Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Accused of Pirating Music In "The Interview"

Posted by timothy on 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.

26 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm ... by gstoddart · · 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 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe she should have put a rootkit on her CD?

    2. Re:Hmmm ... by gstoddart · · 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.
    3. Re:Hmmm ... by Free+Censorship · · 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.

    4. Re:Hmmm ... by ChromaticDragon · · 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.

    5. Re:Hmmm ... by msauve · · 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
    6. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe she did, and that was how Sony got hacked...

    7. Re:Hmmm ... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

      Maybe she did, and that was how Sony got hacked...

      You win the internet for the day.

    8. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · 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.
  2. *sigh* by L.+J.+Beauregard · · 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 sribe · · 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

    2. Re:*sigh* by Marginal+Coward · · 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?

  3. Re:her track we learned that the track by ihtoit · · 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
  4. Sauce for the goose by ihtoit · · 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 Jason+Levine · · 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.
    2. Re:Sauce for the goose by ihtoit · · 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
    3. Re:Sauce for the goose by houghi · · 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.
    4. Re:Sauce for the goose by Zocalo · · 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!
    5. Re: Sauce for the goose by Lumpy · · 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.
    6. Re:Sauce for the goose by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re:Sauce for the goose by Zocalo · · 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!
  5. Re:What's the timecode? by tysonedwards · · 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.
  6. Okay.... so what? by mark-t · · 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'
  7. Common sense from TFA by resfilter · · 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."

  8. Oh look, aonther poorly edited Slashdot summary! by wonkey_monkey · · 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.
  9. File a take-down notice by paulproteus · · 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