Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Broun Hall => Topic started by: AUChizad on January 25, 2013, 12:55:32 PM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/glee-vs-jonathan-coulton-baby-got-back-stolen-without-permission_n_2507135.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
'Glee' vs. Jonathan Coulton: 'Baby Got Back' Arrangement Allegedly Stolen Without Permission
The Huffington Post | By Ross Luippold Posted: 01/18/2013 5:28 pm EST
Did "Glee" rip off a tongue-in-cheek cover of Sir Mix-A-Lot's "Baby Got Back" without the permission of the musician who originally arranged it, Jonathan Coulton?
Coulton, a singer/songwriter best known for his self-released songs about computer and geek culture, tweeted this morning:
Hey look, @gleeonfox ripped off my cover of Baby Got Back: bit.ly/WME9Ho. Never even contacted me. Classy.
— Jonathan Coulton (@jonathancoulton) January 18, 2013
Indeed, the version recorded for "Glee" is a nearly identical arrangement, performed by the characters from the Fox musical. Coulton also tweeted that he suspected that "Glee" even used original audio from his recording.
WATCH: Coulton's version.
http://youtu.be/MCWaN_Tc5wo
WATCH: "Glee"'s version.
http://youtu.be/Yww4BLjReEk
Despite the clear similarity between the songs, the "Glee" version appears to be an unofficial leak, so its release as a commercial piece of work cannot be confirmed. According to an unofficial "Glee" fan site, the song is intended to be included in the 11th episode of the season, set to air on January 24. However, no official statement from Fox has confirmed that the song will definitely appear in the episode, nor is it currently officially set to appear on a "Glee" musical release. (An email to a Fox spokesperson was not immediately returned.)
Coulton has developed a reputation as an fan-friendly artist, releasing his music under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license. This allows his fans to remix his music without fear of legal retribution, but (presumably) does not protect a company like News Corp from profiting off his intellectual property.
-
I hate that gayass show. I'd rather lay in the bed and let pugs lick my face, and snort all over me, than watch that shit.
-
Incidentally, I really like Jonathon Coulton.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/25283_800610313421_3943340_n.jpg)
-
Incidentally, I really like Jonathon Coulton.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/25283_800610313421_3943340_n.jpg)
did you suck on his titties?
-
Incidentally, I do let pugs lick my face.
-
Incidentally, I do let pugs lick my face.
because you dont' have balls?
-
because you dont' have balls?
+10
-
because you dont' have balls?
Some folks should have a their data rate cut to <1gb per month.
-
+10
The 27,449th ball joke this week does not get 10 points.
3.4 for the hustle. But that's stretching it.
-
The 27,449th ball joke this week does not get 10 points.
3.4 for the hustle. But that's stretching it.
Stretching it like your empty ball sack? Uuhh huh huh...Uuuhh huh huh huh
-
The 27,449th ball joke this week does not get 10 points.
3.4 for the hustle. But that's stretching it.
Str....Stretching it like your empty ball sack? Uuhh huh huh...Uuuhh huh huh huh
Sonofabitch... :(
-
The 27,449th ball joke this week does not get 10 points.
3.4 for the hustle. But that's stretching it.
Yes...but he kind of incorporated a movie quote in their, so there is that...
-
Incidentally, I really like Jonathon Coulton.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/25283_800610313421_3943340_n.jpg)
The picture's cute and all, but the real reason Chizad really likes him is because he won't sue Chizad like the RIAA
Coulton has developed a reputation as an fan-friendly artist, releasing his music under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license. This allows his fans to remix his music without fear of legal retribution, but (presumably) does not protect a company like News Corp from profiting off his intellectual property.
-
FUCK GLEE FOR STEALING SHIT...now I'm going to go back to downloading hundreds of movies and evading RIAA notices.
:thumsup:
-
Incidentally, I do let pugs lick my face.
-
Incidentally, I really like Jonathon Coulton.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/25283_800610313421_3943340_n.jpg)
I drank beer once with the dude on the right. He brought birthday cake to a tailgate. Real douchebag. Sad part is, that cake was good. :thumsup:
-
I drank beer once with the dude on the right. He brought birthday cake to a tailgate. Real douchebag. Sad part is, that cake was good. :thumsup:
I have watched the one on the right order and drink champagne by himself.
-
I have watched the one on the right order and drink champagne by himself.
You know how I know he is gay...
-
You know how I know he is gay...
The balls on his chin?
-
FUCK GLEE FOR STEALING SHIT...now I'm going to go back to downloading hundreds of movies and evading RIAA notices.
:thumsup:
Actually, yeah. Jonathan Coulton's understanding of technology and how it affects his bottom line (far more positively than negatively) does play a part in me liking him.
Your comment, although clearly meant as sarcasm, is actually spot on. Taking a song, or even a cover of a song, and completely reproducing a carbon copy IS actually copyright infringement in the spirit of the law, and actually IS harmful to an artist's bottom line. It IS plagiarism. This is who the RIAA should be going after if they actually gave a fuck about intellectual property. Not kids acquiring digital copies of their favorite songs on MP3 that they could just look up on YouTube if they really wanted it on demand anyway.
And I'm gay cause I like dick inside me.
-
Your comment, although clearly meant as sarcasm, is actually spot on. Taking a song, or even a cover of a song, and completely reproducing a carbon copy IS actually copyright infringement in the spirit of the law, and actually IS harmful to an artist's bottom line.
Oh, so you paid for those movies and helped out movie companies' bottom lines? You may want to inform the RIAA of that...
-
Actually, yeah. Jonathan Coulton's understanding of technology and how it affects his bottom line (far more positively than negatively) does play a part in me liking him.
Your comment, although clearly meant as sarcasm, is actually spot on. Taking a song, or even a cover of a song, and completely reproducing a carbon copy IS actually copyright infringement in the spirit of the law, and actually IS harmful to an artist's bottom line. It IS plagiarism. This is who the RIAA should be going after if they actually gave a fuck about intellectual property. Not kids acquiring digital copies of their favorite songs on MP3 that they could just look up on YouTube if they really wanted it on demand anyway.
And I'm gay cause I like dick inside me.
Now we are talking!!! Wait...
-
Oh, so you paid for those movies and helped out movie companies' bottom lines? You may want to inform the RIAA of that...
Has nothing to do with the RIAA. The MPAA might care.
-
I feel another 40 page thread about to happen...
-
Has nothing to do with the RIAA. The MPAA might care.
So you also downloaded songs and hurt artists' bottom lines as well? FOR SHAME!
-
So, Chizad is still going to federal "pound me in the ass" prison and it won't matter to him b/c he is gay and likes dicks inside him?
-
and the Saints cheat.
-
and the Saints cheat.
Thought that was a given.
-
So you also downloaded songs and hurt artists' bottom lines as well? FOR SHAME!
Ah but...In the court ruling, US versus Fishbein, a man subjected to potential incarceration while wearing another man's suit is entitled to $10,000 worth of airline tickets.
-
and the Saints cheat.
and Wench is the Bimbo
-
Ah but...In the court ruling, US versus Fishbein, a man subjected to potential incarceration while wearing another man's suit is entitled to $10,000 worth of airline tickets.
Keep that ten for yourself. Go and get yourself a nice piece of ass.
-
Keep that ten for yourself. Go and get yourself a nice piece of ass.
Muchas Gracias, Senor
-
and Wench is the Bimbo
Whats my mother going to say? I've disgraced my whole family!
-
Whats my mother going to say? I've disgraced my whole family!
The hell you did! Maybe we should adopt you.
-
The hell you did! Maybe we should adopt you.
My cousin Ellen married his half-sister's nephew, before she got bit by that dog and died.
-
My cousin Ellen married his half-sister's nephew, before she got bit by that dog and died.
Well, damn it, Davidson, tell him! You wrote a memo to Mr. Thomas explaining what I'm talking about.
-
Well, damn it, Davidson, tell him! You wrote a memo to Mr. Thomas explaining what I'm talking about.
That's fine; how many bimbos would you say there were?
-
Wow.
Listen to this with headphones. The left side is the Glee version. The right side is the Jonathan Coulton version. Amazing.
http://youtu.be/bvZK1rsb5HU
At 2:15, they even leave the "Johnny C's in trouble". They don't even care.
-
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130129/16045921819/broken-copyright-jonathan-coulton-is-actually-infringing-copyright-glee-is-not.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Broken Copyright: Jonathan Coulton Is Actually Infringing Copyright, But Glee Is Not
from the how-messed-up-is-our-system dept
Want to know just how messed up our copyright system is, and just how out of sync it is with the way people feel about copyright and what makes sense? Just know this: between Jonathan Coulton and Fox, concerning the dispute over Fox's Glee using Coulton's rendition of Baby Got Back on their show -- you could make an argument that Coulton may have actually exposed himself to more copyright infringement problems than Fox did.
Allow me to explain. When the whole thing first broke, we thought that Coulton took the right approach in basically just telling his fans about it. Then, when we heard that he was exploring legal issues with his lawyers, that actually seemed like the wrong approach to take, even if he was upset about things. According to various reports, right before the show aired, Fox finally reached out to him and explained that what they did was perfectly legal (probably true) and that Coulton should be happy for the exposure. Coulton's response was quite reasonable -- asking if that meant Fox would be crediting him. Since the answer was no, the promise of exposure rings a bit hollow.
That said, it's not entirely hollow -- because of Coulton's ability to whip up (completely reasonable) righteous indignation about this from his fans via social media. As he told Mashable in the link above:
"They were right. I did get exposure, but it didn't come from anything they did. It was sympathetic outrage on Twitter, and bloggers and journalists talking about how crazy it was."
[....] "Sometimes I forget that Twitter is something beyond just being snarky at the Oscars. All of a sudden something happens and you remember that this is an amazing, powerful tool." Coulton says. "My fans have a keen sense of justice, and this idea that we should be attributed for our work. People who are of the Internet realize that attribution is what we trade on."
And, of course, he's taken it a step further as well, re-releasing his original song on iTunes, but calling it Baby Got Back (In the Style of Glee) and promising to donate the proceeds to two charities associated with Glee: The VH1 Save the Music Foundation and the It Gets Better Project. Song sales are doing well, with Coulton's version climbing the charts, while the official Glee version of the song is riddled with one star reviews from his supportive fans (even though he's not encouraging people to do this) and is nowhere to be found on the charts.
Still, what strikes me as perhaps most interesting about all of this is that as you explore the legal issues, it is entirely possible to come out with an argument that says that if anyone is infringing on copyright here... it's Jonathan Coulton. Let me be clear on this: I am not saying that anyone has directly accused him of this, nor am I suggesting (in any way) that he should be accused of this. I'm just showing how misaligned the law is with what most people think of as a sensible regime today. So why might Coulton be in trouble? As he's noted repeatedly, he paid the compulsory license to cover the song via the Harry Fox Agency. Doing so means that he agreed (pdf) to abide by Section 115 of the Copyright Act.
What's that? Well, check it out here. Here's the relevant part for our discussion:
A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner.
Previously, we and many others had suggested that the changes that what Coulton had made could possibly be protected as unique creative works. However, he more or less gave up that claim when he used the statutory license, rather than doing a direct deal with Sir Mix A Lot, or whoever else holds the rights on the song. That also means, however, that Coulton did not live up to Section 115 and his cover, in all likelihood, violates the original copyrights, because the license he got does not cover the very different arrangement and melody he created.
That is, by any normal measure, insane. But that's the law. This whole situation has (ridiculously) exposed Jonathan Coulton as a "pirate" and Fox as being perfectly within the law. And that just seems silly.
-
Saints + Coultan = Pirate Cheaters