the original okay and thought the GH version would be fun to play. I only play the game on Hard (and a little bit on Expert), but I found this one difficult. Found myself struggling a little with keeping up with the timing and chord changes on this song (but perhaps I just suck at it).

And as far as covers go, I thought the vocals on this one were pretty terrible. Not "Killing in the Name Of" terrible, but bad nonetheless.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[AdamTrace]

Simple? It actually, it took me quite a while to 5-star that song on Expert, and I consider myself an above-average GH player...

Those three-finger chord changes were a bitch! :)

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[Firethorn]

but a successful defense doesn't necessarily preclude other suits.

Lawyers fees. No matter what, you need a lawyer to at least initiate the paperwork, arrange the settlement, etc... There are a few sharks out there, including a rather famous lawyer who apparently had either a love affair with his pants or a real hatred of a certain immigrant dry cleaners. Though I think he was truly insane, rather than looking for an easy buck.

Anyways - you have to look at it from a risk/profit angle. A company that fights 100% of it's lawsuits(and records will indicate this) will show no profit potential in suing them. Even if you manage to win, getting court costs is unlikely so you're out all that, so your profit margin is reduced. Remember, we're talking about lawsuits based on the thinnest of bases. Things like suing for false advertising and mental anguish when the store sells out of something they placed on sale - even if the ad said 'limited quantities' and laid in 10X the stock, by waiting in the store until they're all gone.

On the other hand, if the company, by policy, settles whenever possible, these people notice that as well. They flock to the easy money.

Devil's advocate here, but if the company was hit by a second suit, would that not give them the impression that defending the suits wasn't going to work...?

They weren't so stupid as to realize that their policy change would work instantly. However, when the number of baseless or trivial lawsuits drops enough in the first fiscal year that they save money, it's easy to justify.

I wasn't talking about 1 lawsuit precluding others, indeed, largish businesses, especially retail, still have to fight a number of these a year. In some cases, thousands of minor lawsuits a year. When they started saying 'take us to court', and vigorously defending themselves, the cases dropped to the dozens, then even lower.

Let's say that the scummy lawyer has been asking for 50% of what it would cost the company to defeat the suit. He gets said money through a couple letters and a meeting. That's quick, easy money. If the company isn't going to fold, he then actually has to file in court, wait for a court date, go before a judge, perhaps a jury, etc... If he doesn't win, he's out all that time and money. He isn't going to bother unless he has reason to believe that he'll make money. The plaintiff doesn't have any to speak of(and is also after profit, if the lawyer says it's a bad case, he's not going to pay to take it to court). The whole point was to get the company to settle out of court - when expenses are cheap. If the company calls it's bluff, then it makes no money.

So the case might show up like this: 100 letters from lawyers show up in a years. If the company folds - that's 100 payouts: cost 50. If they call the bluff on all of them, 90 of the letters go no further(cost .1). 10 go all the way (cost 1 each). Total cost: 19.

Eventually even the letters would dry up.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[Steve001]

I remember a news story a couple of years ago where John Fogerty got sued for sounding too much like John Fogerty.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[DM9290]

"Activision and "The Romantics" agreed on a contract. For a sum of money based on a pre-agreed formula, the company was allowed to do a cover song for the game. "

A cover is not the same thing as deliberately contriving to fool the audience into thinking they are hearing the original band performing the song. If your cover sounds so much like the original band that a reasonable person would be confused and think that it is the original, then you are copying their likeness. This would be exasperated if you used cartoon avators in the videogame that actually LOOK LIKE the Romantics.

You can't dress up and mimic John Lennon, act like him, sound like him and dance like him and sell music, even if they are your own original songs. If you are trying to impersonate his likeness, and people hearing you would assume it was him, and might accidentally pay you money, thinking they are getting John Lennon songs, then you are using his likeness and could be sued by his estate. This doesn't change if you get a license to do a cover.

I am sure the court will be quit lenient and liberal in interpreting what is allowed in a cover. But as far as infringing a likeness... I am not sure there will be much leniency. Likeness rights are like trademarks. If there is evidence that Activision was attempting to exploit the likeness of the romantics then they possibly went too far in law.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[mad.frog]

Activision and "The Romantics" agreed on a contract.

Not necessarily -- The Romantics may not own the rights to the song itself, even if they wrote it originally. All Activistion has to do is license the rights to the song from the copyright owner, which might leave the band out of the loop entirely.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[C0rinthian]

1) Covers are clearly labelled in the game.

2) The characters depicting the band in the game do not resemble specific artists. (Slash and Tom Morello are exceptions, but they are not The Romantics)

So basically, everything you typed is not relevant to this situation. The more you know...

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[BronsCon]

Misinformation like yours is dangerous Satire is not, I repeat, not misinformation!

At this moment, grandparent is moderated 70% insightful and 30% funny. I have no clue how that happened; I guess 70% of the moderators on slashdot really ARE on crack.

Satire is also not to be taken seriously.

Thank you, mods. Good karma's never a BAD thing.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[Firethorn]

A cover is not the same thing as deliberately contriving to fool the audience into thinking they are hearing the original band performing the song.

So? The company should make sure that when including the song that it doesn't actually sound like the song? What about all the 'scarily good' karaoke singers out there? Do they deserve to be sued? Where's the harm, even if some ignorant consumers mistake the cover song for the real one? Are the romantics afraid that the consumer will run out and by their album because they liked it?

If your cover sounds so much like the original band that a reasonable person would be confused and think that it is the original, then you are copying their likeness. This would be exasperated if you used cartoon avators in the videogame that actually LOOK LIKE the Romantics.

I watched the youtube video of the song, I'd say that the likeness would not be enough to sue - the cartoon players don't wear the same as the romantics - the main player is certainly beefier than any of the romantics. Of course, I understand you can select different characters.

You can't dress up and mimic John Lennon, act like him, sound like him and dance like him and sell music, even if they are your own original songs.

In the USA and much the rest of the world, you can just fine. Or am I somehow mistaken about all the Elvis impersonators?

If you are trying to impersonate his likeness, and people hearing you would assume it was him, and might accidentally pay you money, thinking they are getting John Lennon songs, then you are using his likeness and could be sued by his estate.

If you're not using his name or copyrights/trademarks, representing yourself as him, you're allowed to copy his style all you like.

I am sure the court will be quit lenient and liberal in interpreting what is allowed in a cover. But as far as infringing a likeness... I am not sure there will be much leniency. Likeness rights are like trademarks. If there is evidence that Activision was attempting to exploit the likeness of the romantics then they possibly went too far in law.

Other than how close the song is, the band featured during the song bears only the vaguest likeness to the romantics - the wardrobe is different, the stage arrangement is different from their music video. Resolution in the video I saw for the most part wasn't good enough to see facial features, so you end up with 'skinny white rocker' as the best description. In their music video, the romantics wear suits. In the game, the band looks to be wearing t-shirts. So the similarity is pretty much limited to '4 white guys'.

Activision licensed the song. If the Romantics were so concerned about their identity, they should have insisted on stipulations before signing the contract. I don't count 'the cover song was too good' as a valid complaint.

Anybody truly curious can look up the details of the song - including the fact that it's a cover version in the game. Credit is given.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[Firethorn]

It said in the article that the the lawsuit admits that the band knows that Activision has a license to make the cover song.

By the wording in this article, it sounds like the band does control the copyright. In researching I've found out that they've sued about licensing of their music before.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[isdr]

Actually, the label is (probably) not being paid. The label only collects payments for use of the recording made by the group they have under contract. The cover artists are (almost certainly) not under contract to the label. The composer and the lyricist are (most likely) being paid, but their cut is being collected by different organizations (probably) not affiliated with the RIAA.

In other news, they next will be suing karaoke disc producers for faithful reproductions of the original music...

WTF did they expect?

[TibbonZero]

Have they been living under a rock? Everyone knows what Guitar Hero is! I've never heard of someone doing a cover song, "Too close" without sampling being sued like this.
If Activision or Harmonix came to me and was like, "Hey, we are going to do a cover of your song for GH/RB" I'd have a pretty damn good idea of what they are doing. It's not going to be a Salsa cover of a rock song, but a pretty damn close cover with at best some parts adapted to fit the game better!

Really, i mean what did they expect?
morons.

Re:WTF did they expect?

[Osty]

If Activision or Harmonix came to me and was like, "Hey, we are going to do a cover of your song for GH/RB" I'd have a pretty damn good idea of what they are doing. It's not going to be a Salsa cover of a rock song, but a pretty damn close cover with at best some parts adapted to fit the game better!

I don't know about that. They did do a metal cover of The Devil Went Down to Georgia for the GH3 finale :).

Re:WTF did they expect?

[Ipkat]

Actually, the copyright to the song (i.e., the score) and the copyright to their recording of it are two separate things. It's likely they just didn't own the copyright in the score, and whoever did happily licensed it away to Activision. This reminds me of the strange case of Tom Waits v. Frito Lay, in which old Tom was awarded $6 million for "misappropriation of personality" after Frito Lay hired a Waits impersonator to sing in a commercial. You Americans and your crazy IP laws!

Re:WTF did they expect?

[TheLink]

'Tom was awarded $6 million for "misappropriation of personality"'

Yeah, one morning he woke up to find his personality gone and that's why he sued.

Maybe this band sued because the cover version was better than they'll ever be able to do, and they just couldn't accept that.

Re:WTF did they expect?

[Enoxice]

What you didn't mention is that Tom had previously declined their offer to use a song of his ("Step Right Up", off of Small Change, for those that care). Frito-Lay turned around and hired an impersonator to sing a jingle similar to the song.

The difference here is that they had permission from the band to make a cover, they made a cover, and now the band is pissed for no legally-justifiable reason. Also, Tom Waits is 10 million times as awesome as The Romantics.

Re:WTF did they expect?

[Jarjarthejedi]

I don't know about that. They did do a metal cover of The Devil Went Down to Georgia for the GH3 finale :). Unless I'm remembering something that never happened that metal version's been around for a while, I'm pretty sure I heard it on the radio more than once. It's not a particularly good song (and I like metal, and The Devil Went Down to Georgia) but I don't think GHIII made it up.

'Course I don't have the game so it could be a different metal version, but I'm pretty sure I've heard a version of that song that could be considered metal on the radio before.

Re:WTF did they expect?

[basic0]

I believe it was Primus who covered the song on "Miscellaneous Debris", which was their album of mostly cover songs, including Pink Floyd's "Have a Cigar" and XTC's "Making Plans for Nigel". I have no idea why I remember THAT, but have forgotten most of the stuff I learned in college. Anyways, the version in GH3 is not Primus. I know, because I almost threw the controller at my TV the other night trying unsuccessfully to beat it on medium.

In response to the OP, even if The Romantics didn't know what Guitar Hero was, you'd think they'd find out before granting the rights to Red Octane/Activision/Whoever.

Re:WTF did they expect?

[FLEB]

If it was rights to make a cover (mechanicals), that's statutory-- there's an rate set by law, and the writer can't refuse. (USA, AFAIK, IANAL)

Re:WTF did they expect?

[NitroWolf]

You are probably thinking of the version by Rednex. They have a semi-metal (or is it hard rap?) sounding version. Still not as good as the original, though.

Re:WTF did they expect?

[Noah Adler]

Actually, the scores, which is to say a particular layout and engraving of the music as notation, are copyrightable works in their own right, distinct from the copyright on a composition itself. Purchasing a print edition of score of some Bach composition, which is now public domain, does not entitle a person to photocopy and distribute that printed version. Technically it may be illegal to even use it as a reference to draft a new score of the composition. Interestingly, though, photocopying of sheet music among musicians is a very widespread and accepted practice, despite the common knowledge of its illegality.

Re:WTF did they expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with today's society is that everybody is sue happy. I have never heard of copyrighting a recording. I am in a rock band that records music a lot and our songs are copyrighted, the recording isn't. You would send a copy of the recorded song to the library of congress to get a copyright on the song itself. Sounds to me like somebody hasn't sold a recod in years and are hurting for money. Or maybe they thought that this would be the ultimate prank. Have everybody anticipating the release of the game and pull out at the last second. Hope they lose their lawsuit, but that isn't the American way. This is the land of opportunity for people trying to pull a scam.

Just my opinion.

Re:WTF did they expect?

[jwo7777777]

This is because of the cost of printed music vs. typical musician income.

If true, poor move by the band

[eebra82]

The band's attorneys have indicated that they are seeking an injunction that would force the game to be withdrawn from sale. If true, what on earth could have triggered them to ask their lawyers for such a ridiculous action? Clearly, no one is a winner if "the Romantics" win over Activision in court:

- Activision will lose a lot of cash on all the disks that must be reprinted.
- Fans of the title will be furious if they have to wait for weeks.
- The band will be perceived as greedy and ignorant to their own fans who wait for this title with great anticipation.

If anything, they should ask Activision for money. Maybe I am ignorant or just unaware of some fundamentals here, but at least if I was an artist, I would have allowed this. Maybe I'd had been bothered but I would certainly try not to make an ass out of myself in front of my fans.

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[compro01]

If true, what on earth could have triggered them to ask their lawyers for such a ridiculous action? Clearly, no one is a winner if "the Romantics" win over Activision in court:

presumabley they're trying the "sue for the world, settle out of court for what they really want" tactic.

either that or they're certifiably nuts, which is always a distinct possibility.

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[encoderer]

Or maybe it's all just for publicity.

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[justinmikehunt]

- Fans of the title will be furious if they have to wait for weeks. No one will really be waiting for anything though... This is from the Guitar Hero 2 80s Edition, which came out during the summer IIRC. So anyone who's been waiting for the game already has it...

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

A withdrawal might ensure that the next edition has some new loading screens:

"Any percieved similarity to the original song is unintended. Rock out!"
"If you complete this song on Expert, it may be considered a threat to the original band's income!"
"Dear The Romantics, remember when it used to be about the music?"
"If your only fans are the RIAA, then go back to the nursing home."

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[Om]

Maybe I'd had been bothered but I would certainly try not to make an ass out of myself in front of my fans.

No joke. I mean, if anything this would help sell a few of their old albums. It's freaking publicity that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten! The last time someone did this it was...

...oh shit...

umm... Can someone please check on Metallica and see how they are doing? I hear they have a song on this game. We must remain vigilant.

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[Noah Adler]

Obviously the idea that they could make a quick buck is their motivation for suing. When was the last time you heard of them releasing a new hit moneymaker? The members of the band have clearly been convinced that they can make more money by suing than by writing new material. Such is the state of this industry. (Note: Since it sounds like I'm being contentious, I have to point out that I agree with you where it counts)

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a bit ignorant. It's a typical tactic for lawyers to make outrageous demands, especially putting the stop to sales of a product until a lawsuit is settled. YES it would be extremely damaging to Activision, anger customers, etc. That's the idea. You make those demands, but the real intentions are to force a more reasonable settlement.

Having said that... the Romantics are being fucktards towards something that will (and likely HAS) bring lots of new fans to rediscover their music.

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[Osty]

umm... Can someone please check on Metallica and see how they are doing? I hear they have a song on this game. We must remain vigilant.

The game in question is Rock the 80s. Metallica has songs on Guitar Hero III and Rock Band, but they're the actual songs rather than covers. This is one place where Metallica can't sue.

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[dank zappingly]

but if the band had fans, they wouldn't have to drum up publicity with this half-assed cause of action

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[pjeremyh]

SOLUTION: When it comes to trial hand the judge the GH controller and start the song on expert and see how like the original it sounds! .... CASE DISMISSED

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[Tuoqui]

I doubt they have any fans anymore. Which is why they can be such jerks about this.

Last time I checked...

[mille666]

...Imitation was the highest form of flattery. Ohwell, times change.

Re:Last time I checked...

[Scamwise]

This common phrase has been changed to "Imitation is the highest form of infringement" or at least it was until it was sued by the owners of the original flattery statement due to copyright infringement.

Songs by "The Original Artists"

[Derling Whirvish]

BTW, when I was a kid and compilations of hits by cover groups was common (sorta like "Kidz Bop" now is) rarely would compilations of the original songs be offered on TV due to the high costs of getting the licenses. But I remember one TV offer in particular that was a group of recent hits and the name of the cover group was "The Original Artists." The come-on was something like: "20 of 19xx's greatest hits all by 'The Original Artists." I still LOL over the marketing slimeball that came up with that one.

Re:Songs by "The Original Artists"

[gEvil (beta)]

That's like that band One Night Only getting all those amazing gigs everywhere...

Re:Songs by "The Original Artists"

[Anonymous Coward]

motherfuckers

Re:Songs by "The Original Artists"

[Vskye]

Dude, I was burned on this one when I was a kid. Seen the ad on the TV and sent them like $19.95 (or whatever) and got a LP that was more flexible than a porn star. PLUS, it was a damn band called the "The Original Artists".. considering I was like 13 at the time, that sucked. Lesson learned.

Re:Songs by "The Original Artists"

[u8i9o0]

Although it's not really analogous to your comment, I'm reminded of a very old bit (I'm talking about 40+ year old material here) in Mad Magazine: the marketing of a company called "Brand X".

The concept was that "Brand X" was marketing itself strictly to the marketing departments of other companies and were available to make any type of product, but they would do so very poorly. That way, a normal company can contract them to make a competing version of their product and claim, "Every customer preferred our product over our competition", or something along those lines.

Done to death

[DeathElk]

Here in Australia, one of the major commercial stations used this song as their station promo for... what seemed like an eternity. I don't really care if I never hear it again!

meh to them

[jen3505]

The Romantics suck. They shilled for my alma mater who was marketing the hell out of long-distance services at the time. Haven't they sold that one song like 1,000,000 times?

RAY DAVIES

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The bloody Kinks oughta sue the Romantics, in such a world! "What I Like About You" is pretty much an early Kinks pastiche. Fits right in with "'Till the End of the Day", "All Day and All of the Night", "You Really Got Me" and "Stop Your Sobbin'".

Maybe what's left of the Yardbirds can get in the act, too! That "Hey!" in the song comes right out of "Over, Under, Sideways, Down".

Come to think of it, that last song is just "Rock Around the Clock" with some awesome guitar work by Jeff Beck. Oh!

Fuggeddiboutit.

Re:RAY DAVIES

[mfnickster]

The bloody Kinks oughta sue the Romantics, in such a world! "What I Like About You" is pretty much an early Kinks pastiche.

The Kinks oughta sue themselves for plagiarism. "Paranoia" is essentially the same song as "All Day and All of the Night." :)

Re:RAY DAVIES

[CrossChris]

"What I Like About You" should be by the Ramones - it's their style!

Re:RAY DAVIES

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Ramones == US Garage Kinks

Slashdotters unite!

[starglider29a]

Let's all boycott buying Romantics albums!!!

That'll show 'em!

Covers vs. derivative works

[WhiskeyJuvenile]

A cover -has- to sound like the original in order to qualify under the compulsory licensing scheme in America. If the cover reworks the original, it's not a cover but a derivative work, and is infringing.

Re:Covers vs. derivative works

[webmaestro]

Actually, under 17 USC Sec. 115(a)(2) - "A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved..." As long as you keep the melody pretty much the same you could make a rap version of a country song for all the copyright law cares. It's true that it would be considered a derivative if it modifies it extensively, and would therefore not be eligible for compulsory licensing. Likely though, the Guitar Hero song was not under a compulsory license, but a separately negotiated license, such as through the The Harry Fox Agency.

On a similar point, you can make it sound as close to the original as possible, as long as you don't use the actual recording. That is to say you make your own recording. Though you still have to license the underlying musical composition, which is a separate copyright than the recording of the performance. 17 USC 114(b).

Re:Covers vs. derivative works

[Torodung]

Interesting. I wonder what would have happened had Bob Dylan gone after Jimi Hendrix's cover of "All Along the Watchtower?" Would Jimi have had to pull his far superior interpretation off the shelves? Would Dylan have had to have Jimi's permission to perform it the way Jimi did it?

BTW, I think you're mistaken in your concept of derivative works as pertains to music. I don't believe that covers things like tempo and style. You have to be significantly different to produce a derivative work. What is significant is determined in a court. A sample often doesn't even count unless it is determined to be the full basis of the song.

If you were correct, then every cover song ever made would be a lockstep with previous versions, and that clearly isn't the case.

Point is, if you want to make music that way, you had better retain a lawyer and have the money to defend yourself, however. The current status quo can change, in the same way it changed for casual copies of music amongst fans. If it does change, it will have a chilling effect.

--
Toro

Yay bands

[billcopc]

Okay so they're all on smack, which is how they got the idea to sue in the first place, and with the imaginary proceeds from the suit they'll be able to buy even more smack.

How about "FOAD ya one-hit wonder" ? I never understood how you can copyright three chords.

Re:Yay bands

[LurkerXXX]

One hit wonder?

"What I Like About You", the 'hit' song in debate reached #48 in the US.

"Talking In Your Sleep" reached #3.

"One In A Million" reached #37.

Not one hit wonders.

Re:Yay bands

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a song reaches #48 doesn't mean you have a "hit". Ever hear about Top 40 radio stations?

Most people would define a "hit" as a song that reaches the top 10, and that makes them a one hit wonder. Your pathetic list shows that. Talent? More like luck and an audience that wouldn't know good music if it bit them on the ass.

Somebody should have told this band before they started, "Don't quit your day job."

Re:Yay bands

[jonadab]

> I never understood how you can copyright three chords.

Heh.

What would be really great would be if you couldn't copyright music without counterpoint, on account of its being too trivial. Something tells me that particular reform won't be quick in coming, though.

In all seriousness, of course, it isn't the three chords themselves that are copyrightable, but a particular _arrangement_ of the three chords (or, even, just the arrangement of lead notes that form the melody line). That and the lyrics. Not that that low standard makes for good music, or anything, but yeah, it's copyrightable. For much the same reason, the lyrics to (This Song's Just) Six Words Long, and the linguistically challenged songs it parodies, are copyrightable also.

Re:Yay bands

[British]

People probably think that The Romantics are a "one hit wonder" since "What I like about you" gets played endlessly on those tired 80s compilations. Perhaps a better label: "The only song the band is known for". Sadly, most bands get pidgeonholed into being known for just 1 song, and the radio stations enforce it.

Imagine how many people don't know of any songs by Devo OTHER than "Whip it". Yes, kids have to be told that it is Devo singing on that Dell laptop commercial. Sad, really.

Re:Yay bands

[billcopc]

Pachelbel was doing mindless music long before rock ever happened. Maybe we should dig him up and have his reanimated corpse sue the record industry to hell.

Re:Yay bands

[jonadab]

I admit, I'm not very familiar with Pachelbel's work. I'm familiar with Canon in D, of course, which is so ubiquitous it's well neigh impossible to miss, but I try not to judge a composer by his single most famous work, for two reasons.

First, even a great composer can write something that's more popular than it deserves to be and not representative of the rest of his work (e.g., BWV 565, which must be Bach's eighth or tenth most famous work but is FAR from being his eighth or tenth best). Anybody can write drivel occasionally, and hoi polloi can unaccountably latch onto it and just about forget they ever wrote anything else. Romeo and Juliet is perhaps the best example: not only is it easily the weakest of Shakespeare's tragic plays, it's also about five times as popular as the rest of them put together.

Second, it can also go the other way: sometimes an artist really has *one* really good work in him, and once he's written that, the rest of his career consists either of resting on his laurels or else turning out lower-quality works because it's all he can do. Cervantes, having written Don Quixote, was not destined subsequently to write anything else as noteworthy, not for lack of trying.

So without hearing some of his other work, I don't really know what I think of Pachelbel.

Re:Yay bands

[billcopc]

I'm not saying all Pachelbel ever composed was crap. I honestly don't know enough of his work to make any sort of judgement, but the fact remains that the Canon struck me as a very foolish composition, even as a teenager studying music. He just happened to string together a melodic progression that appeals to the common fool, which is why every other rock/pop/punk hit today is just the same dumb Canon with drums and some interchangeable teenage angst vocalists.

For fun, google "Pachelbel Rant". You'll find a funny video that echoes how just about every true music lover feels about Pachelbel and pop music in general. And by music lover I don't mean hip-hop enthusiasts, I mean all music.

Re:Yay bands

[jonadab]

> Pachelbel just happened to string together a melodic progression that appeals to the common fool,
> which is why every other rock/pop/punk hit today is just the same dumb Canon with drums and
> some interchangeable teenage angst vocalists.

Wait, you're running into rock and pop songs with a canon form? We must inhabit different universes altogether. Most of the rock and pop songs I've encountered barely even have harmony. Just about the only counterpoint I've encountered in modern music (aside from a few niche groups (like Haggard) and composers (like Shickele)) is rhondo (a much simpler and less interesting form than canon), and in my experience even rhondo is pretty rare in rock and pop.

What I really like is fugue. BWV 1080 is the stuff.

No way should it be pulled

[edwardpickman]

The point is the game company should have a reasonable expectation that what they were doing was legitimate. Withdrawing the product is an unreasonable action and grossly harms the game company when there is a serious question that they did anything wrong in the first place. Lots of covers of songs sound just like dumbed down versions of the original. The only way they might have a case is if there was a reasonable expectation of confusion and the game company was selling the cover version as a single or part of an album. There's no damages in this case since the record company owns the song and licensed it for use. Go to Las Vegas, there's a bunch of lookalikes doing covers every night of songs and they even dress like the stars to "Create" confusion with the original artist. If they advertised the game as including the Romantics song that could also be grounds since they are using the band's name to help sell games but I take it that isn't the problem. Basically the band got screwed out of money because the record company owns their songs not them. That's the issue not a game company ripping them off.

Re:No way should it be pulled

[mabhatter654]

That's why the Real Elvis isn't out there making money... damn those copycats!

And John Fogherty!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

HE was sued by his old producer - who claimed he plagiarized himself!!!

And less auspiciously: the same was claimed of Nickleback...

Throw the case out

[Thaelon]

Isn't it obvious that the band is just attempting to squeeze money out of the makers of guitar hero?

I guess if you can't get rich, you can sue someone who is.

Romantics History

[bmo]

"presumabley they're trying the "sue for the world, settle out of court for what they really want" tactic."

It's not that. It's "We never got a dime for this shit when it was popular, but now that we have our own stuff back, we'd like to have our contracts followed, thanks"

They got screwed over by Joel Zuckerman and Arnie Tencer and never saw a dime for "What I like about you" when it was popular. All those Molson and Budweiser commercials? Nothing. Zero, zilch. They had to tour for _7 years_ to finance the lawsuit to recoup _something_, and they eventually won judgments but were unable to collect because Zuckerman and Tencer didn't have any visible assets.

The only important thing they got back was control of the original copyrights, many years after being popular.

Given the history of The Romantics, I'm not surprised they're trying to stick up for themselves.

A history lesson:

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=5363

--
BMO

Re:Romantics History

[imsabbel]

Well, maybe they should have used that 7 years earnings to finance a nice life, and not fuel the engines of lawyers...

Re:Romantics History

[p0tat03]

A sad story to be sure, but that doesn't justify them suing someone who is, for all intents and purposes, an innocent party. There are no laws against covering a song - so long as you pay the right royalties to the right places (which I am *sure* Activision isn't dumb enough to forego). If they're not seeing a penny of that, pursue the parties responsible for THAT...

Re:Romantics History

[zenkonami]

I think this all depends on what exactly is what here.

Anyone can make a soundalike recording, no matter how perfect, so long as:
(1) They are clearly marketing to consumers that the song is a soundalike and not the original recording and
(2) They are paying the appropriate royalties for the composition itself.

As stated in another response, the copyright for the sound recording is distinct and separate from the copyright for the composition. As long as Activision has clearly indicated that the song is a soundalike (and can presumably prove that it's a soundalike and not the original sound recording) and are paying royalties on the composition, I believe they are in the clear.

Naturally, IANAL, but you don't always have to be understand law.

Re:Romantics History

[p0tat03]

FYI, the GH games have always had clear delineations between covers and originals. When you start a song, it will show something like "Sweet Child O' Mine - as made famous by Guns N' Roses", for all covers. The lack of "as made famous" indicates an original. IMHO that's plenty clear.

If only Activision had used...

[DreadfulGrape]

more cowbell!

Re:If only Activision had used...

[killermookie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlqLLZQLNiA

3-chord covers

[weighn]

"What I Like About You" is pretty much an early Kinks pastiche.

Ditto Gloria and a million songs that go E-A-D.

According to TFA, the attorneys say that publishing an accurate cover is "infringing on the group's rights to its own likeness".

FFS, we are talking about a 3-chord riff that a child could master in 10 minutes.

can someone explain to them the purpose of a cover song? I hardly think that the makers of GH would want re-interpretations of original songs on their product.

Re:3-chord covers

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

What makes "Gloria" - and all the aforementioned 3-Chorders so great, is the delivery and presence of their presentation.

Van Morrison in '64? Geez! How could this Belfast leprechaun do that?

Re:3-chord covers

[bigjarom]

can someone explain to them the purpose of a cover song? A cover song's purpose is to get a band noticed via a recognizable tune, so they can then peddle their own original crappy songs immediately afterwards. It rarely works though. It DID work for Van Halen with "You Really Got Me." In the context of GH3 though, who cares? It's a video game.

Re:3-chord covers

[Beastmouth]

Maybe if y're in a shit band, I guess.

Re:3-chord covers

[shark72]

"can someone explain to them the purpose of a cover song? I hardly think that the makers of GH would want re-interpretations of original songs on their product."

Sorry -- there's precedent here. If you deliberately do a cover that sounds too much like the original as to cause confusion, you're likely to be sued. Maybe this is one of those cases where the rest of the world really needs a good explainin' from the Slashdot populace, but nonetheless, this is how the rest of the world works for the time being.

For those of you with Westlaw, look up Midler v. Ford Motor Company. Ford hired one of Bette Midler's background singers to do an exact copy of Midler's vocal style on a cover of one of her songs ("Do You Want To Dance") for an ad for the Mercury Sable. They did this because it was cheaper than hiring Midler, so they set out to attempt to confuse the audience. It worked -- I knew people who swore that it was the Bette Midler version. Midler sued; Ford lost.

What the makers of GH want has absolutely no bearing here. What matters is what they are legally entitled to get. If you don't want to pay up to use the original recording, you don't get to record a soundalike. To avoid being sued, you do a re-interpretation, no matter how much you want something that sounds just like the original article, without having to pay for it.

This is little band vs. big corporation here. I can't believe that some people think it should be simple as "explaining" to the band that they have no case because the big company wanted an exact copy of their song, but didn't want to pay for the privelege. Big companies should not have the ability to trample the little guy's rights simply because they "want" something. Sure, it happens enough... but why are Slashdotters suddenly supporting this notion?

Re:3-chord covers

[sethmeisterg]

Excuse me but that's REALLY hard to believe here. I seriously doubt that Harmonix had *intent* to produce a soundalike for this song. If they had, why not do the same for all the other songs? Why big this one shitty song? There are tons more better songs to cover verbatim. In this case (and I do think you have to look for INTENT here), I don't think there's ANY case.

Re:3-chord covers

[mabhatter654]

copyright is copyright... they PAID for a copyright license to the owners of the music and lyrics. That's probably NOT the actual band that made the piece famous. Getting into sound-alikes of 20 year old pieces is a bit silly, the band should have taken what the publishers offered in the first place, even if they win it will all go to lawyers and they'll still put LESS into their pockets. I've seen the box and the artist/tracks are clearly labeled on the OUTSIDE of the package as covers or originals. There is absolutely no misrepresentation going on.

As far as little artist being beat up, I'm sure they were offered fair compensation, but wanted more, like they always do. They signed away the rights to the song and the lyrics years ago, or it wasn't even THEIR song to begin with, they were just performing what somebody else wrote for them. yes, it sucks but that's what happens... EVERYBODY's job is for sale to the low bidder.. just like companies hire Indian programmers to implement YOUR designs that are owned by the company, music is the same thing, it's just a job and some studio guys got a weeks pay to sound like somebody famous, just like a Mexican worker gets paid less instead of a UAW worker to turn a bolt on a car.

Re:3-chord covers

[xigxag]

1) Why the assumption that Activision is the big bad in this case? They may have done a perfectly ordinary cover, and the judge may completely dismiss the Romantics' case. Or not, but it's fairly common for cover artists to try to emulate the original sound.

2) I think it's at least possible the people are objecting to this case not out of a love for Activision, but out of the principle that intellectual property rights should be as least restrictive as possible. That is of high concern to many of us "slashdotters," one which might override concerns about which party is David and which is Goliath.

3) In Midler, there are several facts to the case which may be different from The Romantics.

First, we know for a fact that Ford attempted to negotiate with Midler for her performance and she refused. We don't know that in the case of the Romantics.

Second, Young & Rubicam, the ad agency, admitted at trial that they instructed Midler's backup singer to sound as much as her as possible. There's no evidence of those kinds of machinations here, yet. And even if there were, the law makes clear that "mere imitation of a recorded performance would not constitute a copyright infringement even where one performer deliberately sets out to simulate another's performance as exactly as possible." There has to be more than that -- see below.

Third, at the outset of negotiations, Midler's lawyer asked, "Is it a commercial?" was told yes, and responded, "We are not interested." Clearly Midler did not want her vocals to be considered an endorsement of an advertised product. Perhaps she was opposed to Ford's labor practices or simply preferred BMWs. The point is that a listener might reasonably infer that Midler was endorsing the prodcut through her vocals, and might form an untrue opinion of her character. The Romantics' (apparent) performance in GH does not imply any endorsement of a specific commercial product, and therefore it's possible a court will decide that it is not a misappropriation of their identity, regardless of the degree of verisimilitude.

The text is available online. People can reach their own conclusions.

Re:3-chord covers

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that the company GOT permission from the owners of the song, not somebody else that they then tried to play off as the band. I've not heard it so I don't know "how close is close" but it would seem to me that, unlike your example, the big bad company here wasn't trying to mislead people that it was the original band.

Re:3-chord covers

[random0xff]

So why didn't the little band get a prerelease version of the game so they could check out the cover? Your example of Ford seems to indicate that there was no communication with Middler, she found out when she first saw the commercial maybe. In this case, both parties already had an agreement, seems only natural that the band would receive a copy when it was finished but before the release of the game.

Re:3-chord covers

[ColdSam]

Is your point that the case is baseless and should be thrown out of court? If not, then you seem to have missed the point of the post you're responding to. He's not saying that Activision is "the big bad" nor that Midler validates the Romantics' lawsuit. He's just saying that it is not unreasonable for an artist to object to a cover that is an almost exact copy, that there is a precedent for an artist suing successfully over a cover and that the case should be taken seriously.

Re:3-chord covers

[daBass]

That they are three simple chords isn't really the issue here; there are tonnes of musicians out there that can play a song the same as "the original".

Much more important here is most likely the work of the recording and mixing engineers (and not to mention the instrument technicians, keyboard programmers, etc.) that managed to make it *sound* the same as the original recording.

That said, I agree it should not make a difference, a cover is a cover and the *sound* of the recording is not copyrighted, only the music and the recording itself.

A couple of years back I read an interview in "Sound on Sound" with a producer of cover music for use in commercials that specialized in copying the sound. Quite often, the advertiser wanted an original song but could not get a license at any price. More than once, when the rights holders heard the re-recording sounding almost indistinguishable from the original they relented and decided they might as well get paid for it and allowed the original to be used.

Interestingly, the same technique applies to "Greatest Hits" albums by label-hopping artists. A prime example is Tina Turner's greatest hits that contain only original recordings from one label and the rest are remakes that sound almost exactly the same as the originals. In studying the liner notes, you can see all the same musicians on all tracks, all recorded in the same place by the same people - different ones from those that did the original recoding.

Re:3-chord covers

[Cylix]

What is extra interesting to note.

With GH II and GH III, you can discern a cover from the original artist by the title

Covers are refered to, As Made Famous By and I believe original recordings simply state the band.

Dunno, might save them in court, but it really isn't up to me to decide.

Re:3-chord covers

[MarkAyen]

Aren't situations like this the reason we use contracts? Without seeing the provisions of the actual contract, speculation as to who's in the right is pointless.

TFA certainly doesn't have enough information to reach anything like a reasoned conclusion. Either party could be in the right. That said, it seems to me that the contract language would have to be pretty specific for the Romantics to have any kind of legal basis for their complaint.

Re:3-chord covers

[sacrilicious]

Third, at the outset of negotiations, Midler's lawyer asked, "Is it a commercial?" was told yes, and responded, "We are not interested." Clearly Midler did not want her vocals to be considered an endorsement of an advertised product. Perhaps she was opposed to Ford's labor practices or simply preferred BMWs. The point is that a listener might reasonably infer that Midler was endorsing the prodcut through her vocals, and might form an untrue opinion of her character. The Romantics' (apparent) performance in GH does not imply any endorsement of a specific commercial product, and therefore it's possible a court will decide that it is not a misappropriation of their identity, regardless of the degree of verisimilitude.

Agreed. To me, this third point is the most damning to whatever case the Romantics might have.

I find myself wondering: what damages do the Romantics suppose they have endured? Given that they were prepared to have their song covered in the game, the only motivation for suing that I can think of is that the Romantics don't like the idea the world might think that the actual Romantics participated in the making of the game... because (and I'm grabbing at straws here) that might mean the Romantics are washed up? But if game players assume they're hearing the Romantics, I don't think game players would notice or care, at least not to the Romantics' detriment. The songs making it onto the game are arguably the greats/classics... GH isn't looking to include crap, for obvious reasons. And there's no reason to suppose that the Romantics played the song again instead of simply giving access to the originally recorded tracks anyhow.

I just don't get where the Romantics are coming from on this. It's what I dislike about them. Won't keep me home at night though.

Re:3-chord covers

[Anonymous Coward]

This begs a question, I can see if the song was not granted rights by the band, but if the band saays yes and then turns around and says no, does that constitue victory in this case for the band? My guess would be no...

Re:3-chord covers

[NoobHunter]

The issue with your argument here is that GH is not out to confuse people into believing that the song is the real thing...hence the difference between "Song Title by Band" and "Song Title made famous by Band" They identify clearly and to anyone that plays the game, it is mostly common knowledge that any song where it is listed as Made Famous by is a cover... I am hard pressed to see a relation between the Ford commercial and this. As I understand, Ford did not advertise the song not being Midler.

Re:3-chord covers

[WeeLad]

IANAGH (I am not a Guitar Hero), but I am in a Rock Band . In that game at least, the covered songs are differentiated from the actual artist songs by some text saying "Made popular by". If Guitar Hero does something to the same effect, would that be enough to not "deliberately mislead the audience"? (At least according to the slashdot population's interpretation of the law).

Re:3-chord covers

[Samuel_Gompers]

""What I Like About You" is pretty much an early Kinks pastiche.
Ditto Gloria and a million songs that go E-A-D...."

"Baby Please Don't Go"/"Gloria" was actually released a couple of months before "You Really Got Me" (the Kinks' first non-cover single and first real hit) in summer 1964.

Re:3-chord covers

[_pi-away]

Another aspect here: in the case being referred to the issue was that it was so close it created confusion. However in all of the GH games it is made very clear at the beginning of the song whether it is a cover or not. Real songs are "by," and covers are "as made famous by," i.e. :

Welcome to the Jungle
by Guns N' Roses

vs.

What I like about you
as made famous by The Romantics

Given this, I don't really see how The Romantics can reasonably claim customer confusion.

Re:3-chord covers

[purplenoise]

You seem to assume that Activision reinterpreted the song as a means to avoid copyright infringement. The truth is they have a signed agreement granting permission to make the sound alike version of the song, and one would hope (IDK) that such an agreement reflects the spirit of their intention: To make the sound alike sound, well, alike!

Re:3-chord covers

[AK Marc]

as made famous by The Romantics
Given this, I don't really see how The Romantics can reasonably claim customer confusion.

Well, what should the legal standard be? If I saw just that line and nothing else, and being familiar with the version by The Romantics, and if the song is sufficiently similar as to cause confusion, I would probably think that it meant it was The Romantics' version of the song, but that it was written by someone else, probably credited in the game manual. So, is it "reasonable man" standard? That's what's most commonly used. If so, I would think that it would fail the test, indicating that it was purposefully confusing people. But that's the opinion that neither knows nor cares how Guitar Hero attributes their songs and how such attributions appear.

Re:3-chord covers

[AK Marc]

The Romantics' (apparent) performance in GH does not imply any endorsement of a specific commercial product, and therefore it's possible a court will decide that it is not a misappropriation of their identity, regardless of the degree of verisimilitude.

I understand the rest of your arguments and don't have the background to argue the legal points, but I must ask for clarification on this one. How do you think that a performance of The Romantics (if they had done it themselves) inside a videogame is not an endorsement of the videogame itself? Being an integral part of a commercial product seems to me to be de facto endorsement. As such, with quick deposition of the performers and if they were ordered to replicate a performance rather than add their own artistic flair, it seems this would very much mimic Midler.

Re:Guitar Queer-o

[Psychor]

I admit it, you're the most macho guy on Slashdot. You can go back to picking out decor now.

paying for covers is horse shit anyway

[timmarhy]

No one should ahve to pay for covers on a song anyway. it's your own creation written by someone else.

It went Wii, Wii, Wii

[Eccles]

The band's attorneys have indicated that they are seeking an injunction that would force the game to be withdrawn from sale.

I've been trying to buy the Wii version for the kids; as far as I can tell, they've succeeded.

Re:It went Wii, Wii, Wii

[Osty]

I've been trying to buy the Wii version for the kids; as far as I can tell, they've succeeded.

If you've been trying to buy Rock the 80s for Wii, you've got a much longer wait than you think. That game was only released on PS2.

Re:It went Wii, Wii, Wii

[DeathElk]

Lucky us in Australia, I picked up GHIII for Wii two weeks ago, introductory special at BigW (== oz walmart?), for AUD$98 (about US$85), rrp AUD$159.95. "Have fun" said the checkout lady. I did.

Re:It went Wii, Wii, Wii

[Phishcast]

As referenced in the parent's sig, methinks you need a sarcasm detector.

In Other News, Milli Vanilli Sues Rock Band Game

[Skeetskeetskeet]

Saying that the in-game character lip syncs "Girl You Know Its True" better than they did.

Decide for yourself

[garett_spencley]

I found these clips on Youtube:

The Original
Guitar Hero Version

Re:Decide for yourself

[Firethorn]

Having listened to both versions, besides seeming to have different mixing ratios (guitar was realllly emphasized in hero), I find myself having to ask: What do they need for it to not count as 'too close'? I mean - I'll admit that the main singer in hero was close, but I can tell the differences in side by side.

Having watched some of those karaoke and band shows on the tube* today, I know that there are people who can get scarily close when they imitate some popular bands.

I have no problems believing that a good cover band, selected somewhat selectively to imitate a popular song, being fully capable of 'scary imitation'. IE what else were they expecting? Their number turned into a rap song? For the cover band to suck, for a major production?

A cover band was probably needed as suitably separated/isolated recordings didn't exist for the song, and the band is no longer capable of playing it to their old level. We are talking about an '80s band here, and not one that's kept up either.

*Weird thought: How long until people won't know what that means?

Re:Decide for yourself

[rufty_tufty]

And if they did a bad cover then they could have sued for 'defamation of character' or some other such nonsense.
i.e. they'd probably have claimed that guitar hero was making them look bad if a poor cover was done. Either way they try and make money even though they previously agreed rights.

Those who can do, those who can't sue.

Re:Decide for yourself

[luke2063]

the tube* ... *Weird thought: How long until people won't know what that means
My initial thoughts were that you meant YouTube!

lolz

[thatskinnyguy]

If I were The Romantics, I would be flattered and take it as a complement that people are still willfully listening to my music... let-alone featuring it in a very popular game.

IP law insanity

[bzipitidoo]

This is what is so crazy about "intellectual property". Every one of the songs in Guitar Hero is grounds for a potential winning lawsuit. It is extremely difficult to round up all the permissions necessary to put together something like Guitar Hero. The Beatles did it for the cover of Sgt. Pepper, and it was a lot of time and work. Don't know who else has tried something like that. Maybe no one. I expect a whole lot of people wish they could have. Wonder how different art would be if not for this sort of thing. And that's just getting permission from all those copyright holders. Doesn't even begin to cover all the patents the software and hardware probably violated.

Then we have this ridiculous threat that Guitar Hero may have to be pulled from the shelves! Sounds eerily similar to the threat to shut down RIM's Blackberry network, or the death injunctions that Vonage is facing. It's as if Solomon actually chopped the baby in half to settle that particular dispute. Or heck, why stop there-- execute the baby and both women! What's with the courts even entertaining such destruction of value as a "remedy"? Assess fines, don't do this scorched earth idiocy.

Is the band being scummy, or is it that the law is so twisted this is the best way they can get something after being screwed by the labels? I don't know, but for users it's like you're just minding your own business, maybe playing a video game in the security of your own home, when bullets come flying in from a random drive-by shooting, nail the TV and break a few other things. The band is like the shooters-- what's a little collateral damage next to revenge on that gang of sharks and the whole world of crap that enabled this?

Re:IP law insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

It is extremely difficult to round up all the permissions necessary to put together something like Guitar Hero No, no it's not.
Compulsory licensing for cover versions means that it's very easy.

Anyone can produce a cover of a song, without the original artist's permission - they just pay a standard fee / royalty to a rights clearing house who will then pass it on to the artists.

Of course, if you _want_ to, you can contact the artists first and arrange different terms, but you don't have to.

This I cannot believe - very murky business!

[zuki]

After over 30 years working in publishing and recording, I must confess that I had never, ever heard of such a frivolous assertion.

This is one of the most bizarre, convoluted claims one could imagine, as there clearly is no law preventing people from sticking close
to a song's original arrangement and sounds in a cover version, and arguably no way to prove, or no standards ever established to
define where things could be 'too close for comfort', or what would in turn constitute enough of a difference to be safe.
Matters here are not a case of impersonation, it's more just a bunch of musos with solid chops playing well, and 'nailing it' in the studio.

Also, isn't the whole Karaoke business built on recording cover versions that stick so close to the original as to make them indistinguishable?

In theory, - if I were the game's publisher -, I would go to trial on this, as there is no legal set precedent that I have ever heard of.
However, before rushing to do so, there are two interesting bits to consider here, both gleaned from reading the excellent article linked on the band's history:

• This band is one of the rare winners of any lawsuit to regain ownership of their own compositions, and may feel emboldened by this fact.
• They managed to retain the services of a top-flight lawyer who didn't seem to flinch at the idea of taking up a long and drawn-out uphill battle on contingency.

So as far as the band, thinking that they've already won once in court, they may decide to stick it out, truly thinking that they'll do so again.
From a legal perspective, if this went to trial, and some moronic jury actually awarded hem damages, think of the chilling effect such
a precedent would have on the whole 'cover version' process, and incidentally to this game publisher's gravy train franchise.

What's to then stop another aging rock star to show up at one of your gigs as a cover band, and sue you claiming that you're too close to their original?

So perhaps, there's a pragmatic legal counsel at the game publisher's headquarters that will make the suggestion that it might be better to shut them up
(by offering them a sealed out-of-court settlement for a few millions, out of the $115,000,000.00 they recently made in the first seven days their newest
game was offered for sale!) than risk turning the whole 'cover version' business upside down, which could cost them and everyone else heaps more,
and might well become one of the worst legal precedents ever set.

After thinking back on all of these ideas, the band's strategy might not be anywhere as bad as what any layperson thinks.

Rather than to risk setting the precedent, the game's publisher may just push to settle this one quickly for undisclosed terms out of the public's eye....
If they don't, all of this could hinge on 10 morons serving jury duty, and who will vindicate the band by just trying to quickly have the trial over
with, and get back to their normal lives rather than agonizing in court for what could turn out to be weeks of boring deliberations.

Oh, yeah!... IANAL, and all of the other disclaimers too.

Z.

Re:This I cannot believe - very murky business!

[shark72]

"I would go to trial on this, as there is no legal set precedent that I have ever heard of."

Good thing you're not their counsel, then. In Midler v. Ford Motor Company, the 9th circuit court held:

"When a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed a tort in California."

Ford had tried the same shenanigans that Activision is apparently doing: they didn't want to pay to use Bette Midler's original recording, so they hired one of her background singers to create an exact sound-alike, in an effort to confuse listeners.

Then there's Waits v. Frito-Lay -- That's Waits as in Tom Waits. That also went to the 9th circuit court, and Tom Waits got something in the area of $2MM. The decision is a fascinating 16 pages if you truly have an interest in learning more about this area of the law; it covers the Midler decision as well.

The bad news for Activision is that they're in California, so this will likely also go go the 9th circuit court.

The bottom line is that there's a huge difference between paying for the rights to do a cover, and making a recording that is designed to fool people into thinking it's somebody else. Companies have been nailed for doing this before, and it'll happen again. The Romantics are asserting that Activision is trying to do just that.

You lost me with your talk of "setting precedents", "worst legal precedents ever set," etc. I think you used the word "precedent" four or five times in the post. In reality, the opposite is the case: there's already plenty on the books to make it look not so good for Activision.

Re:This I cannot believe - very murky business!

[zenkonami]

Doesn't the question come down entirely, then, on whether or not Activision has clearly stated that the song is a soundalike? I don't own that particularly copy of Guitar Hero, but I do recall reading either on a label or perhaps in game that some of the songs were not original recordings (in more specific detail per song.)

If Activision has clearly stated this then it could certainly be asserted that they are not setting out to fool people into thinking it's somebody else.

Of course, I don't have all the facts on this case, but so far as what's being discussed on reliable old Wikip...er...Slashdot, that's my understanding of the law.

Re:This I cannot believe - very murky business!

[SEE]

The question becomes, then, is Activision actually "making a recording that is designed to fool people into thinking it's somebody else", or did they just want a cover and it happens that the cover artists did a (perhaps too-) good job?

In the cases of both Ford and Frito-Lay, there was an obvious effort to associate the singer with the product by using their song and a sound-alike, to create the impression that the singer was voluntarily associated with the product advertised. Confusing listeners was clearly an aim of the effort.

This is a different case. Activision has mostly used cover versions for Guitar Hero; there was never any apparent effort to give the implication that the artists were associating themselves with the game. You don't even hear the cover of the song unless you've already bought the game. It is possible that Activision wanted to confuse players of the game as to who did the song so that word-of-mouth would entice Romantics fans to buy the game, but that seems far-fetched.

Oh, and the Romantics apparently filed in Detroit, so the circuit will be the Sixth, not the Ninth.

Re:This I cannot believe - very murky business!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't, all of this could hinge on 10 morons serving jury duty, and who will vindicate the band by just trying to quickly have the trial over with, and get back to their normal lives rather than agonizing in court for what could turn out to be weeks of boring deliberations.

I'm a little offended by your opinion that there would be 10 morons on the jury . Having sat in jury three times (2 DUI, 1 murder), I can tell you that I along with everyone else impaneled took our duty of judging the case very seriously, and did weigh the evidence presented and based our verdicts on intelligent debate.

It's people like you, IMHO, that duck their responsibility, and bad mouth the legal system, who are the real morons.

Re:This I cannot believe - very murky business!

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Rather than to risk setting the precedent, the game's publisher may just push to settle this one quickly for undisclosed terms out of the public's eye.... If they don't, all of this could hinge on 10 morons serving jury duty, and who will vindicate the band by just trying to quickly have the trial over with, and get back to their normal lives rather than agonizing in court for what could turn out to be weeks of boring deliberations.

As an American who has twice served on juries (most recently was 2 years ago), I totally agree with you. All bets are off if this goes to a jury. For those of you who aren't Americans or have never served on a jury, let me assure you that juries are not made up of our best and brightest. Most jury members are guys who work as construction laborers, stay at home moms who got their "Mrs. degree" 20+ years ago and retired people. You're going to get no more than 3 people at most on any jury with tech skills of any kind. Most jury people can barely send email. Some can't even do that. Nobody really wants to be there and there is tremendous pressure to reach a verdict and get the heck out of there. A decent number of people will be self-employed and every day they serve on a jury means lost pay. They will agree with anybody just to get out. All it takes is 1 self-righteous nitwit (both juries I served on had one of these people) who is obsessed with rules and wants to punish evil-doers and then you have that guy arguing for the most severe penalty possible, several people who agree just to get out so they can go back to work and earn money, and you end up with a system that is designed to reach a quick verdict, but not necessarily a fair or just one. Anything can happen when a case gets a jury trial. Even though logically it makes no sense for The Romantics to win this case and the ramifications of them winning would be devastating to a lot of people, I can certainly see how a jury full of moronic self-employed truck drivers just wants to get out of there. When 1 loud mouthed guy wants to "stick it to The Man and stand up for the little guy", they go along with it because it has no impact on their lives whoever wins and they don't mind making the loud mouthed guy happy because they think that maybe the band does have a point and they've been screwed over before, so why not help them out?

Keep in mind too that The Romantics had exactly 2 hit singles and their album sales were fairly poor, so these guys almost certainly aren't millionaires. This may be their last shot at big money and while it is incredibly greedy for them to do this, I doubt they care because they just see it as their last big paycheck.

Re:This I cannot believe - very murky business!

[danzona]

Doesn't the question come down entirely, then, on whether or not Activision has clearly stated that the song is a soundalike? I don't own that particularly copy of Guitar Hero, but I do recall reading either on a label or perhaps in game that some of the songs were not original recordings (in more specific detail per song.)

What Activision does is display "by Aerosmith" or "as made famous by The Romantics" on the splash screen for the song when it starts.

Greedy lawyers and clients

[knorthern knight]

WTF is a "cover version" SUPPOSED to sound like? As long as they got appropriate permisiions under contract, Activision shouldn't be subjected this crap.

If this crap was in effect in the 1950's and 1960's, Chubby Checker would never have gotten anywhere with his cover of a Hank Ballard and the Midnighters B-side called "The Twist". I'm an oldies afficianado, and I have a hard time telling the two records apart. The average person could listen to the two versions, and not know which was which.

Re:Greedy lawyers and clients

[pommiekiwifruit]

Hank Ballard and the Midnighters B-side called "The Twist"

Did he change his name to Jive Bunny afterwards? ;-)

not totally unrelated?

[justinlee37]

In not totally-unrelated news you can download the Mjolnir mix of the Halo theme for play on GHIII, free, today.

That has about, oh, NOTHING to do with the article. Thanks for using slashdot to plug your website, wanker.

Bargin Bin Music

[Anonymous Coward]

The artist is given credit in the game(which i own and enjoy) the cover is not made available besides on the game disc and if i really wanted to get the song i'm sure i could dig around in the 2.99$bin at (random music store) or (random -mart)

Well maybe...

[whatevah]

..maybe "The Romantics" are on "Heroine Hero" and have lost touch with the reality.

Re:Well maybe...

[EEBaum]

Is "Heroine Hero" some sort of gender-bender game?

Re:Well maybe...

[whatevah]

From one of the last episodes of southpark. It's called "Guitar Queer-oh". It makes fun of "guitar hero" of course.

I think I speak for everyone when I say...

[sethmeisterg]

Fuck these fucking scumbag leeches.

More Suits

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does it end? How about suing everyone else who have used those three chords? Mellencamp's for "The Authority Song" springs to mind.

Romantics have bullied people before

[chipasd]

Check out this story by well-known songwriter Jim Vallance, about what The Romantics thought of the song "Teacher, Teacher" that he co-wrote with .38 Special.

Identity theft - music stylee

[zuki]

I think that (in my mind at least) there is a VAST difference between having ONE piece of music and selling a product with it,
therefore making it the centerpiece of the presentation, as in Bette Midler's case.

Ford had tried the same shenanigans that Activision is apparently doing: they didn't want to pay to use Bette Midler's original recording,
so they hired one of her background singers to create an exact sound-alike, in an effort to confuse listeners.

In this case, gamers are playing along something that if you make a wrong move doesn't even let them hear the guitar line, and is
a very small part of the overall package of forty to sixty-odd other songs included in the game, certainly not the centerpiece.

They should be thankful theirs even got picked to be included in the package, and being able to reap the windfall of gigs and other
perks that usually come from gaining exposure on such a large scale, to a generation who would never otherwise know who they (are) were.
Not to worry, if there is in fact a lawsuit, surely it will discourage others to dabble with remaking any more songs from their catalog.

What would the difference have been? Instead of commissioning someone to go into the studio to record the piece, Activision would have
had to pay a pro-rated royalty for the use of the band's original master recording?

Although superstar-caliber entertainers can probably leverage those opportunities into large advances, those fees customarily never amount ,
to much for over-the-hill bands with 3 Top 40 hit songs 20 years ago, from my limited experience in the game licensing field.

On a personal level, I find that these kinds of tactics are revolting, and makes me less and less proud to have once been part of a vibrant business
now obviously on its last legs, to have to resort to such crass tactics.

Mind you, it'll generate a fair amount of free publicity.... never mind, it makes sense when looking at it from that angle.

Z.

Slower and crappier than the org.

[Anonymous Coward]

The GH version is slower and even crappier than the org. Perhaps that's why their suing? Anyway, Activision should release a patch that gimps away the song, regardless of how the lawsuit goes. That way they take the moral high ground. 'You wanted it gone, and now it is...'

Re:Slower and crappier than the org.

[Blackwulf]

Right now Rocks The 80's is only out for the PS2, so no patching capabilities.

Heh

[Cafe Alpha]

Mod Parent Funny

Good old-fashioned Headline Grab

[Jim in Buffalo]

1. Pretend to give a crap about something someone is doing with your music
2. Sue the person or invite a camera crew to watch you hand-deliver a cease-and-desist order
3. ????
4. Profit!

The Tube

[crimperman]

What does the London Underground have to do with this?

Re:The Tube

[Firethorn]

Heh. In this context, we're talking about 'tube' or longer 'boob tube' IE television.

But that's why Guitar Hero sucks to begin with

[Khyber]

The moment I heard the horrible covers of songs like Symphony of Destruction and Laid to Rest, I went and returned the game.

Seriously, listening to a song that awesome that has become that badly mangled (not to mention I have those songs memorized and can play them on a real guitar) by a cover band immediately turned me off to the game. Why couldn't the game studios just ask for access to the original multitrack parts? Seriously, any studio worth it's salt should have separate tracks for a mixdown, from vocals to drums to guitars. Would it have been that hard to get the music as it was originally written, instead of a mangled cover-band version?

Re:But that's why Guitar Hero sucks to begin with

[purplenoise]

why wouldn't they ask for access to the original multi-track parts? they DO! But they don't always succeed. It's not always a matter of whether the multi-track masters are available.

80s band looking for more money...

[Firethorn]

This is basically what I said in my first post on this thread. ;)

The band agreed to a price to get their song in the game. Now they're looking for more money, filing a lawsuit for no good reason.

The injunction against selling is part of the tipoff - that's to cost the company money as punishment. (It would have been cheaper to settle before we did this!).

Still by the Danegeld theory, it's cheaper to fight the occasional fight like this, because if you just pay, you never get rid of the Dane(them, and others like them, keep coming back for more money because you're an easy target).

Re: Umm you're forgetting something

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting one important fact: Copyright law has a specific provision for cover songs, whereby there are automatic royalties due. That's why bands are even permitted to perform covers. The fees are already set in stone and pretty much mandatory.

screw you article summary!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can download whatever I want for free any time I want!

Thanks Alot SlashDot

[MrCopilot]

Now I have subjected myself to listening to that damn song two more times.

My Conclusion, They are completely distinguishable from one another, and both still suck.

Guitar Hero makes it harder to play than it is on a real Guitar.

The great thing about this is my wife looking at me strangely, (She knows my taste pretty well) when hearing it come from the computer then shrugging, then an even more puzzled look for the second version, trying to understand why anyone would play that song, let alone twice in a row. I didn't tell her, Ya got keep the mystery in a relationship.

Meh...GH sucks anyway

[Robber Baron]

Why don't you luser "guitar hero" wannabees learn to play a real guitar for fucksakes?
Oh yeah...that takes effort and a little talent and artistic ability.

Re:Meh...GH sucks anyway

[Le Marteau]

I know several real musicians who think Guitar Hero is plenty of fun. Personally, I play classical guitar, but I think Guitar Hero is a blast. I get to play stuff I would never consider playing in real life.

Re:Meh...GH sucks anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't yet played GH, but I play guitar for real. From what I can tell, GH is mostly a rhythm game. Kind of like Dance Dance Revolution - except people who don't get enough exercise can still play and have fun.

I could actually see GH as being beneficial practice for real guitar, because you have to stay relentlessly on time. A lot of people who just play guitar at home for their own amusement don't play songs from beginning to end, and have trouble with timing when they play with other musicians. GH sort of forces you to keep time and play the whole songs (even if it's just button pressing and hitting the weird strum control).

Re:Guitar Queer-o

[SCPRedMage]

No, God hates people who claim that God hates someone.

Er, wait a second...

Re:Is Activision that stupid?

[metroid composite]

There are no laws against covering a song - so long as you pay the right royalties to the right places (which I am *sure* Activision isn't dumb enough to forego).

Activision fears being sued by graffiti artists. Activision fears doing parodies because videogames are still legally classified under "toys" rather than "art" so don't receive the same level of free speech protection as TV shows and movies. Activision is very lawsuit paranoid; they wouldn't make such a simple mistake.

Greedy Romantics...

[rtechie]

The reality here is that Harmonix/Actvision negotiated with the Romantics to use their original recordings. The Romantics wanted a shitload of money for the song. So Harmonix/Activision negotiated to record a cover version (at their expense) for less money. The Romantics bide their time waiting for the game to be released and then sue claiming the cover THEY AGREED TO EARLIER was "too similar" to their original.

There's history here. The Romantics are one of the most whorish bands in history, licensing "What I like About You" and their other hits to everyone under the sun. Unfortunately, during the 80s they spent most of their time partying and their management ran off with much of the profits. So they've spent the past 15 years suing the crap out of everyone because of the way they mismanaged their music.

Basically, they're just trying to extort Activision/Harmonix for more money because they're a one-hit-wonder band that still lives by milking the few hits they had in the 80s.