Slashdot Mirror


Deadmau5 Accuses Disney of Pirating His Music

An anonymous reader writes After Disney objected to musician Joel Zimmerman [aka Deadmau5]'s trademark application in the U.S. (his logo is already properly trademarked in many other countries), a battle of trademarks and copyrights ensued. Apparently, Disney was (URL has since been disabled, as per DMCA law requires) hosting a video containing a remix of music which Zimmerman claims ownership of. Not only that, but the Deadmau5 logo was prominently displayed next to said video. The mouse fight was on and a few hours ago Deadmau5 retaliated with a rather surprising counter attack. As it turns out, Disney is hosting a Deadmau5 video on their website, without permission. "Disney prominently features the deadmau5 Mark next to the Infringing Video. implying a non-existent endorsement by Zimmerman," the letter reads. "Again. we are unaware of any license allowing you the right to reproduce, distribute or otherwise exploit the deadmau5 Mark or to exploit Zimmerman's name and likeness in connection with same." At the time of writing Disney hasn't complied with the request, but it seems that they have no other option than to comply. Whether it will change anything in their stance towards the DJ's mouse ear trademark application is doubtful though.

137 comments

  1. hmmm by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Funny

    on the one hand, we have a guy who wears a mouse head, dances, and hits "play" and gets paid major for using other peoples music

    than, there is disney

    what side am I supposed to be on here???

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:hmmm by reanjr · · Score: 5, Informative

      we have a guy who wears a mouse head, dances, and hits "play" and gets paid major for using other peoples music

      At some point, you may want to look up the difference between a producer and DJ.

    2. Re:hmmm by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      yes I know, I was simply making a joke. his work is actually damn good, but the idea of going to watch a dj perform to me is just kind of strange.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:hmmm by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's even more confusing than you think.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:hmmm by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The winning side: Lawyers!

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:hmmm by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      Or don't support any of it and get your music at places like Ektoplazm http://www.ektoplazm.com/ then you don't have to give a fuck about any problems some artist might have with entertainment companies.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    6. Re:hmmm by sillybilly · · Score: 3, Funny

      No kidding. That reminds me the joke: what's the difference between a hooker and a lawyer? The hooker stops screwing you when you're dead.

    7. Re:hmmm by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      hes also a DJ you coward, they are in no way mutually exclusive

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The side that knows how to spell "then", you fuckwit.

    9. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At some point, you may want to look up the difference between a producer and DJ

      They're both people making money off other people's music. Same difference.

    10. Re:hmmm by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      At some point you may want to look up deadmaus DJ'ing while wearing a mouse head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    11. Re:hmmm by Pubstar · · Score: 2

      There is a difference between someone who DJs and someone who does a Live PA. Deadmau5 does Live PAs, and does not DJ.

    12. Re:hmmm by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      On the one hand we have a prolific entity that hides behind a mouse head and makes tons of money ripping off other people's ideas..
      On the other hand, there's Deadmau5.

      The richer one lobbies Congress to extend copyright protection - may it get properly skewered.

    13. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which one is the douche standing on a stage holding a headphone can against an ear with one hand and pointing at the ceiling with the other?

    14. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q. What's brown and black and looks good on a lawyer?

      A. A pack of Dobermans.

    15. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People go to get high and dance. That's why you don't see many people sitting in chairs just watching him...

    16. Re:hmmm by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      Come now, not all lawyers are shysters and scumbags. It is only a small group of them that make the other 5% look bad.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    17. Re:hmmm by ichthus · · Score: 1

      He's a producer you halfwit. Not a DJ

      So... is he producing when he wears the mouse head? On a stage?

      --
      sig: sauer
    18. Re:hmmm by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I think one should make Disney pay dearly for extending copyrights but since we can't fight them via the law, maybe we should try some culture jamming instead?

      For an example we need to fill the net with links and images so if somebody uses a search engine for "Mickey Mouse" instead of the clean sanitary Disney version they get the broken down whored out Taco-Man version? Bonus if they come with his catch phrase "I'll suck your dick for $10".

      Its obvious that Disney will just keep buying congresscritters until copyrights last for eternity so it looks like the only thing left to do is just shit all over the mouse, make the mouse so lame Disney can't reap endless profits without penalty by whoring the mouse out for eternity.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re: hmmm by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      If they don't point up towards the air, how are you supposed to know where to throw your hands towards?

    20. Re:hmmm by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The line between producer and DJ isn't as sharp as it used to be. What would you call this?

      I've seen a video of deadmau5 at work. While I (of course!) can't find it now, he was using something similar to achieve the same.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    21. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do I have to throw my hands? It was hard enough to find my clean and lice-free cap at graduation... I don't want to end up with a hand that has been masturbating without showering...

    22. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure deadmau5 plays anything other than his own music, unless he's making a joke (e.g. that Avicii track that he mashed up with something I can't remember)

    23. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they don't point up towards the air, how are you supposed to know where to throw your hands towards?

      Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm pretty sure you've got that wrong. If the DJ is waving his/her hand in the air, then the logical inference would be to throw your hands in the air (with the presupposition that you just don't care). However, if the DJ is pointing his/her hand up into the air, one should be careful to not jump to any conclusions, and first verify whether the roof (the roof, the roof) is on fire!

    24. Re:hmmm by Greeninja · · Score: 1

      It's all about the party! Plus, some of the light effects, especially on his stage setup are pretty fun to watch.

    25. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Both sides steal other people's stuff to make their money and the end result of Disney "movies" and DeadmauFive's "music" is it's all complete crap. You'd think they'd be collaborating on some crap project.

    26. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are clueless. A DJ is someone who remixes and/or does live composition. Why the fuck do you think they all use Ableton?

      As far as Dead Mau 5 is concerned, he's pretty piss poor compared to the greats like Armin, Moby, PvD, Digweed, Sasha, Orbital, BT and Infected Mushroom.

  2. Enlightenment strikes by david.given · · Score: 2
    ...I now finally understand what the roof-top party scene in Goat Simulator is all about.

    Thanks, Disney!

  3. This is what the US has become by Redbehrend · · Score: 0

    Let's all fight and sue each other giving all the money to lawyers that then ship it off shore lol. To fight Disney on anything mouse related is just dumb not to mention as they aquire even more that's a pretty big bridge to burn in entertainment...

    1. Re:This is what the US has become by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To fight Disney on anything mouse related is just dumb

      What???? So as Disney is the biggest, baddest mouse then noone should fight them?
      What if disney decided they wanted to license mousetraps or pest control companies?

      Trademark law generally allows entities in different areas to have similiar trademarks as long as they are non overlaping.
      Fighting them (although because of their size will be difficult) should be encouraged.
      Ignoring for a moment that Mickey Mouse should be public domain by now, allowing companies blanket use
      of generic things like "the mouse", "windows", "the like button", "the buy it now button", etc... is a quick way to have
      megacorporations eliminate what little remains of competition.

    2. Re: This is what the US has become by Redbehrend · · Score: 1

      Not saying it's right but he has nothing to beat Disney with... I'm a fan of him since he had no money on YouTube. . If you take out the lights it's the same shape.. It's like trying to beat apple with a apple logo lol
      He should have changed it some, did you see the pictures of the footprints?
      On top of all this he started by using songs he had no rights to... Now that his money is involved he's all about it? He wouldn't be where he is if he paid for every song he used...

    3. Re:This is what the US has become by Zeio · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Agree. They should be fought. Their copyright extension act is unconstitutional as it violates equal protection of laws. However, the oligarchical collectivists enjoy total control over the laws in the USSA Police state.

      Deadmouse is, however, an un-original riff ripping repetitive douche and would be a bad rallying point for this cause.

      A good treatment of US crappyright law is here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      Generally totally favors drug, software and media companies and screws everyone else.

      --
      Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    4. Re: This is what the US has become by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that Disney will argue that the proposed Deadmau5 trademark is in their line of business - videos and the music industry. At the end of the day, you have to acknowledge that there is considerable similarity between the Mickey's silhouette and the Deadmau5 head. Whether the similarities are close enough to cause confusion in the marketplace is at the heart of this complaint. There is another factor at play, too. If it can be shown that then trade dress is genericized -- that is, consumers don't automatically relate the mouse silhouette to Mickey, it may be possible to invalidate Disney trademarks. The result would be a free-for-all that would allow companies to offer their own bigeared mouse characters in the US. (The DMCA takedown complaint is a different animal that's not directly related to the trademark challenge, unless Disney is planning to claim that they couldn't see the difference and believed that Mickey and the stage outfit of an EDM producer).

    5. Re: This is what the US has become by suutar · · Score: 1

      That image in particular has as close to zero chance for confusion as anything. The color is different, the ear size and placement is different, and the white areas are way different.

      A more stylized version like this is closer, but the white areas are still very distinctive.

      I can see where an image _derived_ from his mark (by removing the white areas) could be confusable with a Disney mark, even though the ears are different. But the mark itself seems pretty non-ambiguous to me.

      On the other hand, I am not a lawyer, and it will unfortunately not surprise me at all if one manages to convince a judge that they are too similar.

    6. Re:This is what the US has become by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      The first recordings that included Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain at this point, yes, but there's no reason whatsoever why Mickey Mouse as a trademark couldn't and shouldn't remain valid in the fields for which it has been registered, if it remains in use. Trademarks != copyrights.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    7. Re: This is what the US has become by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Not saying I like it but I think his outfit is fine. Why is his logo black though if his outfit is red?
      If his logo would have also been red he probably would have never attracted the disney police.

    8. Re: This is what the US has become by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it might even be worse with the lights- reminiscent of Mickey's buttons. If it weren't merely the opposition stage, that'd definitely have been in Disney's opening broadside.

    9. Re: This is what the US has become by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Whether the similarities are close enough to cause confusion in the marketplace is at the heart of this complaint.

      As an opposition to the proposed registration, it can succeed merely by making good on its dilution claim as well. And indeed, "caus(ing) confusion in the marketplace" is placing Disney's hurdle too high: they merely need show it "to be likely... to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive".

    10. Re:This is what the US has become by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      You're mixing up things.

      The original Mickey Mouse movies are indeed old enough to be in the public domain, based on the principles of copyright.

      This doesn't necessarily mean the character Mickey Mouse, or its likeness, should be in the public domain as well.

      Even less so for trademarks, which do not have a set expiry date: a trademark is yours from the moment you start using it, until you stop using it. It doesn't necessarily have to be registered - though that does make defending it easier. Also, unlike copyright, a trademark must be defended at all times or you may risk losing it. Allowing a company to use your trademark for some time and then going after it (like patent trolls like to do with patented stuff) makes you risk losing your trademark rights altogether.

    11. Re:This is what the US has become by tibit · · Score: 1

      Copyright and trademarks are different concepts, with different laws applying to each. Most trademarks are ineligible for copyright protection, for example. Oh, and trademarks can be registered in the U.S. for a particular purpose only. Feel free to read what is the scope of Disney's mickey mouse trademarks.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    12. Re:This is what the US has become by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot. Disney isn't trying to control anything resembling a whole mouse. The big fucking ears is something everyone on the planet associates with Disney. You may as well defend a rapper using a Windows logo as a mask.

      Fuck off.

  4. Apple effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    typical jobs/disney attitude.
    I can screw you but you can't.

    1. Re:Apple effect by sillybilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And Disney is screwing everyone alright by lobbying for the copyright extension from 2000 to 2020, new stuff entering into public domain frozen and suspended for 20 years, and the last automatically public domain material is stuck at 1923, for 20 years, and I can sit here twirl my thumbs waiting for that. Because of Mickey Mouse, I can't freely read scientific stuff published in 1924, like organic chemistry things, or even vacuum tube things. Fuck Disney. If it were up to Disney and the bloodsuckers like them, intellectual property management firms, they'd modify copyright law to have perpetual copyright, or practically perpetual. But the fact is, that the principle still stands, that copyright is only temporary, and eventually everything enters the public domain, even if Disney has succeeded in lobbying to pervert the laws to make copyright last practically forever, or almost forever. The original copyright term in the US was 14 years, renewable to 28 years total. Eventually we'll have copyright that lasts "only" 1325 years, and then I will really need a lot of patient thumb twirling before something finally enters public domain. As long as we keep the principle, that intellectual property is ultimately public domain, and private only temporarily, it's all good.

    2. Re:Apple effect by backslashdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Question is, how do we win round 2 .. which is coming soon. Works start falling out of copyright in 2019, Disney will and other corps will move to protect their monopolies. How can we stop that? Public action stopped things like SOPA.

      The term "intellectual property" is I believe a misnomer. There is first of all no innate right to intellectual property. The right to own a copyright is no different than the right to drive on the roads, you have to be given the right by the government on the basis of meeting certain requirements. This is very different from a fundamental or innate right. You have an innate right to free speech, it is not something the government gives you ..it's something you are born with. For example, if you own a physical object, you have the innate right not to have that object taken from you. But the US founding fathers saw that a person had no such innate right when it comes to inventions and art. Ideas are not your property once you describe them. That is why the constitution says that such monopolies on ideas should be granted by Congress *ONLY* IF IT SPURS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE USEFUL ARTS. It is very different from freedom of speech, which you have regardless of the effect on society, a person has no such innate right to monopolize their own inventions and art.

      According to the constitution Congress has the right .. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

      According to that text, it's clear the current Supreme Court is shirking its responsibility by allowing excessive copyright and patent terms. Excessive copyright terms don't meet the fundamental constitutional requirement of advancing the useful arts and sciences. Disney made a lot of money by taking advantage of the expired copyrights of traditional stories such as sleeping beauty, beauty and the beast etc. I mean even The Lion King is a retelling of Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Did Disney compensate Shakespeare for stealing his story??? If Shakespeare's estate still owned the copyright of Hamlet, Disney would not have been able to make Hamlet. This is clearly proof that the useful arts and sciences are being hindered by excessive copyright terms. The first US copyright laws had only a few years in length .. and that was in a time where it was much harder to market one's work throughout the country and make enough money in a short time.

    3. Re:Apple effect by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 1

      Why do I have an innate right to own property? Is it only because it is a cultural norm? If I lived in a culture where, say, land is so plentiful, it doesn't make sense for any one person to own it. Would I still have an innate right to own that land?

    4. Re:Apple effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of land, it's rivalrous. Land itself is plentiful (lots of uninhabited land out there, just not all in nice places...) but one person using a parcel can get in the way of others who want to use it. There's a lot of social good in letting people have a place of their own.

    5. Re:Apple effect by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      You own the food you swallowed unless they force you to regurgitate it, and then you don't own that either. Usually, in a society you have your own underwear, unless your girlfriend steals it from you, in which case you don't really own that either, but you have your coat, your knife, that are personal property, then also your house or your tent, even under a nomadic way of life. Nomads don't have land as property because they have vast amounts of it, and usually none of it is very fertile, or agriculture is just not worth it - for instance, because of military reasons, as in someone steals your harvest, so you're not gonna spend a whole year tending to land just to watch the crops stolen, even in a very fertile land situation. In a stable, honest society, where people respect each other, agriculture and private land property is possible, but even that gets abused into the naturally tending weak get weaker strong get stronger feudalist landlord/tenant or serf situation, to where, when you compare, you are not that much better off than you used to be as a nomad without land property. Similar situations go for intellectual property, it has two sides to it, the good and respecting side, and the bad, abusing, and exploitative side, and it's all often simply a matter of a number, as in price. The feudal lord had a yearly 10% of your property confiscation tax - he'd enter your private home, and take 10% of everything you got - which, btw. might have been less than present democratic tax rates. But the very fact that someone can enter your home and just take personal stuff, just because the two of you were born into a situation where one is assumed as an "owner" of all surrounding land - by birthright and what not, whatever went down a couple generations ago, - and everyone else owes him for that, is not a very tasty one. The founding fathers of the US envisioned a self reliant, landlord- tenant free (as in huge property owner vs. serf or indentured servant or slave - free) yeoman farmer democracy, instead we have urban slave to somebody throwing you a bone of a job, or welfare shame bankrupting the system situation, and the price of food has been kept very low, while property taxes on farms very high comparatively, with some exceptions, plus modern farming requires machinery that decays and it's overly expensive compared to income, and farmers are in perpetual debt. Growing your own food and surviving in absence of someone throwing your a job should be like a right, but it's complicated, because there is such a thing as economies of scale, and a large farm can afford efficient equipments like combines, and cooperatives of small farms, they are communists contraptions that don't work, everyone abuses the tragedy of the commons, such as a collectivized combine, everyone runs the crap out of it but does not pay for the maintenance, let the other guy take care of it, or pay for it instead. So we have the bulk of the population living in cities and begging for someone to give them a job, and food is a petty item on their list of expenses compared to housing, or landlord tenant cost, which even applies for homeowners paying mortgage, they are like indentured servants for 30 years, and the banks get the tallest sky scrapers downtown from this setup, while creating a tulip mania out of the housing market.

    6. Re:Apple effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One wonders why Congress doesn't drop the pretense, take the suitcases full of money, and vote a law extending copyright exclusively for Disney-related properties. Other works would drop in the public domain after a few decades as they should, and everyone would be happier.

    7. Re:Apple effect by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      You don't have an innate right to anything, however you have innate desires for rights like control over your property up to and including your own body. Society has organised such that we have set aside a portion of our resources to defend these "rights" collectively and make them a notional fact of life in that society.

      We pay taxes to defend our "rights" from our neighbours. In your erstwhile sharing economies, it was still collective contributions to the good of the whole and people that didn't want to contribute were removed from the group.

      All that said, Disney are dicks.

  5. Working Disney link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://video.disney.com/watch/ghosts-n-stuff-re-micks-4cc34ca4636bec7bd7bd38a3

    the link

  6. Clever department name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Disney (and Jim Henson Productions) made a movie called Muppet Treasure Island, in which the pirate Long John Silver (played by Tim Curry) sings a song about the life of a "professional pirate", and in the beginning of the song says that his father mentioned becoming a doctor as a possible career choice (before recommending piracy). Is this what the editors had in mind when they picked the department name? If so, nicely chosen!

    (Meanwhile, another pirate mentions that he could have been a politician, because "[he's] always been a big spender.")

  7. Doesn't look down to me. by jcochran · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://video.disney.com/watch/...

    Although it may be soon slashdotted.

    1. Re:Doesn't look down to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link's been removed now.

      Here's a snapshot: https://archive.today/Qa9KR

    2. Re: Doesn't look down to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking idiot. That term is from way before 2007.

    3. Re:Doesn't look down to me. by jcochran · · Score: 1

      The URL still works. I don't know if Disney has a link to the URL, but the URL itself is still active.

    4. Re: Doesn't look down to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is possible, but since 2007 something, websites no longer suffer from a sudden increase of their served web pages because of a link posted here. Clicks most likely originate from twitter, facebook or reddit..

    5. Re:Doesn't look down to me. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Different link. Remicks vs re-micks... In other words, they had it in more than one place. A little harder to fight wilful infringement when you have not really taken it down. :)

  8. Re:DJ by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    Disney isn't in the dance club DJ business so despite the similarity in trademarks there is no direct competition between them that could cause market confusion. Deadmau5 doesn't get airtime on mainstream radio so Radio Disney doesn't count either.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  9. Deadmau5's logo does resemble Mickey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the first thing you think of when you see it, it's clearly leveraging people's familiarity with MM. What, this guy's an artist, why doesn't he come up with something different? It's like what John Lennon said (somewhat snippishly) when asked about George Harrison losing the plagiarism suit over the melody of "My Sweet Lord". Lennon said that Harrison could easily have tweaked the melody enough so the similarity to the old hit "He's So Fine" wouldn't be an issue, but he was either lazy or stubborn.

    Now, whether Disney still deserves to be reaping royalties so many years after the introduction of the character is another question. I don't have a problem with it, but I can see how there could be debate between reasonable non-interested parties.

    1. Re:Deadmau5's logo does resemble Mickey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      its not the first think I think of, it resembles any cartoon mouse head in history, fact that disney has impregnated your brain to instantly recognize 3 circles as their trade mark charter makes me sad for you

    2. Re:Deadmau5's logo does resemble Mickey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looks more like pac-man to me

    3. Re:Deadmau5's logo does resemble Mickey by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Oh seriously. Popular culture being what it is, that 3 circles is Mickey's head. To argue otherwise is to deny reality.

  10. Stop repeating yourself. Stop repeating yourself. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Apparently, Disney was [...] hosting a video containing a remix of music which Zimmerman claims ownership of. Not only that, but the Deadmau5 logo was prominently displayed next to said video. [...] As it turns out, Disney is hosting a Deadmau5 video on their website, without permission.

    So is there one video, or two?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  11. Normally I'd side with anyone but Disney, but. by Zeio · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Normally I would side with anyone but Disney. From criminal copyright extension acts, to aggressive MPAA, RIAA support, to supporting trash like DMCA and even bribing the US police state to craft up illegal monopolistic oligarchical collectivist trash like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act which crafted an illegal unconstitutional law (by equal protection of laws) to extend the copyright of Mickey Mouse and Disney related trash which incidentally was initially STOLEN by Walt from Ub Iwerks.

    I've been listening to electronic music forever. Never have I seen the worst of the worst rise to the top like deadmouse - whose idiot name I will refuse to spell with a "5". He is an unoriginal repetitive uncreative monotonous loser hack. He steals he stupid mickey mouse image from Prisney (Prison-Disney) - he steals his riffs and rhythms and beats from decades of those who come before him and honestly I would rather listen to the likes of Boney-M and Dschinghis Khan who in my opinion are more relevant to Music than this puke Deadmouse.

    --
    Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    1. Re:Normally I'd side with anyone but Disney, but. by mrbester · · Score: 1

      When I first saw Deadmau5 the first thing I thought of was a comedy show starring Johnny Vegas in which one (silent)character called Cartoon Head wears a mouse head throughout. Then I thought of Mickey only because he's a cartoon mouse as well.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    2. Re:Normally I'd side with anyone but Disney, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I normally don't like haters, but you gave reference to music that you think is actually better. Thanks! Rivers of Babylon is not bad.

    3. Re:Normally I'd side with anyone but Disney, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been listening to electronic music forever. Never have I seen the worst of the worst rise to the top like deadmouse - whose idiot name I will refuse to spell with a "5". He is an unoriginal repetitive uncreative monotonous loser hack. He steals he stupid mickey mouse image from Prisney (Prison-Disney) - he steals his riffs and rhythms and beats from decades of those who come before him and honestly I would rather listen to the likes of Boney-M and Dschinghis Khan who in my opinion are more relevant to Music than this puke Deadmouse.

      i strongly dislike his music as well, almost to the point of where i'd refuse to call it music.

      but, probably with the help of a marketing team, he's wandered into a music style and an image based on what a certain retarded subsection of the public was begging for, and became stinking rich and famous from it. he didn't invent it, but some people are dumb enough to go crazy over shitty music if you just wear a costume and dance around a bit.

      having cut my teeth in electronic music in the same 'scene' as joel did online, way way before he got into this deadmau5 crap, i've had the opportunity to talk online with him way before he was well known, and listen to music of the music he's written that was.. lets say, at the very least, not 'half-assed minimalist dance'.

      he's actually a half decent musician, not a total hack. bit of a dink, but definitely not as talentless as you'd figure.

      when i asked him why his style was drifting from the reasonably interesting electronic music we were all used to hearing from him into cheesy dance music, he admitted that it was only to pay the bills.

      he sure did a good job of that, i bet he sleeps pretty well at night on his bed of money.. which is kind of the goal of being a commercially successful musician, not necessarily creating awesome music (although having both is a plus, it doesn't happen THAT often these days, does it)

    4. Re:Normally I'd side with anyone but Disney, but. by gman003 · · Score: 1

      So corporations can rip people off all they want, as long as those people suck? Man, no wonder there's no good music these days.

    5. Re:Normally I'd side with anyone but Disney, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.. because you don't like his music, the law shouldn't be on his side?

      Good thing the country isn't run with that sort of logic. ...oh wait.

    6. Re:Normally I'd side with anyone but Disney, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of Disney's biggest movies were adaptations of well known stories. Snow White, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Sleeping Beauty, the list goes on. Hell, even your example Boney-M is arguably best known for a christmas cover of Mary's Boy Child. That all leaves out the fact that neither group write or produce their own music.

      You're ignorant if you think art is purely unique creation any more than software development, we _all_ stand on the shoulders of giants. If you don't like the dude, that's fine. If you think he's a weak imitator of better music, don't listen to it. If you want to call him out as an uncreative hack in a post he'll never see, at least back it up with some examples of your work for us to compare.

      Twat

  12. Re: DJ by Cogine · · Score: 5, Informative

    Deadmau5 is a producer not a DJ. A DJ plays other peoples music by beat matching two songs, hopefully in similar keys following the circle of fifths; many however do not even do this.
    Deadmau5 actualley has an almost venomous hatred for DJs stating that most of them are "fucking cunts" and put him to sleep if he ever has to watch them live.
    I looked for a picture of his studio that was posted online a few years ago when he was first getting big, but was unable to find it. It is large room with hardware synths, compressors, effects boxes, etc. Deadmau5 creates all of his own sounds not using anything pre recorded so that he has own unique sound. When he goes on tour or leaves home for an extended period of time he even has his assistant take everything apart so that he has to put it all back togeather when he gets back so as not to become rusty.
    In his live shows he has massive amounts of loops and tracks that he never releases to the public that he can use so that his shows are fresh different almost every time, unlike most bands that i have seen which tend to play the same setlist at almost every show on a given tour.
    Deadmau5 is a musician and not a DJ, although producer is probably the more correct label .

    http://trainspottr.com/music/i...

  13. Outrage! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 0

    Wait until California's Congressmen hear about this outrage. I predict that in 2 days, we'll see a bill in front of Obama which puts all copyrights and trademarks owned by non-corporations directly into the public domain.

  14. Stevenson estate by tepples · · Score: 2

    Look at Pirates of the Caribbean and Jake and the Never Land Pirates. Why is Disney trying to make pirates look sympathetic?

    On the other hand, there was Muppet Treasure Island, and only six years later Disney went ahead and rebooted it as Treasure Planet. Would Disney have done so if it had to pay royalties to the estate of Robert Louis Stevenson?

    1. Re:Stevenson estate by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      ... or the Grimm brothers, or Hans Christian Andersen. In fact is Disney any different than Deadmau5? Most of what they made it big on was other people's work.

    2. Re:Stevenson estate by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      The Grimm brothers themselves were collectors and aggregators of oral tradition stories. They certainly never pretended that they wrote the stories in their collections. That is part of what makes their story collections so rich.

  15. How to avoid this sort of infringement? by tepples · · Score: 2

    Lennon said that Harrison could easily have tweaked the melody enough so the similarity to the old hit "He's So Fine" wouldn't be an issue, but he was either lazy or stubborn.

    But if Harrison had really forgotten about "He's So Fine" between when he wrote "My Sweet Lord" and the release of All Things Must Pass, then how could he have changed it? What are songwriters supposed to do to prevent accidental infringement from happening?

    1. Re:How to avoid this sort of infringement? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It can't be avoided. "Men at work" lost several million dollars because they had "stolen" 2 bars of "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree". It's almost certain the band had innocently re-invented the same sequence of notes. Most people (including the band) didn't notice until it was pointed out but once pointed out you can't miss it. M@W lost the case becuse the argument that they didn't "steal" it was irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:How to avoid this sort of infringement? by Raenex · · Score: 2

      It's almost certain the band had innocently re-invented the same sequence of notes.

      How do you come to a determination of "almost certain"? It would seem just as likely that they stuck it in there because, as Wikipedia writes, "Until this high-profile case, "Kookaburra"'s standing as a traditional song combined with the lack of visible policing of the song's rights by its composer had led to the general public perception that the song was within the public domain.[30][31]"

      What's ridiculous is that such an old song by a long-since dead person is still under copyright.

    3. Re: How to avoid this sort of infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the 'kookaburra sits' sequence was stolen. It was in a song about Australia. Men at Work would have been better off admitting that they had just assumed it was in the public domain.

  16. Give away the CDs, sell the concerts by tepples · · Score: 1

    So in a world where musicians are supposed to make money touring and treat CDs as promotional materials, what is a producer supposed to do to put a roof over his head?

    1. Re:Give away the CDs, sell the concerts by davester666 · · Score: 1

      sit in his office and collect royalty checks for 'producing' a whole bunch of cd's

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re: Give away the CDs, sell the concerts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Royalty checks? What's wrong with getting paid by the hour like everybody else?

    3. Re: Give away the CDs, sell the concerts by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      The amount.

      Duh.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re: Give away the CDs, sell the concerts by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Also the amount of effort.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re: Give away the CDs, sell the concerts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and hours.

  17. Re:DJ by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this is exactly why they created a "Re-Micks", as now there is definitely some overlap!

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. TF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    linking to TF = Shit (it's a troll place)

  20. Common enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disney and Deadmau5 should join forces and sue these guys. Blatant infringement!

    1. Re:Common enemy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Uhhh... if they have any sense, they will try to keep this quiet.

      Two words: Prior art.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Disney has no respect for copyright-except theirs by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    My uncle move to Orlando in the 80s, Still lives there. He is a professional musician, and submitted many songs to the Disny megalith (a few were purchased, I think for the Gummy Bears show).

    At any rate, he rarely goes TOO the parks, but was taking family visiting one time and what does he hear playing in Epcot, but one of his -unpurchased- songs. To my knowledge he is still fighting them. While not as big as Deadmau5, it makes it blatantly obvious that as a corporation Disney wants copyright control and DRM to protect itself but cares nothing for anyone else they drop a mouse turd on.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  22. Ah yes, -- Disney by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    The usurpator, revisionist, extremist (hey!).

  23. Bob's you Uncle by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 3, Funny

    My advice to Zimmermann: call your uncle Bob, and threaten some serious protest songs.

    .

    1. Re:Bob's you Uncle by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Where are the mod points when I need them. Sad day when nobody even at /. knows who Robert Zimmermann is.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Bob's you Uncle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Justice for Trayvon!

  24. No pity for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    How does he think Deadmou zero through four feel about him taking their namesake! They should all file DMCA claims against his music works for stealing their names.

    1. Re:No pity for him by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What Disney character is named "deadmau5"?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:No pity for him by captjc · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, it's cool. Deadmau5 is the last of the Deadmaus. Deadmau 0-3 were destroyed by terrorists. Deadmau4 was sent back in time to help fight the first Shadow War. Deadmau5 is Earths last, best hope for funk.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  25. Yawn by defstro · · Score: 1

    Deadmau5 is clearly taking very strong inspiration from Disney and Takashi Murakami.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space..."
  26. Re:Joel is a snivelling little twit... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Disney has a "family friendly" image to lose. Joel doesn't. There is one side that can lose a lot of its fanbase for mudslinging. And another one that can gain a lot of cred for "sticking it to da man".

    Having a ton of lawyers means jack in a battle that's not fought in court but in the PR room.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. Re:Stop repeating yourself. Stop repeating yoursel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was the one that submitted the article. Looks like the editor really worked it over pretty good (as they are wont to do). I don't mind him rewording what I wrote, but I don't much agree with the way he moved things around, messed with the formatting, and merged my own writing with the quotes of the original piece.

    What you're seeing is a result of that.

  28. A few hours ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mouse fight was on and a few days ago Deadmau5 retaliated with a rather surprising counter attack.

    FTFY! The letter was sent September 4th. That's a few days ago, not just a few hours ago.

    1. Re:A few hours ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm aware. As I stated above (I'm the one that submitted this article), the editor merged my own words with that of the original, linked article, which is leading to some minor gripes such as yours.

  29. Re:Disney has no respect for copyright-except thei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At any rate, he rarely goes TOO the parks

    Does he go to the parks?

  30. Mickey Mouse should be in Public Domain... by David_Hart · · Score: 2

    While I understand the similarity to the Mickey ears, people are highly unlikely to confuse this guy with Mickey Mouse or with Disney.

    That being said, Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain by now. Disney keeps "donating" to enough politicians that every time their copyright is about to expire they extend it. Copyright law was originally designed to give a company the opportunity to earn a profit on their creation but the tradeoff was that the works would become public. It was balanced such that companies were forced to innovate. Now we have lifetime monopolies that can last several generations....

    1. Re:Mickey Mouse should be in Public Domain... by tibit · · Score: 1

      Copyright and trademark aren't the same thing. Don't mix them up. It makes the argument sound silly.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  31. Mickey Mouse Club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (in thundering voice) Brittney, Aguilera, Timberlake, Deadmou5! Do I have to say more?

  32. Re:Joel is a snivelling little twit... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that Disney is so big it does not know what it is doing... For example,
    This is blocked.
    http://video.disney.com/watch/...
    This works...
    http://video.disney.com/watch/...
    Sound like wilful infringement to me...

  33. Heavy Metal Smiley Spaceship looks like Deadmau5 by Boawk · · Score: 1

    A quick google search reveals I'm not the first to note the similarity.
    (The 1981 release of Heavy Metal, lest there be confusion)

  34. Re: DJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you're a retard, not a smart

  35. Re: DJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who creates music is a musician. Don't be jealous just because he's better at it than you.

  36. Re:Disney has no respect for copyright-except thei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FWIW I remember that the gummi bears was actually a decent show for being a cartoon based on a candy. And I remember the music was particularly good.

  37. Re:Joel is a snivelling little twit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, only one of those links was referenced in the "DMCA takedown" portion of the letter to Disney so the safe harbor provisions presumably would still apply unless and until the dude's lawyers figure that out and send another letter.

  38. Re: DJ by Randle_Revar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And he is a huge geek, with tattoos of early arcade video games, and at least a fair bit of electronics and general maker know how. Most of his mouse heads have fans for ventilation and cameras and screens (cause the angles are wrong for easily looking down at the board), and he designed and built the first ones. I think he still designs them (if they change), but he has a company actually make them now if I recall... And hooking up all those racks of equipment goes beyond just plug port A into port B. I feel like I saw something that indicated that he has some programming ability too. If he was older he would probably be/have been a /.er

  39. Re: DJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean this one? https://www.flickr.com/photos/deadmau5/5384668054/

    His flickr account is linked on his own website.

  40. Re:Disney has no respect for copyright-except thei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yep, that's typical behavior for Disney. A friend of mine does contract work for Disney. One of his projects was specifically for a mural on one of their theme park rides, and the contract limited Disney's rights to use it to only that ride. Some time later, my friend went to see Disney on Ice... and there's his mural being used as a backdrop. His agent sends them a letter informing them of their infringement. First they claim the artwork is not the one my friend did. Agent sends photographic evidence. They then claim the contract gave them the rights to use it for Disney on Ice. Agent sends contract with appropriate sections highlighted. They then ignore the agent's communications until legal action is threatened. They then finally send a huge check and a contract amendment. This process takes months. It's happened more than once, too. He basically has to periodically visit all Disney's parks and view all their output to keep an eye out for infringement. He gets to write it off, but still, he shouldn't have to. Standard operating procedure for Disney, wilfully misusing the work of others and stonewalling their inquiries. Like they say, you don't get rich writing checks.

  41. Prior art bitches by F34nor · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

    Mickey Mouse was stolen to begin with. Fuck em.

  42. Zimmerman must be suicidal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am no fan of Disney, but it has to be said - Zimmerman is toast. Disney has an army of undead lawyers that is outnumbered only by Apple, and even if the case is legally sound those lawyers will crush him. Unless a miracle occurs Zimmerman will end up being owned by Disney when this is all done with. Not all lost causes can be won. He is doomed.

  43. wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if your music is being lifted by the likes of disney, your doing it wrong.

  44. Re:Joel is a snivelling little twit... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    Disney has a "family friendly" image to lose. Joel doesn't. There is one side that can lose a lot of its fanbase for mudslinging. And another one that can gain a lot of cred for "sticking it to da man".

    Having a ton of lawyers means jack in a battle that's not fought in court but in the PR room.

    I had no idea who this Deadmou5 guy was until today. I searched on his name, saw that logo and concluded the instant I saw it that the Disney company is retarded if they think that their Mickey Mouse trademark looks anything like his logo (which is what this is about, right? trademarks, not copyright). Even a five year old would not confuse them. Disney seem to be suing anybody whose logo or trade mark looks even remotely like Mickey Mouse just on the off chance they find a judge who is brain dead enough to rule in their favour. The US must have a surplus of such judges if Disney did the math and concluded that this is a workable legal strategy. What's next? Sue anybody whose trade mark contains three circles whose centrers are arranged in an Isosceles triangle and who partially overlap? From a court transcript: Why no your honor, Having gone to Harward Law School I am actually quite literate and I know the big circle has "Billy Bob's Auto Parts" written in it and I also noticed that the two smaller ones have a picture of a pick-up truck and a buxom red-neck girl in them but we at the Disney corporation still feel that due to the arrangement of the three circles in an Isosceles triangle and their overlapping nature, that this logo could easily be confused with an image of Mickey Mouse thus confusing consumers.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  45. Re:Apple effect...retelling of Hamlet (or possibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of Osamu Tezuka's Kimba the White Lion en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion

  46. Re: DJ by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    In his live shows he has massive amounts of loops and tracks that he never releases to the public that he can use so that his shows are fresh different almost every time

    Deadmau5 himself says otherwise: "We all hit play"

  47. Re: Dj (Tattoos ROCK!!1) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That guy permanently puts ink into his skin in the form of old video games? That's the coolest thing I've ever heard of.

    If he goes to the tanning salon regularly I'll turn gay right now and melt in his dreamy man/DJ arms.

  48. Doesn't sound like the worst outcome though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as the guy was fairly compensated that doesn't sound so bad to me. Yes, it sucks that he had to go through that drawn-out process but after working for a few large companies, I can absolutely understand them not knowing their ass from applesauce.

  49. Deadmau5: fkg idiot who ought to stick to music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't this kind of whiny, entitled BS just piss you off?

    DM, on one hand, has performed publicly, at least hundreds of times, around the world, and those performances have been reproduced and distributed electronically millions of times, wearing a costume that only an idiot would believe was not deliberately modeled upon Disney's ubiquitous, presumably trademarked, Mickey ears. Not only is this usage infringement, but a strong case could be made for wilful infringement. The resemblance of DM's headgear to Disney's famous trademark could not possibly have been coincidental.

    Nor do any of the fair use exceptions seem to apply. DM is not parodying any Disney work, not using the ears for academic purposes, and is using them in a field in which the Disney character has long been associated (public performances and music performances). Firthermore, obtaining such a TM that could allow him, in some scenarios, to prevent Disney from using its own mouse-ears in new ways in the future.

    The threshold standard for trademark infringement is whether using the allegedly infringing mark creates a likelihood of confusion. That is, might a lay person assume that a DM performance had been sanctioned by Disney because DM is wearing what is essentially a Mickey Mouse costume? This is especially true when DM is backlighted, as he frequently is in performance, when any differences between his headgear & the Mickey silhouette may not be visible. Based on decades of case law, I doubt if DM has a prayer of registering his headgear as a trademark.

    To this point, I still remember, way back when, the first time I saw a DM video, initially thinking that it was a recording of some lame "multimedia experience" at a Disneyworld theater. I'm deep in the middle of electronica (actually, a big DM fan), but even I was confused about who this guy was until I Googled the performer. Remember that Disney has continually expanded the scope of the content it offers (even budgeting a # of decidely non-kiddie films), so it's not unreasonable to assume that at some point, Disney may want to use its mouse-ears in conjunction with some kind of electronic (albeit likely sanitized) dance parties at its parks. I don't see DM being able to disprove a likelihood of confusion.

    OK, now on the other hand, Disney posted one DM video, most likely without the knowledge or consent of upper-level management, and as soon as it received a takedown notice, seems to have complied. Big shit. Why is this news? Probably thousands of similar postings & takedowns happen every day and the fact that the posted content depicts a potentially infringing use of a Disney trademark is not germane.

    Both parties seem to be infringing. The difference is that DM's infringement is most likely wilful, blatant, repeated many times, and has produced for him large sums of money. But Disney's infringement is likely inadvertent, very restricted in scope, and a single occurrence. Who looks more like an IP scumbag here?

    The sad thing is that DM has taken it upon himself to demonstrate just how much of a manipulative, fucking idiot he is. Twitter feeds, cease & desist letters, etc. Only an idiot would instruct a "legal team" to C&D draft a strongly worded letter for a case like this -- and then brag about it all over the Internet. All that's required to take down the infringing video is a boilerplate DMCA takedown request -- with which Disney has a history of quickly complying.

    Bottom line is that, and I hate to say it, it appears that DM is trying to abuse the trademark system. First he, blatantly copies an extremely valuable, well-known trademark for his own use. Worse, he starts trademarking the pilfered mark all over the world, giving Disney has no choice but to act to protect its property. (Just imagine the shareholder suits if it didn't!) Then DM uses abusive RIAA / MPAA tactics to (legally) force Disney to take down a single posting of his work, and claims to be some sort of Everyman hero for doing so.

    No,

  50. Re: DJ by Greeninja · · Score: 1

    Yeah he started doing a lot of web development stuff, and some other sorts of coding, but as he started to do more music it dropped off. I wish I could find the interview where he talks about it, but it is pretty awesome all the stuff he has tinkered with.

  51. Re:Joel is a snivelling little twit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hera help me should Disney ever see a picture of my cat. She's a white cat with bits of black, and some of the black form circles that overlap in an Isosceles triangle.