Sony Accused of Pirating Music In "The Interview"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Accused of Pirating Music In "The Interview"

Posted by timothy on Sunday December 28, 2014 @02:31AM from the such-a-loaded-term dept.

the simurgh writes As the controversy surrounding Sony's handling of its hack, the movie The Interview and its aftermath continues, a singer is claiming that after failing to reach terms with Sony, the company put her music in the movie anyway. Yoon Mi-rae (real name Natasha Shanta Reid) is a U.S.-born hip hop and R&B singer who currently releases music on the Feel Ghood Music label. Sshe and her label claim that her track we learned that the track 'Pay Day' has been used without permission, legal procedure, or contracts.

180 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

her track we learned that the track by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 02:36 · Score: 0

technically, when you lift a sentence straight from someone else, is should be in quotes. also technically, read it once first?
1. Re:her track we learned that the track by ihtoit · 2014-12-28 02:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  it got Yoda'd.
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
2. Re:her track we learned that the track by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  also "her label claim"
3. Re:her track we learned that the track by mrbester · 2014-12-28 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, that is correct as it is she and her label.
  However, "it's" is wrong
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
4. Re:her track we learned that the track by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-29 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  I though it was Sshe and her label...
Hmmm ... by gstoddart · 2014-12-28 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, once again, if we do this we get crushed under the heel of a team of lawyers.
But a multinational like Sony does it and I bet they'll just dicker and claim some bullshit like fair use they routinely deny exists.
I sincerely hope Sony has to pay a massive fine for this ... something on par with what we'd get beat down with.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 02:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Maybe she should have put a rootkit on her CD?
2. Re:Hmmm ... by jones_supa · 2014-12-28 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  So, once again, if we do this we get crushed under the heel of a team of lawyers.
  But a multinational like Sony does it and I bet they'll just dicker and claim some bullshit like fair use they routinely deny exists.
  Eh? If we do it, people say that no one loses anything if you make a copy, and that sharing has been part of human culture for ages. These people should have nothing to whine about if Sony then goes to do the same thing.
3. Re:Hmmm ... by gstoddart · 2014-12-28 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If we do it, Sony is one of the companies who helped pay for the law which says you and I would have to pay massive amounts of statutory damages, with additional punitive damages for having done it on purpose.
  I want Sony to receive the same magnitude of punishment as they would insist we receive.
  Because I really despise multinationals when they argue both sides of the same legal argument as it benefits them.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:Hmmm ... by Free+Censorship · 2014-12-28 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Eh? If we do it, people say that no one loses anything if you make a copy, and that sharing has been part of human culture for ages.
  No, normal people with brains say that. The legal system and companies like Sony do not feel the same way. Don't confuse the two.
  
  These people should have nothing to whine about if Sony then goes to do the same thing.
  I agree that people who say that copying such data harms none shouldn't care if Sony does it (and some do, making them hypocrites).
  But the thing is, it's about Sony being absolute hypocrites, and equality under the law.
5. Re:Hmmm ... by ChromaticDragon · 2014-12-28 03:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Rightly or wrongly, and setting legal issues aside for the moment, the general populations around the world seem quite able to draw a rather clear distinction between the two cases you'e seemed to conflate.
  If I partake of the "sharing" of song by listening to it this is one thing. Folk merge together the acts of listening to it on the radio, listening to it via Internet radio, listening to it by downloading and using favorite player, downloading it and putting it onto favorite device and listening to it, etc., etc. You can argue all day long about lost sales, but by and large those arguments are unpersuasive.
  However, if I copy the song in any way and then sell it in any way, people see this differently. I'm selling something that isn't mine to sell. Sure, people may love to buy pirated DVDs on the streets at a tenth of the price. But far fewer people would rise to defend the black marketeers here.
  Sony execs listening to these songs in their office wouldn't bother most. But clearly and unambiguously using material in the production of a movie without permission of the artist is a different matter. It is indeed hypocritical of Sony to champion copyright issues while blantantly violating such concerns.
6. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  She got honeydicked.
7. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  This is completely different than a pirate downloading some tunes for their personal use, and possibly sharing it with their friends. Sony are making money off of her music and giving her none of it. That's more akin to the people who sell bootleg DVDs, but on a much more massive scale. It's also true that their army of lawyers will most likely weasel their way out them having to pay her a dime, because this sort of thing happens a lot and they usually don't pay. It's one thing to listen to music you didn't pay for (and no one was bitching when everyone was recording it off the radio on to cassette tapes); it's totally different to make a ton of money off of someone's work and not pay them anything for it. (I realize the movie was an overall loss for them. That shouldn't matter - everyone who sees it gets a free listen to her song. This falls under the "FBI Warning" law you see at the beginning of every movie, not the same law they use to charge downloaders).
8. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Eh? If we do it, people say that no one loses anything if you make a copy, and that sharing has been part of human culture for ages.
  Eh? Which people? Certainly not the ones in charge at Sony. Which was the whole fucking point. If we do it, people (the ones in charge at Sony) will crush us under the heel of a team of lawyers. But when they (the people in charge at Sony) do it, they'll claim they had every right to do so.
  
  I can't believe I actually had to spell that out for you.
9. Re:Hmmm ... by jones_supa · 2014-12-28 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  This is completely different than a pirate downloading some tunes for their personal use, and possibly sharing it with their friends. Sony are making money off of her music and giving her none of it.
  It's not completely different. If you were to pirate a song, you would get entertainment value out of it, without giving the content producers any compensation. It might sound like a small thing when one person does it, but when many people do it, the artist can never recoup the production costs.
10. Re:Hmmm ... by jones_supa · 2014-12-28 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  With "people" I meant us, not Sony guys.
11. Re:Hmmm ... by msauve · 2014-12-28 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Copying a work is often called theft, and it is not - it is copying, and nothing of substance has been taken.
  
  I think most people agree that some limited form of protection for creative works is a fair trade for encouraging the creation of works which will eventually become public domain. But there is no natural right to "own" a thought, and "intellectual property" laws are merely a privilege which society grants in exchange for value.
  
  But, the extension of copyright terms prevents works from entering the public domain, making that exchange a fraud. I will submit that creative works made for profit are based on ROIs measured in years, not decades. There is no legitimate need for, or public good which comes from "author's life plus 70 years," or 95 years after publication.
  
  Why should MS-DOS still be under copyright? Lotus 1-2-3? SVR4? When they enter public domain, they will be useless. They are substantially so already, now add another 60 years (presuming no further term extensions). So, the tradeoff has already failed - the public will receive nothing of value in exchange for giving copyright protection for a time.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
12. Re:Hmmm ... by magusxxx · 2014-12-28 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  There is one issue no one talks about when a situation like this comes up. Since it was distributed between states, would it be interstate trafficking of illegal goods? Something, you know, they've used against organized crime to make something a federal offense. And thus, up the fines and jail time substantially.
  
  --
  Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
13. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 04:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Maybe she did, and that was how Sony got hacked...
14. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  True, you get some small "value" out of it, but you're not "making lots of money" from it. And the federal government treats these two scenarios very differently.
15. Re:Hmmm ... by __aaltlg1547 · 2014-12-28 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Unless Sony shows that they did have a contract. I seriously doubt an outfit like Sony wouldn't just replace her music if the couldn't get a contract, and I seriously doubt they couldn't get a contract.
16. Re:Hmmm ... by mrchaotica · 2014-12-28 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Eh? If we do it, people say that no one loses anything if you make a copy, and that sharing has been part of human culture for ages. These people should have nothing to whine about if Sony then goes to do the same thing.
  If Sony were an individual and wanted to play it at home in private, sure. But incorporating into a major commercial motion picture (i.e., for profit... at least in theory) is a little bit different!
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
17. Re:Hmmm ... by phantomfive · 2014-12-28 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Man: Would you sleep with me for a billion dollars?
  Woman: Why, yes, I would!
  Man: Would you sleep with me for a hundred?
  Woman: Why sir, of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am???
  Man: We've already established what kind of woman you are, now we're haggling over price!
  
  In other words, you've presented a quantitative distinction, not a qualitative distinction.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
18. Re:Hmmm ... by phantomfive · 2014-12-28 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. A possible scenario is that she doesn't actually own the music, her label does; and they were only negotiating with her out of politeness; though they aren't legally obligated to.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
19. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Eh? If we do it, people say that no one loses anything if you make a copy, and that sharing has been part of human culture for ages.
  No, normal people with brains say that. The legal system and companies like Sony do not feel the same way. Don't confuse the two.
  Your definition of normal people equates to lowlife scum who are happy to parasitically take the work of other
  human beings without compensating those human beings for their work.
  But don't worry, you'll get anal cancer this year, and when you do you won't care about pirating the work of others
  because your first concern will be making sure you get enough morphine for your gay ass to deal with the pain.
20. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  I think most people agree that some limited form of protection for creative works is a fair trade for encouraging the creation of works which will eventually become public domain.
  No, because they limit freedom of speech and private property rights, and there is no scientific evidence that such 'protections' are even effective. Anyone suggesting we limit people's rights without even a shred of evidence (speculation of what the world would be like without these things does not count as science) is a fool.
21. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Eh? If we do it, people say that no one loses anything if you make a copy, and that sharing has been part of human culture for ages. These people should have nothing to whine about if Sony then goes to do the same thing.
  Live by the sword, die by the sword. If Sony wants to stand up and legally commit to that philosophy going forward, I will personally picket this performer's lawyers if she peruses a copyright claim against Sony.
  But you and I both know Sony will never do that. They don't care about principles or logical consistency. They just care about using anything they can possibly leverage to benefit themselves.
22. Re:Hmmm ... by itzly · 2014-12-28 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  You act as if "we" only have a single opinion.
23. Re:Hmmm ... by CanEHdian · 2014-12-28 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  But, the extension of copyright terms prevents works from entering the public domain, making that exchange a fraud.
  Not just that. All copies of works you have purchased, with the knowledge and understanding each and every one of those will enter the public domain on a specific date, suddenly become less valuable or even zero if that date is retroactively extended, perhaps to beyond your own lifetime. Members of the public have never been compensated for this loss of wealth.
  All is not lost; by the same reasoning copyright terms can (1) also be retroactively reduced and (2) without compensation to rightsholders.
  
  --
  When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
24. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  proportionally. Jammie Thomas has to pay 1.92 million, and average income is what, 40k?
  I'd be happy with a fine of 40x their annual revenue.
25. Re:Hmmm ... by ultranova · 2014-12-28 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  If we do it, people say that no one loses anything if you make a copy, and that sharing has been part of human culture for ages. These people should have nothing to whine about if Sony then goes to do the same thing.
  
  Sony has been one of the advocates for de facto life-ruining punishment for copyright violation. They will almost certainly continue being that in the future too. So why shouldn't they get hoisted by their own petard when it turns out they're not just cruel but also hypocrites? Avenge their victims and dethrone the malefactor.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
26. Re:Hmmm ... by jones_supa · 2014-12-28 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  True, you get some small "value" out of it, but you're not "making lots of money" from it. And the federal government treats these two scenarios very differently.
  Little streams make big rivers in both scenarios. Even Sony gets only a small payment per each movie ticket.
27. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  I want Sony to receive the same magnitude of punishment as they would insist we receive.
  They probably should. That was WHY the law was written that way in the first place. As a disincentive to large companies to do this.
  It is meant to be *per* copy sold. So that could be huge money to Sony. They will settle.
28. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Those laws do not apply to wealthy multinational corporations. Sony will simply settle with the label for a pittance.
  I am not just being cynical. That is how it has always worked. Human nature inclines us to Oligarchy. All governance lends itself to this form.
29. Re:Hmmm ... by whoever57 · 2014-12-28 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  A possible scenario is that she doesn't actually own the music, her label does; and they were only negotiating with her out of politeness; though they aren't legally obligated to.
  TFA actually quotes the label threatening to sue.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
30. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  So, once again, if we do this we get crushed under the heel of a team of lawyers.
  But a multinational like Sony does it and I bet they'll just dicker and claim some bullshit like fair use they routinely deny exists.
  I sincerely hope Sony has to pay a massive fine for this ... something on par with what we'd get beat down with.
  Agreed. Sony should have to pay $2,250 per person that viewed the movie, as was their want for each track purloined by "pirates" during their John Doe suits. If only the movie had its actual debut and the numbers been as expected for the film's release instead of the roughly 3500 people that actually saw it in cinemas in the U.S.
31. Re:Hmmm ... by Rick+Zeman · 2014-12-28 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe she did, and that was how Sony got hacked...
  You win the internet for the day.
32. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  These people should have nothing to whine about if Sony then goes to do the same thing.
  So there shouldn't be any difference between an international mega-corporation that shares other people's work with the whole world versus some guy somewhere sharing someone else's work with his family or friends? No difference whatsoever? Are you sure you're not overgeneralizing a bit?
33. Re:Hmmm ... by jones_supa · 2014-12-28 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  I was just going along the same philosophy. Of course the magnitudes are different.
34. Re:Hmmm ... by Lumpy · 2014-12-28 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not if they slapped the press all over with it. The best way to combat sony is to humiliate it in every media possible. get it out there that they STOLE her music and are making millions off of her hard work.
  Under the DMCA Sony needs to pay her $22.7 Trillion dollars for her losses. Use SONY's own bullshit made up numbers, bankrupt the whole fucking company over it like they do to people that can't defend themselves.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
35. Re:Hmmm ... by Lumpy · 2014-12-28 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  A kid sharing a song to 10,000 people is nothing. a Company selling it to make a profit off of it is very different. Not one person says that someone making and selling copies is innocent. Not even the most rabid of file sharing proponents.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
36. Re:Hmmm ... by bledri · 2014-12-28 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  True, you get some small "value" out of it, but you're not "making lots of money" from it. And the federal government treats these two scenarios very differently.
  Relatively speaking, Sony's is not making "lots of money" off of The Interview. They made about 10-20% of their projected earnings. Does that make it OK not to compensate the artists? No?
  She's not getting paid for her work. Just like when we pirate music the artist is not compensated for their work. It's *exactly* the same thing no matter what we tell ourselves to pretend it's OK.
  The current laws are too draconian *and* pirating music is enjoying someone's effort without compensating them.
  
  --
  Some privacy policy Slashdot.
37. Re: Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  $250,000.00 per occurrence x (number of theaters showing film + number of copies printed) sounds fitting.
38. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  > Little streams make big rivers in both scenarios. Even Sony gets only a small payment per each movie ticket.
  And the home downloader gets slammed hard for each song (with that small entertainment value) downloaded - why shouldn't Sony get slammed hard for each ticket?
39. Re:Hmmm ... by __aaltlg1547 · 2014-12-28 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Considering Sony's HUGE corporate interest in making sure everybody obeys copyright law, if this really happened it could only be a screwup and if that's the case, they'll settle. There's absolutely no rationale for them to fight the claims if they're true.
40. Re:Hmmm ... by quantaman · 2014-12-28 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  So, once again, if we do this we get crushed under the heel of a team of lawyers.
  But a multinational like Sony does it and I bet they'll just dicker and claim some bullshit like fair use they routinely deny exists.
  I sincerely hope Sony has to pay a massive fine for this ... something on par with what we'd get beat down with.
  They should get decently hammered though I don't think it should be crazy. The summary suggests Sony wilfully used the song despite knowing they didn't have a license, but that's a stretch based on the quote from the label
  “There were initial discussions for using ‘Pay Day‘ in the movie, but at some point, the discussions ceased and we assumed that it would not follow through,” Feel Ghood Music says.
  Almost certainly this was just some production screwup. Someone at Sony thought the the license was taken care, because of that they stopped calling back and the music never got licensed.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
41. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  I agree with you up until "Because I really despise multinationals...".
  Why single out multinationals? Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to ANY company, corporation or other entity?
42. Re:Hmmm ... by wabrandsma · 2014-12-28 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  According to this article they will not sue Sony:
  
  A spokesperson for the agency told Billboard that the artists were "hesitant" to allow the song to appear in the film, given that it's plot, which features the assassination of Kim Jong-Un, is "very sensitive topic in Korea" at the moment. It seems that at this point Sony Pictures will be spared the brunt of the lawsuit, FeelGhoodMusic instead intends to take the agency who handled the negotiations with Sony, DFSB, to court instead.
43. Re: Hmmm ... by mSparks43 · 2014-12-28 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  so how mad would you be if I went onto bit torrent and downloaded the interview just so I can hear the song?
44. Re:Hmmm ... by jones_supa · 2014-12-28 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  A kid sharing a song to 10,000 people is nothing.
  Are you joking? That is a serious copyright violation and represents a significant amount of lost income for an artist. The income, which the artist needs to recoup the investment that making the music took.
45. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  If Sony stopped suing the hell out of us when we do it, then maybe you would have a point.
  Though a commercial vs noncommercial purposes argument might still apply.
46. Re:Hmmm ... by iluvcapra · 2014-12-28 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  it is copying, and nothing of substance has been taken.
  Just because something has no substance, it does not follow that it has no value. The money in your checking account has no material substance -- in fact the vast majority of US dollars in existence occupy exactly zero volume and have no physical manifestation. Taking a dollar is theft, though; the value of a dollar is a creation of law and custom, and it's as far from natural as you can get. Like copyright.
  
  But there is no natural right to "own" a thought, and "intellectual property" laws are merely a privilege which society grants in exchange for value.
  How do you come by this? Copyright doesn't protect "thoughts," it protects writings and recordings. The value society obtains is in the mere creation, which would no occur if creators could not be paid for copies of their work. If the law makes people pay for copies of works, the creators are compelled to create good works.
  We don't need to imagine what the alternative looks like, the music industry already lives in a world where people don't have to pay for music, and the consequences are clear. We have Justin Bieber and Katy Perry: this is the sort of music you get when no one pays for music -- it's not made to be good, but to serve as an inoffensive substrate for commercials, and to market the "musician" as a star or brand that can be extended into more profitable models.
  Basically, if you remove copyright from the creative process, all for-pay artwork simply becomes commercials, and you end up with movies like Transformers (or for that matter The Interview) -- 5-second memes attached to brand marketing, strung together for two hours. In the future, this is will be the only way people can make money creating movies, it's the equilibrium state. Piracy isn't necessary now because movies suck, movies suck now because piracy is rotting for-profit filmmaking from the inside out. And in the end all we'll have are two-hour commercials and a ton of $50,000 mumblecore movies shot in someones apartment and screened on Vimeo, made by dilettantes and rich men's wives.
  (We will set aside your even more contentious notion that such a thing as natural rights exist or are a legitimate basis for law or policy.)
  
  Why should MS-DOS still be under copyright? Lotus 1-2-3? SVR4?
  We're talking about a movie that came out 5 days ago.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
47. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Is this all your capable of? Come on, i know you can do better!
48. Re:Hmmm ... by iluvcapra · 2014-12-28 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Almost certainly this was just some production screwup. Someone at Sony thought the the license was taken care, because of that they stopped calling back and the music never got licensed.
  What probably happened was the music supervisor was working on getting the clearance right up until the day of the hack, and he hasn't been able to get onto his computer since -- all of the PCs at Sony have been down ever since the Day because they're doing a huge forensic audit. And then a week went by and Sony announced they weren't going to release the movie, and the music sup just forgot about locking down the last licensing deal since it seemed like a dead letter.
  And then Sony announced they were going to screen the movie with one days notice and they rushed the due-diligence.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
49. Re:Hmmm ... by quantaman · 2014-12-28 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Almost certainly this was just some production screwup. Someone at Sony thought the the license was taken care, because of that they stopped calling back and the music never got licensed.
  What probably happened was the music supervisor was working on getting the clearance right up until the day of the hack, and he hasn't been able to get onto his computer since -- all of the PCs at Sony have been down ever since the Day because they're doing a huge forensic audit. And then a week went by and Sony announced they weren't going to release the movie, and the music sup just forgot about locking down the last licensing deal since it seemed like a dead letter.
  And then Sony announced they were going to screen the movie with one days notice and they rushed the due-diligence.
  I don't think they're related, the film was almost ready to release when the hack occurred meaning they had a final or very nearly final cut. I don't see Sony putting themselves in the position of having not-yet licensed music in the final cut, that gives the publisher far too much leverage when negotiating terms.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
50. Re:Hmmm ... by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-28 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  They very likely don't have to pay a fine, why should they?
  They will have to pay royalties, and likely more than they had payed if they had licensed the music.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
51. Re:Hmmm ... by msauve · 2014-12-28 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  "Taking a dollar is theft"
  
  Whoosh. If I take a dollar from you, be it physical or an electronic debit, you no longer have it. If I copy a work (not copy and then sell/distribute, but merely copy), it takes nothing away from the creator.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
52. Re:Hmmm ... by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-28 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  But Sony did not 'copy' anything ;)
  They created a derived work ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
53. Re:Hmmm ... by Free+Censorship · 2014-12-28 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  (not copy and then sell/distribute, but merely copy)
  Even if you copy and sell/distribute, you have taken nothing away from the creator.
54. Re:Hmmm ... by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-28 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know which kind of contract she has with her label and who 'owns the rights' to the music?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
55. Re:Hmmm ... by Free+Censorship · 2014-12-28 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Not one person says that someone making and selling copies is innocent.
  I am such a person. Therefore, your statement is incorrect. I don't see commercial copyright infringement as any worse than normal copyright infringement; I think copyright should be totally abolished.
56. Re:Hmmm ... by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-28 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, the DMCA does not apply in this case ... it is a simple copyright law issue.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
57. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  CD? Pfft, you know they downloaded it from the internet.
58. Re:Hmmm ... by phantomfive · 2014-12-28 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know which kind of contract she has with her label and who 'owns the rights' to the music?
  What did I say that makes you think I know?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
59. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  If I partake of the "sharing" of song by listening to it this is one thing. Folk merge together the acts of listening to it on the radio, listening to it via Internet radio, listening to it by downloading and using favorite player, downloading it and putting it onto favorite device and listening to it, etc., etc. You can argue all day long about lost sales, but by and large those arguments are unpersuasive.
  Interpretation: Slashdotters do this... feels safe and comfortable behind our home PC or phone, no security guards around... should be legal.
  
  However, if I copy the song in any way and then sell it in any way, people see this differently. I'm selling something that isn't mine to sell. Sure, people may love to buy pirated DVDs on the streets at a tenth of the price. But far fewer people would rise to defend the black marketeers here.
  Interpretation: You have to be an executive in a content-based industry to do this, which excludes 99.9 percent of Slashdotters off the bat... we would never get a chance to do that anyway, so fine. Haul those people into jail, put their names in the paper and don't offer them bail!
60. Re:Hmmm ... by orgelspieler · 2014-12-28 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  This is not just making a copy. They used her work in a major motion picture. Big difference, jones. Maybe you're not an artist of any kind, so you wouldn't understand. But those of us who dabble in the arts can tell you it's a very personal expression. That's why copyright is important. People feel like they are entitled to control what they make. That is a very human thing to feel.
61. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2014-12-28 09:27 · Score: 2
  
  No, because they limit freedom of speech and private property rights
  So your position is that one artificial legal right should not be protected because it impinges on two other artificial legal rights that you personally happen to like more?
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
62. Re:Hmmm ... by iluvcapra · 2014-12-28 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Whoosh. If I take a dollar from you, be it physical or an electronic debit, you no longer have it.
  You were making an argument for copyright not being a "natural right" because it doesn't protect some "substance." The point is nobody ever "has" dollars in the first place, they're a convention -- when someone debits dollars from your account they're not actually "taking" anything from you, they're just moving numbers around on a spreadsheet. Somebody made a law that said dollars are worth something, and that their debits and credits have to match, just as somebody made a law that said you can't copy other people's recordings without permission. The two laws have equal merit and standing.
  
  If I copy a work (not copy and then sell/distribute, but merely copy), it takes nothing away from the creator.
  But why make that exception? You can sell the copy and that doesn't take anything away from the creator, does it? He still has his copy. Selling the copies for money is no different than giving them away from the perspective of "natural" excludable property, unless you accept that creators have a right to sales -- a right which, in any case, is moot if free copies are permitted, as free copies fully supplement paid ones. If people are allowed to make and distribute free copies than the "right" of copyright becomes little more than the right to beg for charity.
  What's the limits of 'selling' exactly? Does it include attaching advertising space to the "free" copy, advertising space which you sell to a third party for money? That'd definitely be profiting off of the original work, even if it's not "selling," and would include your Kim Dotcom types...
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
63. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  [...] lowlife scum who are happy to parasitically take the work of other human beings without compensating those human beings for their work.
  Damn, you must absolutely hate my boss. You see, I work in TV, and your definition accurately describes my employer.
  This year, I've had two weeks wages stolen from me for work done.
  That's on top of all the legal requirements for sick days, public holidays, and meal/toilet breaks, that they've skipped out on.
  Once you include unpaid overtime in that total, which occurs most days of the week, we start looking at a few thousand dollars of unpaid wages and minimum entitlements in the last couple of years.
  This is standard practice for the television production industry.
64. Re:Hmmm ... by msauve · 2014-12-28 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  "The point is nobody ever "has" dollars in the first place"
  
  Never mind, you're an idiot. You can go troll elsewhere now.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
65. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  No matter how much I squint at that, I come away with the impression that you're being disingenuous about Sony's position in the market.
  You're attempting to argue that Sony should not be held accountable by the same laws as the rest of us, because they only make a small amount of money from each sale.
  Very, very few downloaders in the world make any money at all from downloading music but can be fined thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands, for doing so without permission.
  Sony puts millions in the bank from every film, they know copyright law because they lobbied hard for it, and they deliberately go and use music they don't have permission or a licence to use in one of their films.
  Deliberately is the correct term, unless you're suggesting that they accidentally got a copy of the song, had it converted to the appropriate format, gave it to the sound mixer and editor who put it in place, set the volume level correctly, chose the in-and-out points, set the correct filters on it, and so forth.
  Now, one group - who don't profit financially from downloading - can get fined an amount equivalent to several years of earnings. The other group go and use the track and make millions, and here you are trying to argue that they shouldn't be fined for it.
  Let's say that again, for the cheap seats:
  If you download a song and earn no money from it, you can be fined a lot of money.
  If Sony download a song and use it in a movie, earning millions from said movie, you're arguing that they're not doing anything especially wrong.
  Stop being a dick about it.
66. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  ...and represents a significant amount of lost income for an artist. The income, which the artist needs to recoup the investment that making the music took.
  You really should look into that some more, and then you'll realise how much the artist is being fucked over by the label, so much more so than by any downloader. Buy an album? The artist makes a few cents.
  A FEW FUCKING CENTS.
  The remaining $30? Well, that goes to the distributor, the label, the producer, the shop that sold it, the engineer, but the artist? From what I know, it's between FOUR CENTS and TWELVE CENTS.
  PER ALBUM.
  Get off your high horse, and stop propping up a corrupt industry.?
67. Re:Hmmm ... by iluvcapra · 2014-12-28 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  "The point is nobody ever "has" dollars in the first place"
  Note that I only made this point in the course of granting your position that only "substantial" things are truly property. Your argument is internally inconsistent.
  This is why I really have no pity for media pirates. It's not that they make copies for themselves, or even that they give them to their friends or a million strangers. Hell I've done that every now and then.
  It's that they do this, and then they insist on writing thousand-word screeds about how it's their sacred natural right to do this, and how it has absolutely no negative consequences, and anybody that actually tries to make sense of their ideological hash by working through the entailments is an "idiot." They don't know what they're talking about, they know just enough political science to be dangerous, and their underlying justifications are constantly shifting in order to serve their overarching commitment: "If the Internet makes something possible, it must be permitted, and anybody who gets hurt in the process deserves it."
  You don't even address the consequences I've clearly pointed out, and you haven't even tried to work through how it's different to sell something as opposed to merely copy it, you just want to have your argument both ways depending on the circumstances, and you haven't contradicted me in the slightest, you just play dumbass comment thread games to weasel out of explaining yourself.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
68. Re:Hmmm ... by iluvcapra · 2014-12-28 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they're related, the film was almost ready to release when the hack occurred meaning they had a final or very nearly final cut.
  
  I am a sound editor on features, I worked about 9 months at Sony this year (on Fury and 22 Jump Street mostly, not Interview). They can replace music days before the movie is released, particularly now because most shows are distributed almost exclusively on DCP. It's not unusual to printmaster the movie (finalize all the sound) and still not have all the music deals in place. Music is an independent process from the "final cut".
  All of the PCs at Sony were still down in mid-December, nobody in any of the administrative departments could access any of the work they'd left on their machines or on servers prior to the hack, everybody had to lug in their Macbooks to get any work done -- Macs were unaffected by the hack. I can't imagine how they could have dotted all their i's for the delivery with one days notice and no corporate PC infrastructure.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
69. Re:Hmmm ... by ArcadeMan · 2014-12-28 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  I sincerely hope Sony has to pay a massive fine for this ... something on par with what we'd get beat down with.
  And we can even get the actual number of infringements if we go by number of theatres, number of showings, number of streams distributed to homes, number of DVD and Blu-Ray sold, etc.
  And then apply the magical MPAA mathematics of multiplying that number by 1000 and add extra damages on top of that for knowingly disregarding copyrights.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
70. Re:Hmmm ... by ArcadeMan · 2014-12-28 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  Milton Waddams: [muttering] I could set the building on fire.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
71. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  You are incorrect on the scienctific evidence for the protection being effective. Of course the evidence pointed to a very limited time period ....14 years with a possible 14 year extension allowable upon application.
  And best ever for me the captcha is rackets .... as in the current copyright extension acts in various treaties are evidence of IP rackets
72. Re:Hmmm ... by quantaman · 2014-12-28 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they're related, the film was almost ready to release when the hack occurred meaning they had a final or very nearly final cut.
  I am a sound editor on features, I worked about 9 months at Sony this year (on Fury and 22 Jump Street mostly, not Interview). They can replace music days before the movie is released, particularly now because most shows are distributed almost exclusively on DCP. It's not unusual to printmaster the movie (finalize all the sound) and still not have all the music deals in place. Music is an independent process from the "final cut".
  All of the PCs at Sony were still down in mid-December, nobody in any of the administrative departments could access any of the work they'd left on their machines or on servers prior to the hack, everybody had to lug in their Macbooks to get any work done -- Macs were unaffected by the hack. I can't imagine how they could have dotted all their i's for the delivery with one days notice and no corporate PC infrastructure.
  Alright, I can buy that. I would have assumed the music got finalized earlier, but I guess you have a lot of options when it comes to the soundtrack. I suppose if nothing else works you can run it at double speed and throw in Yakety Sax.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
73. Re:Hmmm ... by iluvcapra · 2014-12-28 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  The music situation is always really fluid, it's not uncommon to have a particular song in the film but a different song on the DVDs and VOD for rights reasons. Also it's not unheard of for the studio to replace a song after the film's released, they used to ship new reels to the theater but now they just upload a new DCP to the theatre chain headquarters, they all program it from their via satellite.
  It's the music supervisor's job to clear all the music, he'll give the picture editor music that he thinks he can clear and then he'll start negotiation if it takes. By the time the final mix is happening he'll usually at least have all the music in negotiation and there won't be any music that's flat off-limits. It sounds like here he started to clear the song and he probably had the number in his spreadsheet (I'm not up on my rates but a $50k-$100k buyout for this usage in all media would kinda be standard). They just didn't do the paperwork -- add to this the artist might have gotten cold feet after the hack when it was alleged that North Korea was involved.
  They might update the mix with a different song and just settle with the label. This is what Errors & Omissions insurance is for.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
74. Re:Hmmm ... by RabidReindeer · 2014-12-28 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  All that does is demonstrate the inadequacy of the English language as it presently exists and applies to the issues of the day.
  If I have been granted a right to restrict copying of a work of mine except to those who I wish to receive a copy (whether for money, other considerations or even gratis), that's not theft, it's true. It's infringement and something of value HAS been lost - my remuneration or permission. Stolen, if you prefer to allow for the possibity that something that was destroyed in potentio - payment - is "theft".
  But it's a poor representation to call it theft, because people are looking at the copy, not the intangible right as the thing that was stolen. So on the one hand you have the "pirates" "justifying" themselves because it's "not theft" and on the other, you have the fat cats saying "you STOLE our song/movie/whatever". And I just ran out of quote-marks, I think.
  So maybe we just need to invent a new word that can be used to make the distinction clearer. I don't agree with a lot of the current copyright and patent laws, but at least let's not muddy the waters with false meanings when discussing them.
75. Re:Hmmm ... by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-12-28 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Just want to say thanks for a adding something of substance to this discussion, even if it didn't get modded p. I think our copyright system needs a lot of reform, and things should go into the public domain much more quickly, but those who just blindly that copyright is a completely irrational concept generally haven't thought at all about issues you bring up or their consequences.
76. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 17:09 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah. 200% of the revenues that the movie earns them would be just.
77. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 19:47 · Score: 0
  
  There's a great word that's been used for a long time for the purpose. "Pirate". Sure, it has negative connotations, but the meaning in relation to media is completely separate. Conflating the two would be like suggesting only Jewish people are interested in a Ghetto Blaster.
78. Re:Hmmm ... by jones_supa · 2014-12-28 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  You're attempting to argue that Sony should not be held accountable by the same laws as the rest of us
  That is not my point. I hope the artist in question gets compensated properly.
  My original argument was that I speculated that if we went by the rules of freeloader pirates, then one might assume that by the same rules, Sony would be eligible to do some freeloading too.
79. Re:Hmmm ... by jones_supa · 2014-12-28 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, I fully agree with you. :) I was just looking the thing from the perspective of the freeloaders.
80. Re:Hmmm ... by parenthephobia · 2014-12-29 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  My original argument was that I speculated that if we went by the rules of straw men, then one might assume that by the same rules, Sony would be eligible to do some freeloading too.
  FTFY
81. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-29 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  So what are you going to do about it pussy? Type on a screen. Big fucking deal. Pussy.
Editor? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 02:38 · Score: 0

Is there an editor out there?
1. Re:Editor? by danknight48 · 2014-12-28 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Is there an editor out there?
  Clearly, they are too hung over from the Dice xmas party bash.
*sigh* by L.+J.+Beauregard · 2014-12-28 02:41 · Score: 2, Informative

http://angryflower.com/itsits....

--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
1. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe this is a flaw with the English language. After all "its" vs "it's" conflicts with multiple rules of the language.
2. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Human language in general is inconsistent, inefficient, and illogical. It's garbage, but you have to use it to communicate.
3. Re:*sigh* by sribe · 2014-12-28 03:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Maybe this is a flaw with the English language. After all "its" vs "it's" conflicts with multiple rules of the language.
  And yet, it is completely consistent with other pronouns (the most closely related other words and therefore the most logical rules to apply), and dead simple to remember:
  his hers its
  he's she's it's
4. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  It really doesn't.
5. Re:*sigh* by Marginal+Coward · 2014-12-28 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  Human language in general is inconsistent, inefficient, and illogical. It's garbage, but you have to use it to communicate.
  "Fascinating, Captain. Are you suggesting that it's inconsistency is integral to its utility? I find that quite illogical."
  Spock aside, I happened to catch Martin Freeman, a British actor, on Saturday Night Live last night, and while doing an American accent he accidentally said "leaver" (rhymes with "cleaver") rather than "lever" (rhymes with clever). From the American point of view, the British seem to mispronounce things relative to their spelling, though I suppose the American version of "lever" should be spelled "levver" to get the desired literal effect. I'm sure the British think the same about us. For example, the word "been" is pronounced by the British according to its (it's?) spelling, to rhyme with "seen", whereas Americans say it like "ben", as in the famous founder Franklin and the famous film rat. So, in all fairness, I think both sides make mistakes of pronunciation relative to the spelling of English words, though English is known for its (it's?) non-uniform spelling.
  What was the question?
6. Re:*sigh* by Aighearach · 2014-12-28 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  The main part many people miss on this one is that the apostrophe simply replaces missing letters most of the time. In the case of indicating ownership, the apostrophe exists because you can't attach a suffix directly to a proper noun. There has to be some sort of punctuation so that you're not mixing somebody's formal name with your own writing; you don't get to choose or rewrite names.
  It shouldn't be confusing at all unless you meet a person named It. And then it will only be confusing for hipsters who don't understand capitalization.
7. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Rephrasing a bit:
  Its like raiaiain on you're wedding day.
  Its a freeee ride, when you've already paid.
  Linking to a comic, to show a grammar mistake.
  And who has the writes four the figures?
  Its pretty ironic, made of iron, if ewe no what eye mean.
In old soviet russia ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 02:45 · Score: 0

Used to be that we start our joke by "In the old Soviet Russia ..."
I think this time we can say "With Sony Music Pirates You"
1. Re:In old soviet russia ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  We can also change it to "In North Korea..."
2. Re:In old soviet russia ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  In North Korea Sony kills you.
Sony is a pirate! drag out the rootkit! by swschrad · 2014-12-28 02:49 · Score: 1

one they didn't originate...

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
What's the timecode? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 02:50 · Score: 0

Can anyone say when exactly the song is played in the movie?
I would like to verify that they played her performance of the song (which would be a copyright violation) versus playing their own commissioned performance which would be totally legal (as long as they paid the compulsory licensing fees which, as the name suggests are compulsory on the song writer and composer and are not subject to negotiation).
1. Re:What's the timecode? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Good point.
2. Re:What's the timecode? by tysonedwards · 2014-12-28 04:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No idea where the song is in the movie, but I've just verified that it's listed in the credits at 1h51m10s. It's stated as her performance, by her production company. As such, if they didn't actually pay for the rights, that's an extremely baller move as it presents zero ambiguity that it was known as her work and the company they'd need to get the rights from by everyone involved.
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
3. Re:What's the timecode? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  I checked too and you are correct, the credits say "Performed by Yoonmirae, Tiger JK and Ann One."
  I hope she really puts the screws to them. I'm sure her copyright is registered so that's a minimum of $750 per infringement statutory damages.
  It opened on 300 screens so, conservatively assuming 3 showings per day that is 3 showings x 300 screens x 4 days = $2.7 million, minimum.
  A drop in the bucket for Sony, but a jackpot for her.
I was hoping this girl was named Katy. by Skinkie · 2014-12-28 02:52 · Score: 1

In hindsight it would have been far more hilarious if Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson brought the news.

Do you ever feel, feel so paper thin
Like a house of cards
One blow from caving in

--
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
Sauce for the goose by ihtoit · 2014-12-28 02:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

$150,000 per claimed violation. That should be counted as ticket sales. How many tickets were sold for the opening day alone?
Sony would regret lobbying for that pesky DMCA... >:]

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
1. Re:Sauce for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Erm... I'm not really sure what the DMCA in particular has to do with anything in this context. The number for statutory damages was established long before the DMCA was a glimmer in some young lobbyist's eye...
2. Re:Sauce for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's wrong. It is $150,000 per copy . That would be $150,000 per download / transfer to the 330 odd theaters (more if it was also sent to the ones that declined to show it), and one per copy sent to XBox video, Google Play Video, etc. Actuall performance of the song (showing the movie) isn't a copy - that is covered under public performance and would result in a royalty payment that is significantly less that the $150,000 per copy. So ticket sales and streams would be covered under public performance.
3. Re: Sauce for the goose by Jason+Levine · 2014-12-28 03:18 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly. When the MPAA or RIAA claims that a shared song or movie is a lost sale, they will sue the person involved (or a person with the same IP address that they think is involved). Often, in these lawsuits they will "settle" for a $2,000 per instance fee.
  If Sony had to pay $2,000 for each ticket sold given how much they made in opening day, Sony would be looking at $300 million+ in fines. Not a huge burden for Sony, but not chump change either.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
4. Re:Sauce for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  What about ever, single commercial download since the movie's release? My suspicion is that it has been legally downloaded substantially more than 330 times...
5. Re:Sauce for the goose by ihtoit · 2014-12-28 03:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  define "copy"?
  Is that a physical copy, like a DVD?
  Or is it an imaginary copy, like a digital download, stream, air performance (where wetware memory is also by strict definition, a copy)?
  The **AA have their own definition: they claim it is the potential wetware duplication, which is how many people will hear it and not pay for it? Because Sony didn't pay a licence to the artist, then it must follow by that logic that every single person who heard the music also didn't pay for it. Because Sony are the distributors, it's down to them to put right. On the balance of probabilities (this is a civil claim), the number of tickets sold must equal the number of unique individuals who "recorded" the music to their wet memories (heard it), hence that count should be the one used to enumerate the violations - notwithstanding and in fact ignoring the possibility which is not convenient that not everyone who bought a ticket will have actually gone on to watch the movie and some individuals might have seen it twice.
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
6. Re:Sauce for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  What, no payment for each time it was downloaded illegally? (I don't believe there is an exemption that says it doesn't count if it was an illegal download.) Don't forget to include each time it was viewed for free by critics, or by anyone else who viewed it free.
  It should be easy enough to prove Sony knew about it...just read their internal emails about the movie.
7. Re:Sauce for the goose by houghi · 2014-12-28 03:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So now we know why they didn't want the movie to be shown.
  And isn't is per violation, not per sale. So they must pay for the billions of illegal downloads that get the song as well. They were the ones distributing it.
  But in reality what will happen will that either they win (After all it is their law. They bought it fair and square.) or they settle out of court. This will be some minor sum in the 6 figures and the deal never to talk about it. Then it will go to another court where Sony will claim the money back.
  After a few years the artis will give up or re-settles for an extreme low amount. (5 figures that she will need to pay the lawers AND give up her rights in the process.)
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
8. Re:Sauce for the goose by Zocalo · 2014-12-28 03:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Why limit to just the legal downloads when the **AA's lawyers certainly don't? Remember, according to the *AAs, it's also a crime to *facilitate* theft, so by making available the movie that includes the copyrighted track surely they should also be liable for all the several million torrented copies, plus all the legitmate pay-per-view downloads from Google etc. too?
  
  While I suspect this is probaby just a case of office incompetence and someone forgetting an action that will probably be quickly cleaned up with a check in the post, I dearly hope this does end up going to court. Watching Sony's lawyers try and get themselves off the hook without setting precedents that anyone else being sued for infringing copyright can use would be priceless.
  
  --
  UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
9. Re:Sauce for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the caselaw that built the predicate /for/ shrinkwrap and clickwrap agreement's -- relying upon copyright law was pretty clear on this. My text book is currently 700 miles from here...
  - the installation medium itself is a copy you/the retailer sold
  - installation of the program onto your hard drive to use it constitutes making a copy
  - executing the program (loading it into system memory) consittutes a copy.
  (and making a backup is of course, also a copy)
  The mere act of /fucking using/ something you purchased is at least two copies according to fairly established law, which is why you can purchase software and not have the right to use it.
  So it seems pretty clear that every streaming sale is a copy, and anyone who ever played a disc made a copy...
10. Re:Sauce for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  That would be $150,000 per download / transfer to the 330 odd theaters (more if it was also sent to the ones that declined to show it), and one per copy sent to XBox video, Google Play Video, etc. Actuall performance of the song (showing the movie) isn't a copy
  All that would be true if the movie were distributed on film. But it isn't. Case law is very firmly settled that copying something to RAM "fixes" it in the RAM and thus qualifies as a copy in the eyes of the law. So each performance in the theater and each streaming download result in at least one legally defined copy to the RAM of the playback computer.
11. Re: Sauce for the goose by Lumpy · 2014-12-28 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  dont forget the 390,000 illegal downloads. you need to count those as well.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
12. Re:Sauce for the goose by Lehk228 · 2014-12-28 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  it's per work infringed specifically designed to hit online pirates while allowing corporate for profit infringement to go about mainly unmolested.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
13. Re:Sauce for the goose by russotto · 2014-12-28 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  The mere act of /fucking using/ something you purchased is at least two copies according to fairly established law, which is why you can purchase software and not have the right to use it.
  You should have read the next chapter of your textbook, because while there is precedent for that, it's no longer good law in the US. Reason? 17 USC 117(a)(1)
  
  Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
  
  This only holds for software, but for music, the Diamond Rio decision holds "space shifting" as fair use. I don't know that there's law specifically on "space shifting" audiovisual works.
14. Re:Sauce for the goose by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-28 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  I don't get why people write this nonsense and get even a +5 for it like so many other stupid +4/+5 posts above of it.
  What is so difficult in:
  a) reading the copyright law
  b) reading the DMCA
  c) grasping that both have not much to do with each other
  The Sony / Singer situation here is super simple: first, it is a civil case and not a crime. The amount of downloads etc. are completely irrelevant only the revenue/earnings count. Secondly if Sony does not play well / behave, the singer has a court ruling to take the movie out of the cinema as soon as she proves that she composed/made it and Sony fails to show up a contract.
  All the other talk about this 'issue' is just complete bollocks. (Like need for settlement, paying the own layers, fines for Sony etc. p.p. )
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
15. Re:Sauce for the goose by HiThere · 2014-12-28 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Since this is a "public performance" does each performance count only as one showing, no matter how many watched?
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
16. Re:Sauce for the goose by Jstlook · 2014-12-28 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget each of the 1.5 million downloads. According to my maths, that comes out to roughly two undecillion dollars.
  
  --
  ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
17. Re:Sauce for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 09:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  grasping that both have not much to do with each other
  Actually, this is rather difficult to grasp, since DMCA stands for "Digital Millennium Copyright Act.".
  And also since " In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet." (source)
  And also since the DMCA is used to smack the masses down when they share copyrighted material.
  Though, ultimately, you are right. Wealthy international corporations are not beholden to many laws to which the masses are subjugate, and this is a textbook example.
18. Re:Sauce for the goose by Zocalo · 2014-12-28 09:24 · Score: 2
  
  I actually didn't say whether it was a civil or criminal case, but that's actually moot since almost all of the "sauce for the goose" cases on whose petard people are proposing hoisting Sony were also civil cases. Those are often the ones where the studios factored into their damages claims the number of times a track was downloaded *from* the plaintiff via Kazaa, eMule, BitTorrent or whatever, and then applied an insane multiplier to arrive at their "punitive damages" figures. Using Google Play doesn't change things. Sure, the singer's studio could issue a take down under the DMCA, but where's the fun and profit in that, when Sony is *also* infringing copyright by distributing the track without a valid license - exactly the same setup that many of the plaintiffs in those civil cases brought by the studios were sued for?
  
  Legal issues aside it's all going to be moot anyway. Sony won't want a DMCA takedown interfering with the money the film is currently making them, and they definitely won't want to face an embarrassing copyright infringement case. If all had gone to plan, Sony would have paid the artist's studio some money - most likely either a lump sum or a figure derived from ticket sales - they'd have taken their cut and paid her the rest, and that's almost certainly still the way things will go. So, some studio execs (maybe lawyers, maybe not) will almost certainly have a chat in the next few days, a number will be thrashed out, some money will change hands, and that will be the end of the matter.
  
  --
  UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
19. Re:Sauce for the goose by budgenator · 2014-12-28 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  you forgot, "Meanwhile, 1.5 million pirates have downloaded the comedy." and it is on you tube with 529,847 views, that would be something like $300,000,000,000.00
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
20. Re:Sauce for the goose by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-28 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  The point js: 'it is not the exact smae set up' (as you said) the situation is complete different and the DMCA does not even apply (as far as I know it, did not read the details about the DMCA)
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
21. Re:Sauce for the goose by budgenator · 2014-12-28 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Of course Sony can always show they own rights to a song that "pay day" infringes on.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
22. Re: Sauce for the goose by budgenator · 2014-12-28 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  There has been 529,847 veiws on Youtube; Yoon Mi-rae should issue a takedown complaint to youtube
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
23. Re:Sauce for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  You went on a complete lunatic rant about the DMCA but you haven't even read the details of the DMCA... Are you an American by chance?
24. Re:Sauce for the goose by mgcarley · 2014-12-29 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't the penalty higher when the infringement is commercial?
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
25. Re:Sauce for the goose by Shirley+Marquez · 2014-12-29 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  Unclear. The sites that they are using to rent and sell the movie usually stream it. It is possible to download Google Play movies to a device, though since those downloads are still DRM-protected and tied to the app they aren't quite downloads in the usual sense, just like the offline option on Spotify. YouTube has no download option. Sony's own site was supposed to be streaming-only, but they apparently forgot to disable the "download video" option at first.
26. Re:Sauce for the goose by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-31 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  And how should they be able to do that?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
27. Re:Sauce for the goose by budgenator · 2015-01-01 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  There are only so many ways to write music that sounds good to the ear, the copywrite period is at least 95 years, so the likely hood that any popular song written does not contain segments of songs previously copywritted is pretty slim. An example, buried deep in In Memory of Elizabeth Reed, written by Dickey Betts is a guitar riff, among many, that is the entire refrain for Beyoncé's "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)". I'm not saying that the writers of "Single Ladies" copied on purpose, or even know that what they wrote had been to a degree written before, but all you is enough to convince a Judge or Jury. Sony music has a very big catalog and the resorces to buy any music they might find useful.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
28. Re:Sauce for the goose by angel'o'sphere · 2015-01-02 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Ah the damned Jury system ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Sony is a pirate! drag out the rootkit! by Technician · 2014-12-28 03:04 · Score: 1

Sony was already rooted. Were you paying attention?

--
The truth shall set you free!
Sony Exec Take them away by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:19 · Score: 0

Jail time, not fine time is what is needed if this is true. If the roles had been reversed there would be jail time for a single individual and fines. An example needs to be made of Sony.
Get your grammerz right by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 03:43 · Score: 1

"its" vs "it's": not that hard...
1. Re:Get your grammerz right by PPH · 2014-12-28 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Give him a break. It's only Timo'thy.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
My 0.02 by DaMattster · 2014-12-28 03:57 · Score: 1

I would very much like for this to be true. That way Sony could be caught stepping on its own dick .... yet again. They champion RIAA and MPAA and all the while do dirty shit like this. It would be about mot just.
1. Re:My 0.02 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  I bet Sony will be hit as hard as copyright crusader and senator Orrin Hatch was when he was caught running his website using pirated software.
Root Kit DVDs, Pirate the music by BoRegardless · 2014-12-28 04:11 · Score: 1

Time for Sony to bow out. No credibility left. But then, don't expect the buyer who puts a new name on the firm to act any diffferent.
Okay.... so what? by mark-t · 2014-12-28 04:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not like Sony doesn't have money.... they can pay for the song's inclusion and all is good.
I don't defend Sony here, but it's also entirely possible that this was just a mistake... someone at Sony might have thought they had already secured permission, because it was something they intended to do, and they just put in the sound track without thinking about it, and afterwards, nobody else thought to double-check. It's a really stupid mistake, and one they should most definitely pay for, certainly, but it's not like Sony can't reasonably afford to pay for permission to include the work unless the artist was never willing to give Sony permission in the first place, at any price.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Okay.... so what? by OzPeter · 2014-12-28 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  it's also entirely possible that this was just a mistake
  I'd go with someone decided that artistically they wanted the song and then assumed that the artist would agree with whatever Sony would negotiate. The artist didn't, but Sony kept the song in anyway. There is a comment above that says Sony listed the artist for the song in the movies credits. TIMHO this is no "mistake".
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
2. Re:Okay.... so what? by tompaulco · 2014-12-28 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's entirely possible that Yoon Mi Rae did not want the song included at any price, for political or security reasons. She was born in the U.S., but she undoubtedly has relatives in South Korea. Due to being associated with this controversial film, the lives of her family could be endangered. Also, it is possible that she, like at least SOME of the South Koreans, is sympathetic to the plight of the North Korean populace, and does not wish to be associated with a film that treats North Korea as a whipping boy.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
3. Re: Okay.... so what? by iluvcapra · 2014-12-28 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  I love how, when Sony here has used a song without permission, the aggrieved musician is an "artist" and Sony is exploiting them.
  But, when someone pirates an MP3, nobody is hurt but the "evil record labels."
  In this situation, the money Sony would pay to use the song would go to the RECORD LABEL. I don't understand why people are so excited about taking sides in a dispute between large corporations neither of whom want sharing to succeed, and both of whom are doing their fair share of exploiting.
  I mean you're either pro-remixing or not.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
4. Re:Okay.... so what? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  It's a really stupid mistake, and one they should most definitely pay for, certainly, but it's not like Sony can't reasonably afford to pay for permission to include the work
  You seem to be arguing that a rich person should not be imprisoned for shoplifting, because they could clearly afford to have bought the item, so stealing it must have been an oversight. Instead, they should just pay the price of the item, and call it square.
5. Re:Okay.... so what? by mark-t · 2014-12-28 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  ...a film that treats North Korea as a whipping boy.
  You know it was a comedy, right? (and not an overly good one, from what I've heard). You realize that the only reason NK is claiming that the film is insulting is because they seem to always want to find any reason they can that garners sympathy for them, right? The only thing this movie makes fun of is not North Korea, or its leader, but rather, it really only satirizes the popular mindset that people have about NK and its position with respect to the United States and the rest of the Western world.
  In reality, from what I understand, there's nothing more insulting or offensive about this film than any other Seth Rogen film (which based on the films of his that I have seen, I admit may not be saying much in its favor)... but there's certainly no reason that NK should be take any kind of real offense because it for any reason other than that they just seem to want any excuse they can find to continue to have a mad-on at the Western world.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
6. Re: Okay.... so what? by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-28 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Which artist would make a contract with a label that allows them to resell the music to movie makers without getting a share for that?
  Sorry, contracts like this are in Europe not even possible. And they should not be possible everywhere where the 'Bern Convention' is signed (AFAIK the USA is the only country with such retarded copyright laws).
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
7. Re:Okay.... so what? by mark-t · 2014-12-28 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying that Sony shouldn't have to pay for their mistake... of course there should be punitive damages. My point is that Sony is rich enough to afford it unless the punitive damages were to exceed the net worth of the company, which they don't.
  But for what it's worth, shoplifters don't typically go to jail either. They generally just pay a large fine, and that's it. Of course, they also get stuck with a criminal record that will typically stay with them for years to come.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
8. Re:Okay.... so what? by iluvcapra · 2014-12-28 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  a film that treats North Korea as a whipping boy.
  Ironically I think the film's a lot harder on American celebtriy culture than North Korea. I mean Kim Jong-un's a bad guy, but the North Korean people are portrayed as sympathetic and the real butt of all the jokes is invariably James Franco's character. The idea that the movie is actually "anti" North Korea is sorta overblown.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
9. Re: Okay.... so what? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 18:47 · Score: 0
  
  No kidding about the USA. We can't even get the second season onward of the The Drew Carey Show on DVD because of copyrighted music. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Drew_Carey_Show#DVD_releases
  I'd like to see a change for media (music and/or videos) so copyrights expire at like 14 years if "abandoned" and 28 years if not abandoned. By abandoned, I mean no legal/easy way to get it anymore. We should consider decriminalizing it too for non-commercial infractions.
Common sense from TFA by resfilter · 2014-12-28 04:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

"It seems unlikely that this lawsuit will result in a messy legal battle. The huge publicity the movie has enjoyed in the past few weeks will virtually guarantee decent sales for Sony, even without lucrative box office revenues. Yoon Mi-rae should not only be able to secure a piece of that but also raise her profile in a way that would not have been possible had Sony paid her in the first instance."
1. Re:Common sense from TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Like so many other editors (i.e. Soulskill) he's a pothead, and timothy does these edits in a dope-induced fog.
If the laws applied the same to Sony... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:02 · Score: 0

That girl could BUY Sony Pictures with the revenues from the damages in short order.
Oh look, aonther poorly edited Slashdot summary! by wonkey_monkey · 2014-12-28 05:08 · Score: 3, Informative

As the controversy surrounding Sony's handling of it's hack, the movie The Interview and it's aftermath continues
"It's"? Good job. Pretty poorly punctuated and written all round, in fact.

she and her label claim that her track we learned that the track
timothy, what do you do, exactly?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"Real name"? by dhasenan · 2014-12-28 06:06 · Score: 1

People can have multiple real names. The artist is using the name Yoon Mi-rae as her primary professional name; call her that. It's rather insulting otherwise.
1. Re:"Real name"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Insulting? No, just incorrect when referring to her work as a hip-hop artist. For instance, Samuel Clemens's nom de plume was Mark Twain. When we refer to the man we say Samuel Clemens, when we refer to his writings we say Mark Twain. Both names are correct when in context. Now, if there was a legal name change like Muhammad Ali (née Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.) or Kareem Abdul Jabbar (née Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor, Jr.), then using their previous name is insulting.
2. Re:"Real name"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  What's it to you? Unless you are Natasha Reid, you have no idea whether it's insulting to her or not, and it's none of your business either way.
3. Re:"Real name"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  It's insulting to use someone's legal name? People find new ways to be offended every day!
Re:Oh look, aonther poorly edited Slashdot summary by DaTrueDave · 2014-12-28 06:22 · Score: 1

I don't like to jump on the hater bandwagon, but this is, once again, ridiculous. What is happening to Slashdot?
Re:Oh look, aonther poorly edited Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:29 · Score: 0

timothy, what do you do, exactly?
The same thing the rest of the "editors" do. Post click bait for Dice and self-aggrandize.
No compulsory licensing? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 06:37 · Score: 0

I'm actually surprised they needed to get permission for this - in lots of other cases, they'd simply pay the Compulsory License (Section 115) and go on their merry way. Or do movies not work this way?
File a take-down notice by paulproteus · 2014-12-28 07:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

YouTube has a standard DMCA complaints procedure. I recommend that Yoon Mi-rae and the label follow that process, partly because it actually works which is great in this case, and partly to give Sony a taste of their own medicine.
Here is the link: https://support.google.com/you...
(Note that I have a bunch of experience with the take-down process, including participating in an EFF lawsuit ~10 years ago; see https://www.eff.org/document/d... .)

--
|/usr/games/fortune
1. Re:File a take-down notice by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-28 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you should care to read the DMCA ... and then point out to us which sections of it are relevant and why.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
2. Re:File a take-down notice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  It was shown quite clearly in your other comment where you admitted to not even knowing the DMCA yourself that you are a clueless fool, or paid shill or both.
3. Re:File a take-down notice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  If you don't think it applies in this case, then you have clearly not read it (and been living somewhere behind the moon for the past 16 years).
Re:Oh look, aonther poorly edited Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:42 · Score: 0

What is happening to Slashdot?
It's making money.
Foolish Mortals by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 08:24 · Score: 0

It seems unlikely that this lawsuit will result in a messy legal battle. The huge publicity the movie has enjoyed in the past few weeks will virtually guarantee decent sales for Sony, even without lucrative box office revenues.
It doesn't matter how much money a movie makes in sales. As long as Hollywood accountants are allowed to cook the books, no movie made will ever show a profit.
Almost perfect by davydagger · 2014-12-28 08:59 · Score: 1

Except that little flaw. Sony did a nice job convincing everyone that it was their patriotic duty to go see "The Interview", and if you were anything less that totally enthusiastic, then the commies would win.
But it seems that they pirated some music, which is not going to be a big deal, because piracy laws were only designed to protect people with huge amounts of money to spent on lawyers.
Like most other capitalist property schemes they are only designed to protect people in power, albiet they talk alot about protecting everyone else, but when push comes to shove, exceptions are made.
Placeholder music? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 09:09 · Score: 1

Maybe it was what the producers wanted to use, so they put it in as a placeholder while the licensing details were negotiated. At the time of the Sony hack, not everything was signed off, but because things were a little hectic around the office, some small details that were thought to be sorted weren't quite sorted.
Re:Oh look, aonther poorly edited Slashdot summary by thegarbz · 2014-12-28 09:43 · Score: 1

Be thankful he didn't write: "she and her universe" because timothy likes using that word where it absolutely doesn't belong.
Sony emails by phorm · 2014-12-28 11:29 · Score: 1

I wonder if there will be any reference to this in the "hacker" released Sony emails. Wouldn't it be delicious if some exec sent something like "fuck it, we'll use it anyways, we can always let the lawyers deal with her later"
1. Re:Sony emails by ArcadeMan · 2014-12-28 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  Please someone with access to these leaked documents, search for her first name, family name, song name, etc. Then forward said information to her anonymously.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
ASCAP/BMI by RubberDogBone · 2014-12-28 18:09 · Score: 1

Normally a standard ASCAP/BMI license would cover using a song like this in a TV show. I don't know how movies handle licensing but supposing it is the same, then Sony has to attribute the song (and supposedly is IS listed in the credits roll), cut a check to the copyright holder and performer, and then cut a check to ASCAP or whichever company is doing the rep for the song. End of issue.
And by TV standards, which again may not be the same as in movies, the production does not need permission to use the song. They just need to properly credit the work and pay the fees. And then the artists won't actually see any money but that is a whole other story.
Sony was probably looking at $50,000 for using this song legally. If they did not in fact pay that fee, it will cost more now.

--
Sig for hire.
Whatever key in which it was written... by unitron · 2014-12-28 19:38 · Score: 1

...I hope they wind up having to pay her treble (clef) damages.

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Finally! by thedonofdons · 2014-12-28 21:40 · Score: 1

Sony was always sailing on this boat; nobody noticed it because of their star status in brands;
http://popularbloggingtopics.c...
Re:Oh look, aonther poorly edited Slashdot summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 22:57 · Score: 0

timothy, what do you do, exactly?
By his presence, he reminds us that there are parts of Slashdot that has not yet been replaced by Dice's marketing team.
Timothy: please watch out for people in suits.
So they've been fighting us since 1980 or so? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-29 13:33 · Score: 0

So the earliest Sony should be allowed to pirate is 2060 or so? So basically they can't just switch over, they have to wait?
I like it, they lose they're bankrupt. Because they'd be sooo sooo far behind everyone else.
Good show! Let's do it!