My thoughts on copyright law
There’s a post today on BoingBoing about the band The Romantics suing the makers of the game Guitar Hero for using a “sound alike” band to cover their song “What I Like About You” for the game. (Using a sound a like means the company still has to pay royalties for the use of the song, but about half what they’d have to pay to use the origional recording.)
A bunch of people posted replies basically slamming the Romantics for suing. I posted this reply:
——–
I know copyright enforcement seems really unhip to a lot of folks these days, but copyright is a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. (”…To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries….”)
I happen to really like the US Constitution, ALL of it, and really hate to see it stepped on. It seems to me that a lot of people these days yell loudly when their rights are violated, but then want to violate the rights of others whenever it feels convenient.
Do the commenters here who are bemoaning the enforcement of this Romantics issue think the Constitution should be changed?
And if copyright law should be enforced for one, it should be enforced for all, regardless of perceived artistic merit. (By the way, most of the music I like is really dark: Nick Cave, Leonard Cohen, Tom Waits, Bauhaus, etc, but I think “What I like About You” is a particularly well-crafted pop song, it rocks, and I respect it for that.)
I know that old-school media companies tend to be WAY overly proactive about going after all perceived “violations”, really selfish about trying to extend copyright law for too long, and often slam Fair Use as illegal use. And I think the Internet has changed the playing field to the point where copyright law needs some reinterpretation.
People are making inroads. Among them are Creative Commons. I dig Creative Commons and use it on some (not all) of my projects. I also give away some art, and there are millions of people doing that.
But I also maintain copyright on some projects, for a number of reasons. And I feel strongly that the underlying principals of copyright law are sound, and should be upheld. For all.
Tom Waits successfully sued Frito Lay when Frito Lay used a “sound alike” singer to record a song SIMILAR to one of Waits’ songs (it wasn’t even one of his own songs) for a commercial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Waits#Lawsuits
I’m fine with that, but probably for different reasons that some folks here, who probably are fine with it because Waits is good and the Romantics are “shitty”.
Michael W. Dean
http://www.stinkfight.com
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Someone posted:
“….hey #8, your argument is -way- off. This has nothing at all to do with copyright. If they were using the original recording without paying for it that’d be a copyright issue: that didn’t happen. if they were using a ‘cover’ version without paying for the right to use it that’d also be a copyright issue: that didn’t happen either…..”
——-
I replied:
>hey #8, “your argument is -way- off. This has nothing at all to do with copyright.”
——
Yup. I see that now. Not directly.
It has more to do with “voice protection” which is connected to copyright and usually enforced by the same attorneys. Voice protection is a relatively new concept, and falls somewhere between copyright and trademark.
After really mulling this over, I’m not sure I feel that the Romantics have a case, since they agreed to allow a cover. Though they will probably get an out-of-court settlement since they’re seeking an injunction to prevent the game from being sold, during the holiday season. Interesting timing, no?
However, I stand by everything I said about copyright. Feel free to mentally cut and paste it as a response to any comment (here or elsewhere) that feels like “To hell with the fat cats, all copyright is theft, we should be able to do whatever we want.”
–
(By the way, if you want to add one more to the list of people who’ve successfully sued under voice protection, in addition to Tom Waits and Bette Midler, you can add Jonathan Richman. He sued Target for using a soundalike recording his song “Ice Cream Man” in a commercial, and I think he was right to do so. But again, this was an unauthorized use, not a case of someone allowing the cover, then being displeased with the outcome.
(Interestingly, Richman is not incredibly proactive about preventing people from enjoying his songs on the Internet. During an interview, I once asked him “What do you think of people downloading your music on the Internet?” He said “I let others worry about those things. Sounds boring to me, though.”)
–Michael W. Dean