Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Et Tu Brute? EMI to Sue AOL Over Musical Infringement 122

Posted by timothy from the sounds-like-an-opera dept.
QGambit writes "Salon.com is running an AP story about EMI Music suing AOL Time Warner for using songs from its music catalog on TBS and the AOL service without paying for them."EMI's publishing unit contends that AOL Time Warner is illegally using songs for promotional purposes from "The Wizard of Oz," "Singin' in the Rain," and other classic Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer movies." Good. Now that they are turning on themselves, they will leave us alone for awhile."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Et Tu Brute? EMI to Sue AOL Over Musical Infringement More

Et Tu Brute? EMI to Sue AOL Over Musical Infringement

Comments Filter:
  • This is just mundane copyright violation. If the allegations are true, then AOL is breaking core, noncontroversial copyright law. Really pretty straightforward and irrelevant.

  • Don't worry... (Score:3, Funny)

    by eparusel ( 321350 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @01:26AM (#4037647)
    ...I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers to go around...
  • Semi intelligent post, actually...

    I always wondered about this sort of thing, for example, how many movies in the 1990s used the Aliens soundtrack for preview clips aired on TV, and how many of them actually had permission to do so... I mean there were roughly 10 seperate movies from 2-3 seperate movie companies other than Fox, all using the same track (I forget the title, but lets just say it's from the "escaping from the fusion atmospheric convertor plant" theme... You know which one I'm talking about...

    Anyhoo, who did they get permission from? Did they get it from Fox (the copyright holder on Aliens at least), ASCAP, the guy who orchestrated and copyrighted said soundtrack? Who gave permission?
    • Elfman themes from Beetlejuice, Batman and Edward Scissorhands were/are used all the time for early tv ads and teaser trailers for movies that (probably) didn't have their themes finished yet. With a strong sense of atmosphere, tension or light hearted oddness, they really work for just about any film.

      --
      Evan (no reference)

      • ... did Kubrick get permission from Strauss to use his music in 2001? After all, he didn't stop at using them for intermediate filler, he left them in for the final print... I foresee a lawsuit from his estate in the offing...

        Seriously, though, at some point songs like this should be considered enough of the "public consciousness" to be de facto public domain...

      • That's true as well, but you see, many of these movies were released by seperate studios as well... So did the original composer recieve anything extra, did the movie companies in question give permission for an identifiable trademark (or similarly, the fact that that the Star Wars theme isn't immediately recognizable as such due to market recognition, which partially accounts for the concept of trademark or market image, and as such cannot be used for any movie preview not associated with Star Wars as a result)...

        I figure that Elfman's "The Forbidden Zone" theme was easily signed over to Dilbert though, because not many here even remotely remember that movie...
    • Hoodlum, Mullhullin Falls, Star Trek Nemisis, and a few others I can't named used some of the scores from the Crimson Tide soundtrack... you do make an interesting point about that, I've always wondered why it was that movie previews tend to use music from existing movies.
    • You can't blame the TV networks for recycling that music. James Horner, the composer who wrote it, recycled it himself in his soundtrack for The Wrath of Khan.
    • Blah...after a bit of searching, I found the article that I just read last week about the "Signs" trailer by Ant Farm:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/28/magazine/28TRAIL ERS.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]

      They said that some of the most re-used music comes from "Dave", "Hoffa" and "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story".

  • I don't think so... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Skirwan ( 244615 ) <skerwin AT mac DOT com> on Friday August 09, 2002 @01:29AM (#4037654) Homepage
    Good. Now that they are turning on themselves, they will leave us alone for awhile.
    I'm pretty sure that most individual lawyers aren't multithreaded, but a massively parallel system like the legal department at EMI or AOL/TW has got to be able to do more than one thing at a time.

    --
    Damn the Emperor!
    • Imagine a beowulf cluster of lawyers! Think of those who sue the asbestos and tobacco companies!
    • "Et tu Brute?"

      Slashdot now has i18n compliant typos.
    • Yes, more than one thing at a time, but remember the common design flaws in a distributed system: cumulating lag, reliability of nodes, communicational problems, congestion, diversity. What happens when that specialist every lawyer needs to understand a word, turns out to be a cocaine junkie and hears voices while meanwhile everyone runs into to the companys coffee shop and asks for that something special resulting in a congestion in the sewer network. Ohh now I am beginning to understand, is it that why an average court case takes a few years and costs a dozen millions.
    • i dont think that this suit is a good thing... this is another axample of how companies are using their lawyers as a souirce of revenue... now victories from suits are considerd "part of the income"... its sad that to think that to make money you must sue...
    • Legal departments are NUMA, not "massively parallel". They can quite happily sue other people over things they are currently being sued for and defending against, and not see the contradiction, because they are running seperate instances of the law in question.

      For example, RIAA has a "Beowolf Cluster" of lawyers...

      -- Terry
  • they will take on you , AOL , and your teenager all at the same time.
  • Well, what else are you going to call the RIAA versus AOL? ;)

  • Talk about picky (Score:5, Informative)

    by Shimmer ( 3036 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @01:40AM (#4037691) Journal

    The meat of the story is at the bottom of the article. Apparently TBS owns the rights to the movies that contain these songs. TBS is in turned owned by AOL/TW. But EMI claims that TBS cannot transfer the rights to its own parent company! The exact quote is:

    "We gave them very personal use. It was non assignable."

    This just seems like an argument between lawyers about the fine print in an old contract. Not really relevant to the whole IP debate. (I'm sure that won't stop the /. hordes from descending, though.<g>)

    -- Brian

    • Re:Talk about picky (Score:4, Insightful)

      by T. Will S. Idea ( 463154 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @02:16AM (#4037756) Homepage
      True,

      But buying a company solely for its IP, stripping the company to the bone and firing all of its employees is a fairly common practice in business. (Although usually this is done with software or patent IP not music, which is readily licensed.)

      Making the songs non assignable, protects the company you licensed them to. It also prevents your arch enemy from licensing your stuff by acquisition.
    • I used to work for Turner, during last year when we were being gobbled up by AOL (the Time Warner merger didn't apparently have the same borglike feel of this one, nor did it destroy the stock so much). This article caught my eye, because I was well aware that Turner owned the rights to the MGM classic catalogue, including Wizard of Oz and several other movies. They play them all the time on TCM. ;-)

      What I don't understand is, why does EMI have the rights to the songs at all, rather than MGM? Wouldn't it be more like MGM licensing the songs to EMI for distribution?

      This is going to be a very sticky case, I can tell.

  • They made their bed and now it's time to lay in it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by digiZen ( 535342 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @01:44AM (#4037701)
    Hehehe... The songs they mention are so damn old (How old is The Wizard of OZ, anyway?) that the copyrights should have expired a long time ago if we lived in a sane world. But thanks to the lobbying efforts of Disney, Time Warner and others in the record industry, they get to take their bitter medicine. I only wish they'd learn from their stupidity. I'm personally hoping that they spend oodles and oodles of money on $400/hr star trial lawyers, and maybe (if we're lucky) to reach an unsatisfactory conclusion for both sides - sort of like that recently passed retroactive webcasting fee is being groaned about from both sides. Only this time it would be a pleasant sound to hear Time Warner and EMI groan.
  • EMI knows that AOL-TW is in the hurt locker big time. They want to kill the jolly "You've got spam" giant and move themselves into position to take AOL's chunk of the communications pie. This would make EMI a direct rival to companies like Disney. With Enron well on its way to the treatment plant, WorldComm swirling it's way down the bolw with the other terds, and now an AOL-sized "crap-on-deck," what's next?

    I'll only be happy when Microsoft bows out or gets its act together...

  • Seems I read somewhere (Score:4, Funny)

    by thumbtack ( 445103 ) <thumbtack@@@juno...com> on Friday August 09, 2002 @01:46AM (#4037704)
    that sharks sometimes attack each other when in a feeding frenzy....
  • Ted Turner purchased MGM and its classic film library back in 1986, In the 90's Castle Rock and New Line hooked up with Turner Broadcasting and then New Line Cinema. Then of course Turner orchestrated the gigantic merger of his company with Time Warner in the late 90's. It would follow that since the songs were long ago attached to those films and there wasn't a clause in the agreement saying specifically that promotion is forbidden... Time Warner would be in the clear. Besides that geez what a bunch of nit picking wussies.

  • I've often wondered... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by baudbarf ( 451398 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @01:55AM (#4037721) Homepage
    Okay, I hear clips of movie audio played during radio station morning shows and as sweepers between songs advertising the radio station (god, how they annoy me!) and yet nobody says a word, nobody complains, nobody sues - is it illegal? It sure SEEMS illegal; using somebody else's copyrighted data to your own benefit without (I assume) reimbursing them or even getting their approval...

    Likewise, I hear music dubbed into low-budget films and shows on public TV; yet I somehow doubt that proper authorization was secured before they did so.

    Does anybody know if I'm correct in my assumption that these things are, indeed illegal; and if so, why people get away with it and practice it so blatantly?

    Thanks!!

    • two different things - the movie clips in radio shows can be seen as either excerpted for parody, or for discussion/example (or a loose interpretation of 'educational') - IANAL, but this probably falls under 'fair use' in most cases.

      as for in movies and tv, that's a different (and lengthy) story. The songs used in movies (or anywhere else, for that matter) have to get permission from the publishers of the works (think of 'publisher' in this case as 'stock holder' - you can trade and sell publishing rights, as opposed to copyright, which always stays with the creator). You have both copyright and publishing rights to a song as soon as you create it, but you can sell a portion of the publishing or 'controlling' rights to someone else, so they can give permission for use in media. they can in turn sell those or a portion, etc.

      This happens in all instances of the broadcast of the song (in canada, the rights are handled by SOCAN, in the states, it's ASCAP or ... damn, i forget the other one), and usage permission from a publisher is required. I recently had two of my songs used in a movie, and although I share writing credits with other people, I was able to give rights for their use. But had they just used it, I would have had proper recourse.

      A lot of songs reside on databases that the tv/movie industry searches when they need a certain 'feel' or type of song - they then find on e of the publishers (people/companies with the right to give permission) and work out terms of agreement.

      A lot of times, low-budget movies don't bother because they don't expect to make money. you can't get money from someone who doesn't have any, in other words. In most cases in TV, they probably do have permission, and have worked out a percentage deal or one-time fee, depending on the popularity of both the show and music.

      • As far as TV, I've rarely heard songs I recongnize on low-budget shows. Most of the time, it's MIDI-esque mood music. This stuff comes on royalty-free CDs, like clip art. My college film class had a bunch of these. The table of contents will go:

        "Spring Rain -- 2:32
        Mood: Happy, light, energetic.

        Happy Kangaroos -- 5:12
        Mood: Energetic, triumphant, bouncy."

        You pick the one that fits for your piece ... of course, at least in our case, most of the songs sucked pretty bad. We would usually just steal a copyrighted piece of music instead. It's true that, unless you manage to make money, no one usually cares.

    • Re:I've often wondered... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Radio stations pay blanket licensing agreements to ASCAP and BMI (or another society in other countries)that allow them to broadcast music in the performance rights organisations' catalogs. They are regularly audited and billed based on various formulas. This system has been in place since the late 1930s, and works quite well. Radio stations, publishing companies, and sometimes artists can actually make a profit.

  • It’s still our fault!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @01:55AM (#4037722)
    All of us are to blame because we watch, if our tv's would prevent the viewing of unauthorized pieces of music then none of this would ever have happened. This is why we need DRM to keep us from being forced to listen to/see illegal broadcasts!
  • "Now that they are turning on themselves, they will leave us alone for awhile"
    The will settle out of court, and then come to you. They will take your recorder and junk it in the loo
    they will break your burner and scare you wil their boo
    AOl bit the dust, and you will too

  • I think the best thing to come out of this might be bringing the IP battle a bit more into the forefront in the minds of the average consumer - people who don't normally follow the whole DMCA, **AA, etc threads.

    Doesn't even matter who does what in this situation - as it was mentioned somewhere else, it's most likely just a quibble over legalese that won't really change anything for us, but the social implications could be great.

    I for one would love to see everybody sit up and say, "hey, if they're making this sort of stink among themselves, how long until it affects us?"

    grin... wouldn't it be great if, instead of just a few thousand outraged slashdotters, there were millions of consumers that all of a sudden started a backlash, and changed the way we approach copyright and licensing? I feel it's long overdue and overlooked.

    • The average consumer is not going to care about this. Hell, I don't care about this. This is just a standard, run-of-the-mill copyright infringement suit involving two faceless corporations. There is absolutely nothing special about it, and it's outcome will have no effect whatsoever on the average Joe.
  • timothy timothy timothy... It's not an opera, it's Latin! It means "Why'd the fuck y'all stab me in the back like that for?"
  • Check out the Public Domain Information Project [pdinfo.com] for information on copyright and public domain issues as they pertain to music.
  • Already submitted this but Time Warner is also being sued for copyright infringement [bbc.co.uk] by the author of a 1997 screenplay called The Funk Parlour, and also by the company which has filmed it. Both cases allege that Time Warner's HBO series Six Feet Under was heavily inspired by the original screenplay. The BBC story lists the alleged similarities. So is this as bad as running a Harry Potter site [slashdot.org]? Or skipping ads [slashdot.org]?
  • How long will it be before executives and investors finally realize that the only people making money off of all these crazy copyright/anti-piracy/region control legitslationing/lawsuits/scheming are the lawyers, modchippers, and Macrovision?

    Hello, McFly?

    • Re:How long? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bellings ( 137948 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @03:18AM (#4037866)
      How long will it be before executives and investors finally realize that the only people making money... are the lawyers?

      Do you remember the old story about the two guys who get being chased by a bear? The first guy sits down, ruffles through his bag, pulls out a pair of running shoes, and starts to put them on. The second guy asks, "What the hell are you doing? You can't outrun a bear!" The first guy replies, "I don't have to outrun the bear. I have to outrun you."

      To win, media companies only have to do two things: first, become the most successful of the existing media companies, and second, raise the entry barrier so high that no other media companies can come into the picture and compete.

      Of course, this is EMI's way of raising the entry barrier higher. I imagine the story submitter found this to be a "good thing" because he can't imagine himself as a content producer himself. More artificial restrictions on the people who create thing won't affect him in any way, because he knows he's never going to create anything anyhow.
      • Of course, this is EMI's way of raising the entry barrier higher. I imagine the story submitter found this to be a "good thing" because he can't imagine himself as a content producer himself. More artificial restrictions on the people who create thing won't affect him in any way, because he knows he's never going to create anything anyhow.
        The media cartel has won...? He not only knows he'll never create anything anyhow, he also knows no-one he knows will ever create anything anyhow.

        Why, in 2002, when we have these wonderous machines that allow us to create sublime and wonderful works, does no-one ever figure they'll create anything?

        Do we lie down and give up now? Death seeps into our bones?

        No, I don't think we will. A revolution will come...

  • Fighting words (Score:3, Funny)

    by achurch ( 201270 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @02:44AM (#4037811) Homepage
    For some reason, this quote sent me into fits of laughter:
    "We believe that AOL Time Warner, and a whole bunch of their companies, have been rampantly using our copyrighted material without licensing it or paying for it," said Martin Bandier, chairman and chief executive of EMI Music Publishing.
    • and a whole bunch of their companies

      Actually, that was a pretty standard colloquialism where I was raised - I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't pointed it out.

      If they'd referred to "a whole mess of their companies", then you know we'd be fixin' to see 'em throw down.

  • I searched for "Et tu Brute" on google [google.com], and this [ohio-state.edu] is the first thing that came up:
    I remember many years ago reading in an article in a classical journal that Julius Caesar's last words weren't really "Et tu, Brute" but the Greek "Kai su, teknon", meaning something like "And you'll be getting yours before long, son".
    I imagine in the bizarro world of Slashdot, bad cases which bring bad law are somehow good for the rest of us. But I fail to see how thickening the legal morass surrounding licensing is going to bring us to a better world. Being a part of the hoard standing around while Ceaser goes down doesn't mean there won't be plenty to smack us with too, before long.
  • I think we are beginning to bump up against fundamental problems with the current definition of copyright.

    Copyright was intended as a temporary right to benefit creators and encourage innovation/creation. Copyright was not intended as the permanent (effectively so) monopoly over ideas it has become.

    Classic songs and other media become popular and are never freed to public license. Consequently, cost increases for the meime. "Happy Birthday" is a good example.

    Insidences of copyright violations will continue to increase imo due to the lack of entry of ideas into the public domain. Digital technology will make these violations easier to commit and easier to track.

    Protection for creation is intended to benefit society not the creator. It is only an insentive to create so society and culture can reap a benefit.

    Unfortunately, what we have now is a strong perversion of the original intent. Perhaps, one could almost say an inversion of the original thought. Creators are rewarded, but almost absolutely. Society never gets the free benefit.

    As an example of the danger of unlimited monopoly over ideas, consider what would happen if patents lasted 100 years? Would society be better or worse?
  • Every economy needs a wealthy core population which is happy to spend its money on over priced luxury items - from plates of soup to Mercedes.

    Lawyers were getting bored with chasing ambulances, and many were considering getting out of the business and starting a small organic farm in Provence.

    Now they just need to dust down their 'media rights 101' material and find an abuse - preferably where the accused can afford to defend - as the case will last longer and therefore cost more money.

    Too cynical?

  • EMI: We gave them personal use only

    AOL: We have only made copies to ensure that they we don't lose the originial.

    EMI: But they didn't keep it just for themselves they gave it to their parents.

    AOL: Well the kids just can't be trusted not to lose this stuff.

    EMI: Then the parents shared it with their friends

    AOL: No Way, we played it for our own personal use, its not our fault 30 million people were watching.

    Judge: Isn't this just what you guys complain about with people copying CDs ?

    EMI + AOL: OH NO, that is TOTALLY DIFFERENT, that is ILLEGAL AND PEOPLE SHOULD BE HUNG, this is just verification of a fine point of legal detail.

    Judge: Ah right.... lets go have lunch, you guys are buying as you'll bill it to your clients. ... to be continued... appealed... and without seeing the relevance to the wider debate.
  • Now that they are turning on themselves, they will leave us alone for awhile
    Didn't you notice that when Godzilla and Mothra fight, Tokyo gets trashed anyway?
  • > Good. Now that they are turning on themselves,
    > they will leave us alone for awhile.

    That's quite optimistic: these folks have legal departments large enough to sue half the planet and still find the resources to write EULA that would make Mephisto wince.
  • If approved, could they then hack their systems to erase these files? Which gives me an idea... post a song for their use, then revoke their useage permit, then hack their computer and 'accidentally' fawk their sh1t up
  • Good. Now that they are turning on themselves, they will leave us alone for awhile.

    This isn't good, it's bad. Bad Scenario - they sue us and win. Good Scenario - they sue us and lose. Worst Possible Scenario - they sue themselves and lose intentionally just to set a court precedent to make it far easier to sue us.

    • Except that, under your law, isn't it illegal for that to happen? If two parties collude to bring forward a civil suit in order to set legal precedent, isn't it considered contempt of court or something?

      Oh, right. I forgot. The law doesn't matter anymore - it's whoever has the most money to throw at the system. Silly me.
  • As we continue to cling to the absurd notion of "intellectual property" we will create more and more of these ridiculous situations.

    Consider:

    You're a movie producer. You need some automobiles for a scene in your movie. What do you do? You call up a local car dealer and have them send over some cars. You use the cars in the movie and you pay the car dealer. End of story. At no time are you required to make any payment to Ford or General Motors (the creators of the cars).

    Now you need some music for your movie. You go to a local store, you buy a CD and use the music in your movie. Guess what, you're getting sued big time because you didn't pay the creator of the music. Despite the fact that you legitimately purchased and paid for the music, just as you paid for the automobiles.

    Sorry, but this makes no sense.
    • You're a movie producer. You need some automobiles for a scene in your movie. What do you do? You call up a local car dealer and have them send over some cars. You use the cars in the movie and you pay the car dealer. End of story. At no time are you required to make any payment to Ford or General Motors (the creators of the cars).


      Now you need some music for your movie. You go to a local store, you buy a CD and use the music in your movie. Guess what, you're getting sued big time because you didn't pay the creator of the music. Despite the fact that you legitimately purchased and paid for the music, just as you paid for the automobiles.



      Except that automobiles are intented for driving. CD's are purchased for that sound. Movies can produce sound, they cannot produce "you driving a car". That's all CD's do, make music, so by playing it in a movie, you've just taken what the cd was intented for for a single person and broadcasted to everyone watching the movie.



      I loathe all this IP/Copyright crap, but I'm just pointing out just why auto-manufactures aren't bringing out the lawyers over this.

    • First off, let's talk the real scenario. You're a movie producer and you need some cars for your movie. You let it be known that you need cars, and Ford, Chrysler/Daimler, GM, BMW, and Volkswagon all come around and say, "Use our cars and either you get to keep them when you're finished, or we pay you so much as a product placement fee, since you're giving us free exposure to the car buying public." You need some music for your movie soundtrack. You go to a composer and tell him, create us a work for hire, to which we own all rights, for this flat fee." You then go to a record label and say, "We want some songs from your hottest artists for our new movie soundtrack, even though only 3 seconds of it may be heard in the background in an otherwise forgettable scene. Oh yeah, we want the publishing rights assigned at least partially to us, since it's free exposure for one of your artists. If you don't do it, the other guys will, and we don't really care who gives us free money."

      IP and copyright issues don't really have all that much to do with it.
  • I mean, this is just like when an animal, so starved for food, starts to eat its own body parts.
  • "Now that they are turning on themselves, they will leave us alone for awhile."

    And the winner will come out stronger and with no serious rivals. Prepare to be crushed.
  • of these rampaging hordes of lawyers from EMI. Thousands of them running around attacking anything that looks like they can attack. At least now they are going to run into another rampaging horde of lawyers from AOL.

    They don't all have to attack AOL, but part of the blob will be occupied while they try to find other things to do.

    A lawyer with nothing to do is a very dangerous thing indeed.

    It's like a nightmare.
  • ...start a distributed processing application to produce every possible combination of binary digits to infinite length (0,1,00,01,10,11,...) and release it all under the GPL. That would solve all copyright issues through to the end of time...

  • Two [aol.com] wrongs [riaa.com] don't make a right, but sometimes they cancel each other out.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close