×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jonathan Coulton Song Used By Glee Without Permission

timothy posted about a year ago | from the perhaps-they-can-call-it-willful dept.

Music 307

FunPika writes "Jonathan Coulton, who is known for songs such as "Code Monkey", is claiming that his cover of "Baby Got Back" was used without permission on Glee, a television show aired by Fox Broadcasting Company. When the Glee version appeared on YouTube last week, Coulton suspected that it sounded similar to his cover, and several of his fans confirmed this by analyzing the two tracks. Despite Coulton contacting Fox, they continued with airing the episode and have placed the song on sale in iTunes."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

307 comments

Copyright protection (5, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year ago | (#42697443)

What, did anyone think that copyright was intended to protect anyone except the rich and powerful?

Re:Copyright protection (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#42697567)

This is the point at which he should submit a DMCA takedown request to Apple [apple.com].

Re:Copyright protection (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697793)

Screw that, this is where you go Bittersweet Symphony on their ass..

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

Rolling stones bent over The Verve and took all the money generated from their #1 hit because it contained "too much of a sample" that they had licensed.

I say let this track run iTunes, and then sue them for all the money it generated.

Re:Copyright protection (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42698241)

IANAL, but if you believe your IP is being violated, wouldn't it look pretty bad in court if you just let damages accrue, and only filed a case after the defendant had made a bunch of money? Especially since this guy is on the books as having noticed his IP is being violated.

Re:Copyright protection (0)

wurp (51446) | about a year ago | (#42698303)

There is no such legal entity as IP. I believe you're thinking of trademark, where infringement means someone is misrepresenting the trademark holder. Copyright is a totally different animal.

Re:Copyright protection (2)

_KiTA_ (241027) | about a year ago | (#42698177)

This is the point at which he should submit a DMCA takedown request to Apple [apple.com].

And Youtube, obviously. And most importantly: Hulu and any other sites that host Glee on demand -- Fox, for example. Dish and DirectTV also have on demand access, are they susceptible to DMCA requests?

Re:Copyright protection (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42698007)

Well, duh. Fox will already be saying "our lawyers will grind you into the ground."

Re:Copyright protection (2)

Kenja (541830) | about a year ago | (#42698087)

I would argue that this was fair use. It was "baby got back" with banjos sung by white guys. If that's not a parody I dont know what is.

News for Nerds! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697453)

Stuff That Matters!

Re:News for Nerds! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#42698017)

Well, I wonder if the spacetime continuum is unravelling -- I could swear I read exactly this story several days ago, including the topic OP.

This has happened several times in the past few weeks. I don't know what's going on. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON!

speed of takedowns (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about a year ago | (#42697455)

interesting to see how a joe average gets smacked down like a gnat with a buick on youtube, but then we see the exact opposite here? Or didn't they file a takedown notice?

Re:speed of takedowns (-1, Troll)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#42697689)

You mean the average joe on youtube who licenses a song to make a cover of it, and then gets mad when somebody else also licenses the same song to make a cover of it, which in his opinion sounds too similar to his own cover?

Did you listen? (5, Informative)

Junta (36770) | about a year ago | (#42697783)

We aren't talking about someone doing a 'similar' cover, we are talking about Fox, by all appearances, using his Karaoke track verbatim against his license and singing over it. Hell, even the lyrics kept "Johnny C's in trouble" instead of the original lyrics. Analysis suggests they even had to work a bit to try to edit out a duck quack from his track, but still left some sign of that quack behind.

In fact, reports are that the show lifts a *lot* of differently done arrangements of well known songs done by obscure people without permission without a shred of apologetic tone or credit given.

But at least it is equal opportunity, a fair number of more well known musicians whose songs have been featured aren't exactly pleased to hear their works crop up in that show either.

Re:Did you listen? (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#42698075)

IIRC, some bands sued the Guitar Hero and similar games because they made almost identical cover versions.

I don't know, but I'll bet it costs a lot less to do a professionally-released (so to speak) cover than to republish actual recordings. So what to do when people really get their rocks off to the big hit original and dislike even slight variations? Easy! Clone it down to the atomic level.

But maybe that "cover", while technically new, is so close it falls afoul of copyrights or the contracts studios write for cover vs. republish. Bring in the lawyers!

Re:speed of takedowns (5, Interesting)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#42697827)

The question is whether Glee crossed the line from "sounds similar to" to "used the same background recordings as". Coulton has a karaoke [jonathancoulton.com] version available, and at one point it was possible to purchase [creativecommons.org] a usb drive containing source tracks of this song (among others) as part of a creative commons fundraiser, so it's certainly feasible that the Glee version simply stuck new vocals on top of JoCo's existing tracks. There is some strong [soundcloud.com] evidence [musicmachinery.com] that that is exactly what happened.

Re:speed of takedowns (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697975)

It's worth pointing out that this was released under Creative Commons "Attribution-NonCommercial [creativecommons.org]" license, which means anyone can adapt (remix, sing over, etc.) and distribute it, but must give due credit to the original author and must not use it for any commercial purpose.

Re:speed of takedowns (5, Informative)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#42698001)

Actually, as I noted elsewhere [slashdot.org], Coulton explicitly states on his online store that his covers are not CC-licensed.

Re:speed of takedowns (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#42698121)

One would think such a high-visibility show by a deep pockets company would have entire folders of legal provenance for everything long before they even get around to recordings.

The fog of war deepens.

Re:speed of takedowns (2)

zieroh (307208) | about a year ago | (#42698233)

Have you actually listened to the two songs, side by side?

Go listen, then come back. We'll be here.

Old news (2, Informative)

mveloso (325617) | about a year ago | (#42697465)

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/18/3891836/glee-uses-jonathan-coultons-cover-of-baby-got-back-without-permission [theverge.com]

There's no protection for a cover. However, the Glee people weren't nice because they didn't credit him for his ultra-boring cover of a great song.

Re:Old news (5, Informative)

spazdor (902907) | about a year ago | (#42697537)

What Glee released is not a "cover." It actually samples his recording. If they'd re-recorded all the instrumental parts in the exact style that JoCo arranged them, they'd be in the clear. But they didn't. They sang, karaoke-style, over his instrumental recordings.

From your link:

(If Glee's producers used clips of Coulton's actual recording, like the duck sound, it's different: that would be copyright infringement of his sound recording.)

Re:Old news (-1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#42697633)

The link doesn't say that happened. It says if that had happened, then the guy would have had a case.

I think he's wrong to complain (except in that he's getting a lot of free publicity). He wants credit for a derivative of a derivative (i.e. similarity - not sampling - of a cover), which is too much of a stretch.

Re:Old news (5, Informative)

spazdor (902907) | about a year ago | (#42697727)

It also notes that JoCo has posted that that happened:

What's more, Coulton also believes that Glee's music directors also illegally sampled his version, noting specifically that the sound of a duck quacking...

and then it goes on, undaunted by that detail, to talk about the legal ramifications of JoCo's claim assuming that the above is false, even though it gives absolutely no reason to doubt that it is true.

https://soundcloud.com/alacrion/joco-v-glee [soundcloud.com] Here is a demonstration of the claim's truth. Now, like, let's keep on talking about why JoCo's legal claim has no merit in some other hypothetical universe where the Glee people actually went to the trouble of re-recording it, even though they didn't in this universe.

I've heard note-for-note covers that accurate (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about a year ago | (#42697881)

So just noting they sound similar doesn't prove it wasn't reperformed.

And Coulton stops short of saying it wasn't reperformed, he says "he thinks he can hear a quack in there" and "maybe someone can find it for him".

There are hyper-accurate note-for-note covers out there for the purpose of avoiding copyright. Check Spotify. Prince even threatened to do it to his own songs because he didn't own the masters, just the creative copyright.

Re:I've heard note-for-note covers that accurate (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#42697961)

I agree that nothing has yet been proven, but I'd be very interested to hear an example of a cover that matches the tempo and beat of the original as perfectly as the Glee track does of Coulton's version.

Re:I've heard note-for-note covers that accurate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42698139)

Tempo and beat are trivial to cover. A good engineer will make it match the original, as did the engineer on both covers. Not saying each, saying both. If both parties licensed the same samples for their instruments (pretty likely; there are only a few resident) than it's going to be identical. Two roughly identical instrumental covers isn't any different than two roughly identical binaries from the same source, which this guy didn't create.

Re:I've heard note-for-note covers that accurate (5, Interesting)

spazdor (902907) | about a year ago | (#42698031)

Listen to the Soundcloud link I posted. Use headphones. This is not a hyper-accurate note-for-note cover. If it were that, there would be all sorts of stereo phasing wildness going on in your ears, because they would be all confused by the Haas effect. That is not going on because the instrumentals are the same instrumental.

http://s9.postimage.org/qq104s1zh/joco_glee_comparison.gif [postimage.org]

Here is a spectrogram comparison I made from the first 15 seconds of each song, starting from the attack of the second 'clap' sample. They're not identical obviously, owing to different mastering and compression on the tracks, in addition to the differing vocal performances going on over top. But, the spectral components they share in common are clear. If you look at that clap sample by itself, before the vocals and other instrumentation start up, they are obviously the same sample.

Re:Old news (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about a year ago | (#42698161)

https://soundcloud.com/alacrion/joco-v-glee Here is a demonstration of the claim's truth.

Well done! Kudos to alacrion.

What would be even more convincing would be reversing the phase of one and summing them. If aligned and level-corrected perfectly the music would drop out. If not, it would do a "phaser" effect. That happens when the waveforms themselves align and add or cancel. You can't get it to happen with a cover, or even two performances by the same artist on the same acoustic instrument. It only happens if it's the same performance, and it's only exact if it's two copies of the same microphone outputs and mix.

Re:Old news (3, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about a year ago | (#42698183)

What would be even more convincing would be reversing the phase of one and summing them. ...

However, while the phasing effect from such a recording would pop out at you, if you have good stereoscopic hearing this is just as convincing: The instrumental is heard at the center, one lyric performance on the left, the other on the right. If the instrumentals were a cover rather than phase-identical they'd be heard as a "chorus" - unison performances - by two guitars, one on each side.

Re:Old news (1)

spazdor (902907) | about a year ago | (#42698213)

I spent a couple minutes in Audacity trying unsuccessfully to do this, but all I have to work with (being on my Linux work computer) were fairly low-bitrate mp3s, and one artifact of frequency-domain compression schemes is that they produce phase distortion. I‘ll give it another try later from my music workstation with flac files (if i can find some.)

Re:Old news (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#42698253)

Joco has flac [jonathancoulton.com] versions in his store (see Thing a Week 1 for this track). No clue where to find a lossless recording of the Glee version

Re:Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697953)

Except that they're using his lyrics, including changes that he made to the original song. Had Glee, just used the original lyrics, even with his version of the song, it would have been much less likely that he'd have a case.

Re:Old news (5, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year ago | (#42697905)

What Glee released is not a "cover." It actually samples his recording.

And Coulton's version isn't just a cover either. If you listen to the Sir Mix-a-Lot version and then to the Coulton version, Coulton's puts the lyrics to a melody that wasn't there in the original rap song. Coulton owns the copyright of this melody.

Re:Old news (1, Informative)

cob666 (656740) | about a year ago | (#42697605)

This is 100% accurate. When you license a song you have to pay two fees. The first is for whoever owns the copyright on the song, the second is for the actual recording. So, Coulton should have some recourse for his 'recording' of the song being used.

Re:Old news (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#42697717)

When the news initially broke last week, it wasn't officially confirmed that they were going to use the song. This Slashdot post comes after the relevant episode has aired and the Glee version of the song put up for sale on iTunes.

Creative Commons (4, Informative)

MoonRabbit (596371) | about a year ago | (#42697467)

specifically, the license Jonathan Coulton uses, allows for noncommercial use. Anyone want to argue that this is non-commercial use?

Re:Creative Commons (4, Informative)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#42697513)

Huh? "Baby Got Back" is most certainly not licensed under Creative Commons.

Re:Creative Commons (2)

MoonRabbit (596371) | about a year ago | (#42697571)

The arrangement that Jonathan Coulton created is licensed under CC. They went so far as to lift the banjo tracks from the karaoke version. The killer is JoCo would probably have been fine with it if they had given him credit for the arrangement.

Re:Creative Commons (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year ago | (#42697819)

Actually, no. If you look up the law, arrangements are not owned by the arranger, they are owned by the original copyright holder. Even Coulton said as much in TFA.

Now, IF they sampled his actual audio (the "mechanical copyright" in legal terms) then that would be copyright infringement. It's possible they did that, but will be pretty hard to prove definitively...

Re:Creative Commons (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#42697863)

Now, IF they sampled his actual audio (the "mechanical copyright" in legal terms) then that would be copyright infringement. It's possible they did that, but will be pretty hard to prove definitively...

Hard to prove, but there's certainly a lot of evidence that they did.

Re:Creative Commons (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42697589)

Effectively, it is: See the Verge [theverge.com] for a discussion. Unless they used his actual voice, he has no leg to stand on.

Re:Creative Commons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697845)

If they used any of his arrangement, they have no leg to stand on. His voice isn't the only copyrightable part of the song.

Re:Creative Commons (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697615)

Huh? "Baby Got Back" is most certainly not licensed under Creative Commons.

But Coulton's recording of his version of it included a new melody which most certainly is licensed under Creative Commons, and that appears to be what Fox used. In fact, Fox used the karaoke version of it, which pretty much means they used only the new melody and not the cover of Sir Mixalot's words.

If Fox had gone to whoever owns Sir Mixalot and asked/paid for permission to use it on TV, and used the version they performed, nobody would be complaining, but apparently whoever owns Sir Mixalot wanted too much money for it so they figured they'd find some other version they could just rip off without asking.

Its not Jonathons song (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697469)

He just sang someone elses tune, remixed it if you like Fox went straight to the real owner for permission (Harry Fox Agency), John has no real claim to anything so he should stfu and make original shit instead of clickbait youtube covers, unless of course he got worldwide exclusive rights in writing.

its a non-story, guy asks to cover song , owner says yes, gets buthurt when someone else does the same but can monetise it

Re:Its not Jonathons song (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697521)

Its a non-story, guy asks to cover song , owner says yes, gets butthurt when someone else does the same but can monetise it

It's not about Fox making a cover of the same song. Nobody would have a problem with that because it's Mix-a-lot's right to allow Fox to do that. The issue is that Fox may have lifted Coulton's own cover of the song for the corporation's own wallet.

Re:Its not Jonathons song (5, Insightful)

ExploHD (888637) | about a year ago | (#42697601)

Yes, he did a cover. However, he did a specific arrangement of the song that the show took as their own. From the opening chorus to the way the guitar is played, it's the same arrangement of Baby Got Back. I have a feeling that the music arranger for the show might be let go for getting credit where credit wasn't due.

Re:Its not Jonathons song (1)

ExploHD (888637) | about a year ago | (#42697641)

Sorry to reply to my reply, but an analogy to this would be if there could be trademarks on covers of songs, Glee would have stolen his trademark.

Re:Its not Jonathons song (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | about a year ago | (#42697799)

Interestingly, Coulton made some changes to the lyrics of the song itself, and those changes were used in the show. For instance, the line "Johnny C is in trouble" is in the Glee "rendition."

Re: Its not Jonathons song (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42698043)

This recording predates YouTube, so it's not a "click bait" cover. There are two relevant copyrights attached to a song: the publishing rights, owned by the songwriter and the mechanical rights which are attached to the particular recording (which Sir Mix-a-lot does not own). Even a limited sample would require a mechanical license, but wholesale use of the tracks he released in his karaoke version goes well beyond a sample. If there's any doubt, they also used his uniquely modified version of the lyrics.

To argue that JC has no leg to stand on shows your own ignorance of the law.

Uh... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697475)

His songs are pretty terrible so it makes sense that they would show up on a terrible show like Glee.

Okay, so... $2M fine, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697485)

Ok, now it's copyright for the little guy, vs. a big corporation. Are we going to apply the same standards? Is there going to be a slap down? Are they going to...

Oh who am I kidding.

Remove their internet access (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697487)

Remove their internet access after the first five violations. I assume there have already been thousands of them, so that should be no problem.

Internet isn't a right. Fox will have to manage as a company without it.

Cover of a cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697495)

The only thing he has to go on is whether or not they sampled from his song without permission.

I think he's got a case (2)

csgardner (2702131) | about a year ago | (#42697499)

IANAL. According to the article, because it's a cover it's not really covered by copyright law. However, since they also used Coulton's unique additions to the song (eg. 1-800-JONNIEC instead of 1-800-MIXALOT), and possibly stole his audio, I think he would have a pretty strong case on those grounds. Now, enough to overcome Fox's lawyer army? Maybe not.

I don't really see how the melody he wrote for the song is not covered though, that isn't a copy of the original song at all. A song is not solely composed of lyrics.

Re:I think he's got a case (2)

spazdor (902907) | about a year ago | (#42697579)

since they also used Coulton's unique additions to the song

irrelevant

and possibly stole his audio

super, super relevant. Everyone in this post who is glossing over that part is completely missing the point, legally speaking.

Re:I think he's got a case (1)

servognome (738846) | about a year ago | (#42697631)

Their's goes 1-800-Jonn-ieC. His goes 1-800-JonnieC.

Re:I think he's got a case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697795)

Their's goes 1-800-Jonn-ieC. His goes 1-800-JonnieC.

+1 for being clever.

-1 for making me think about Vanilla Ice.

Re:I think he's got a case (5, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#42697779)

According to the article, which was written by someone who knows nothing about copyright law, because it's a cover it's not really covered by copyright law.

FTFY.

A cover is a derivative work. It is covered by copyright to the extent that it contains new, original creative expression above and beyond the original work. So to say that "it's not really covered by copyright law" is pretty much completely wrong unless the cover sounds almost exactly like the original, which his cover clearly does not. At all.

I don't really see how the melody he wrote for the song is not covered though, that isn't a copy of the original song at all. A song is not solely composed of lyrics.

Oh, his melody is most assuredly covered by copyright. Unquestionably. Anyone who says otherwise is either deliberately lying or knows nothing whatsoever about copyright law. It's an independent musical expression sufficient to be protected on its own by copyright if not combined with those lyrics. Therefore, it is protected just the same as any other artistic creation. If Fox really stole his original melody, and continued to use it even after having been informed that their use was not authorized, that meets the criteria for willful infringement. I believe the words "treble damages" come to mind.

Based on what I'm reading, it sounds like Fox isn't remotely on the right side of the law here. I would strongly urge Mr. Coulton to contact a lawyer who specializes in copyright cases. What Fox's lawyers are telling him is complete bulls**t, and they're pretty much pissing their pants hoping he doesn't sue, because they have a pretty good idea how many figures they'll lose if he does.

I would also strongly urge Mr. Coulton to file a proper takedown request with Apple. This forces Fox to put all their cards on the table, and gives them notice that you intend to take action if they don't come to a reasonable settlement. It also takes their content off of iTunes for at least a few days, during which they're losing a metric f**kton of sales. This has a tendency to force their lawyers to take your claims seriously, where they otherwise might not.

That said, IANAL, and this is not legal advice except for the the "you should contact a copyright lawyer" bit.

Re:I think he's got a case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697825)

They dubed over his soundtrack so, they are in clear violation of the law. Period.

Re:I think he's got a case (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42698005)

FTFY.

A cover is a derivative work. It is covered by copyright to the extent that it contains new, original creative expression above and beyond the original work. So to say that "it's not really covered by copyright law" is pretty much completely wrong unless the cover sounds almost exactly like the original, which his cover clearly does not. At all.

And your post is written by someone with no knowledge of copyright law. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Covers of audio recordings are NOT infringing derivative works for the purpose of the Copyright Act. A copyright holder cannot stop or successfully sue over any individual's derivation of a song so long as the mechanical license is paid. This does not have to be negotiated, because 17 USC 115 provides for a compulsory license rate for such action.

A recording of the cover is entitled to copyright protection as a work of the cover artist, not the original artist.

The issue isn't the cover version, but in reality, the use of a sampled recording of Mr. Coulton's, a totally separate issue and a fairly straightforward form of copyright infringement if true. However, depending on the use of the recording and who owns the copyright in that recording, it's possible that the show actually did clear the use. That is all completely notwithstanding your response to the other poster, who was actually closer to correct than you are.

The power to create covers is not an exclusive right of a copyright holder. A cover is not a protected class of derivative work.

IAAL, and you should stop presenting yourself as an expert.

Re:I think he's got a case (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#42698129)

The issue isn't the cover version, but in reality, the use of a sampled recording of Mr. Coulton's, a totally separate issue and a fairly straightforward form of copyright infringement if true.

This is a significant distinction that very few people seem to have understood in the discussions on this topic I've seen over the past week.

However, depending on the use of the recording and who owns the copyright in that recording, it's possible that the show actually did clear the use.

It seems pretty clear from his statements that Coulton did not give anyone permission to use the recordings, and I'm not aware of anyone else who would have copyrights on his recordings for this song. Any legal experts out there who can speak to what would be require to prove infringement of the recordings? The soundcloud mixes et al that are out there are pretty damning, but I'm curious what would hold water in court.

Re:I think he's got a case (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#42698311)

> This is a significant distinction that very few people seem to have understood in the discussions on this topic I've
> seen over the past week.

IANAL, but I don't have to be one to know that a significant portion of commenters on /. barely read the summary of posts before commenting. We are generally lucky that people even read the title or post they are responding to.

Re:I think he's got a case (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42698201)

The thing that isn't mentioned (and that JoCo does mention) is that the original license he got for "Baby Got Back" apparently had some sort of reverse license in it, so that derivative works of his work count as derivative works of "Back got Back" for licensing.

This makes logical sense and seems like a reasonable license/agreement.

If this is the case and Fox got a license for "Baby Got Back" then they are totally in the clear... UNLESS they stole his recording. In which case, they are is serious monkey poo...

Re:I think he's got a case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42698057)

IANAL. According to the article, because it's a cover it's not really covered by copyright law.

Interesting.... so by that logic I can pirate any cover of any song by any artist, use it, and even resell it as my own, and not be liable for copyright infringement?

Portal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697523)

Code Monkey, seriously? You mean Still Alive, don't you!

Glee (0)

ruir (2709173) | about a year ago | (#42697585)

Shit movie, and people still but the songs? My dog...well, actually I am forgetting people see idols too. I personally find Glee BORING and ridiculous. And the idea that Glee (and so many other shows) create that "perfection" can be obtained with study, training and effort is what also explains the sad state of affairs this society is atm.

Re:Glee (0)

ruir (2709173) | about a year ago | (#42697607)

I meant without study. Like, for instance, the huge difference in mentalities in just one decade. In the film Total Recall, in the old one the technician one with a coat lab, and already someone with some age and experience, in the new one, just a young person with a salesman and BS aura.

So arrangements can't be protected by copyright... (1)

russotto (537200) | about a year ago | (#42697593)

...yet ASCAP and BMI frequently go after those who allow public domain music to be played claiming the arrangement was copyrighted by one of their members (and it's up to you to prove it wasn't)

Just more proof that copyright is only for the big guys.

Re:So arrangements can't be protected by copyright (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#42697851)

Just more proof that copyright is only for the big guys.

As was and ever shall be. Look up the history of the concept. From the very beginning, it was invented to allow publishers to sue other publishers for releasing the same work. Never, in all its history, was it ever created to benefit artists.

The idea that copyright was invented for artists is one of the biggest of the Big Lies plaguing society, and it's a lie that's literally hundreds of years old.

Re:So arrangements can't be protected by copyright (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year ago | (#42698027)

The thing is that TV has MANDATORY licensing... So FOX doesn't technically have to "prepay" or ask to use any music they want. The INDIVIDUAL stations punch their cards and turn in X royalties per musical number for every Commercial and Show they air.... This avoids the "YouTube" problem, of infringing background music, everybody keeps bringing up.

He can probably get the song taken down from iTunes as that is a seperate distribution.

iTunes Reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697621)

I'm glad to see this is getting appropriately reviewed with 1 stars.

Compare on Soundcloud (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697683)

https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back

It ain't right/// (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697813)

Got get em Johnathan!
They violated your rights, whats good for the rich is good for you.
Have a takedown order served on Apple!

A problem so easily avoided... (4, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | about a year ago | (#42697831)

A show with a reported 3.5 million dollar an episode budget can't even be arsed to let artists know their stuff is going to be used....

All of these people being stolen from would be content with so little as an off-screen credit through some blog post or something. If they wanted to be decent human beings, they would have thrown in an on-screen one liner mentioning the names of the people that are actually responsible for the arrangements, rather than trying to perpetuate the lie that the people behind that show have even an ounce of original musical talent.

All this stuff they could have done without spending so much as a dime...

Nice ratings it has indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697841)

2 stars out of 789 votes, presumably JoCo's fans. FOX won't make much money from people searching by "best rating"...

Your mom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42697985)

Used my balls in her mouth last nite. It was with permission, however.

Fox Won't Back Down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42698115)

Glee is a show that already gets a lot of hate. It is waning in its popularity in the wake of many new and better shows. Fox is probably not excited about the idea of publicly admitting that one of their programs used material without permission. It could further damage Glee's already crumbling credibility. Fox's lawyers and writers probably have not heard of JoCo. He is well known on blogs and forums, but as far as the general public knows, he is "just another one of those Youtube singers." I think Fox is not afraid of him. They are confident they will win in court. If the "Acid Jazz Evening" case is any indicator, they will.

Leave Xena and Gabby alone! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#42698147)

This is, of course, just a minor scandal compared to those bastards breaking up Santana and Brittany, and turning Brittany straight!

Fuck you Glee! >:-(

Major Irony Here (1)

jdev (227251) | about a year ago | (#42698271)

Funny that a show about talented underdogs used its muscle to rip off the little guy. JoCo could fight this, but would be crushed under the weight of the FOX legal system. It's like being bullied in high school all over again. Irony.

TV version (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#42698283)

The version as aired on TV is available on YouTube [youtube.com]. Interestingly, it adds a bit more backup vocals than the audio version, in particular drowning out any evidence of the duck quack, and has some cuts that, among other things, avoid the "Johnny C" line.

Sir Mix-A-Lot? (1)

vm (127028) | about a year ago | (#42698289)

Has anyone bothered to ask Sir Mix-A-Lot and Def American whether Glee or Coulton have a license to publish a cover version [wikipedia.org] of their song? Do some research, people.

Re:Sir Mix-A-Lot? (1)

seebs (15766) | about a year ago | (#42698309)

Well, Coulton at least says that he specifically did purchase such a license, and I'm inclined to believe him. It's not at all unheard of for such deals to be made.

Rupert Murdoch is the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42698307)

The depravity, Rupert Murdoch, owner of media companies across the planet including Fox, doesn't have to worry about laws. As minister for propaganda in both the UK and USA, the law is whatever he wants it to be.

In the UK, he ran one of the widest private phone tapping operations in the history of the Human race, except he was really working hand-in-glove with the UK security services.

When Murdoch was looking to take out his competitors in the field of European Satellite TV services, he had criminal hackers in his Israel office break the encryption on rivals' authentication cards, and then had pirate cards mass produced and flooding into the market. Interestingly, a short while later, Murdoch was privately prosecuting American citizens who had purchased by mail order programmable smart card hardware (NOT pirate cards). He claimed the ONLY reason to own such equipment was to pirate his American satellite TV services.

Murdoch's newspapers exist only to spew anti-Muslim, pro-war propaganda of the vilest type, and to encourage ordinary people to cheer every government action that makes the lives of ordinary people worse.

Murdoch is certainly vastly more powerful than any American politician, and was THE key member of Tony Blair's team, when Blair was arranging the wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Murdoch has only one major goal left before he dies- nuclear Armageddon in Iran, triggering a wider global war. Against this, what is stealing a song or two for his camp TV show?

So who else? (1)

seebs (15766) | about a year ago | (#42698317)

So, Coulton's famous enough that we hear about it -- and also famous enough that someone who heard the recording recognized his work and told him.

What about their other arrangements? Are those ever original, or do they merely normally steal from people we haven't heard of?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...