8 ms·

Jonathan Coulton strikes back by re-releasing his own song

193 points by spiffyman 14y ago

kt9 14y ago
Can someone give me some more context on what this is about and the backstory here? A link to something that explains whats going would be great!
- sontek 14y ago
  JoCo created a cover of Sir Mix A Lot's song "Baby got back" in 2005 and paid the proper license to distribute his version. Glee (A TV show in the US on Fox) copied his version but did not pay him any royalties. So he has re-released his 2005 version with the title "Baby got back in the style of glee" so that people searching for the stolen copy from fox will find his as well.
  - DigitalJack 14y ago
    He apparently isn't owed royalties, he just wants acknowledgment. http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/ http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-...
  - MichaelApproved 14y ago
    Thanks for the response. Is there a reason why he doesn't take Glee/Fox to court?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Seemingly what Glee/Fox did is technically legal, while clearly unethical.
  - subsystem 14y ago
    "and paid the proper license to distribute his version" So his version doesn't count as a derivative work?
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Yes, why wouldn't it? Derivative works still have to license the original work to be legally distributed.
      - elemeno 14y ago
        Because it turns out that that isn't how music licensing works. If you look at the comments on previous threads on this issue it's been pointed out that JC doesn't have much in the way of rights over his version due to the way licensing agreements for cover versions work. Whether or not it's right (morally) for Glee to not give him credit is a different matter, but all evidence is that Glee is in the right legally.
      - subsystem 14y ago
        Derivative works need permission from the original publisher, while cover songs only needs a mechanical license. Or I'm I mistaken in assuming he only had a mechanical license? http://www.harryfox.com/public/Licensing-GeneralFAQ.jsp#131 http://www.harryfox.com/public/Licensing-GeneralFAQ.jsp#131
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  http://musicmachinery.com/2013/01/25/joco-vs-glee/ http://musicmachinery.com/2013/01/25/joco-vs-glee/
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Simple recap: Sir Mix-a-lot does a song, 'Baby's Got Back' which Jonathan Coulter does a cover of. Mixalot's more techno/rap and Coulter is more of a musical arrangement. Then Glee (TV Show) does a cover using Coulter's arrangement (music and additional lyrics) and doesn't so much as acknowledge his existence, much less pay the required licensing fees.
  - kt9 14y ago
    Ah! Many thanks for bringing me upto speed. Not cool of Glee to avoid giving credit where credit is due!
  - lylejohnson 14y ago
    *Coulton
  - tunesmith 14y ago
    This has been covered elsewhere - there are no required licensing fees unless Glee actually used Coulter's sound recording. Fox is guilty of a dick move here, but as long as they recreated the instrumental track themselves, they are legally in the clear. However, I think it's likely that Fox actually used Coulton's karaoke backing tracks, which would mean Fox infringed Coulton's copyrights. I'm hoping for someone to do a digital analysis showing whether this is true.
    - jeffool 14y ago
      It has been done! In particular a look at the "quack" that Coulton used in his version (instead of cussing like Mix-a-lot did): http://geeklikemetoo.blogspot.com/2013/01/about-that-quack.html http://geeklikemetoo.blogspot.com/2013/01/about-that-quack.h... He also points to a great example indicating that the beginning was likely edited too: http://imgur.com/a/F0HTP#1 http://imgur.com/a/F0HTP#1 Also, if you're someone that trusts their own ears and has headphones, you can hear Glee's in your left earbud, and Coulton's in your right, in this pairing: https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back
      - 14y ago
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jevinskie 14y ago
  Glee is an American musical TV show that covers a high school glee club (singing club) complete with all the teen drama of high school. They sing covers of existing songs during their musical acts. They sang Jonathan's cover of Sir Mix a Lot's "Baby Got Back" recently. Except the cover was sampled either 100% for the medley or recreated to a point of being imperceptibly similar. Jonathan was not given any attribution for this. Now Fox is selling recordings of this cover of Jonathan's cover. Does Jonathan have a claim to his cover of an already copyrighted work?
  - aidos 14y ago
    They've definitely overstepped the line on it. Next time they're thinking about taking down material on copyright grounds they might want to reflect on this case.
    - eslaught 14y ago
      It is perhaps worth noting that the reason why this can happen is that the group of people running Glee and the people handling copyright takedowns are two completely different sets of people. Unless this event catalyzes communication between those two groups, you can expect to continue to see inconsistencies in policy enforcement like this.
      - begurken 14y ago
        There's an implicit assumption here that consistent behaviour within a corporation matters. I think this is wrong. Corporations' interests are served perfectly well by them behaving inconsistently whenever it suits their interests. There may well be executives in Fox who know about the inconsistencies here who simply don't care, because it doesn't affect the bottom line.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      This isn't the first time Glee's done it either. https://twitter.com/richardcheese/status/292725851068440577 https://twitter.com/richardcheese/status/292725851068440577
- aidos 14y ago
  Took me a moment to figure it out too. You can compare his version with the Glee ones to see how their cover is identical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Awesome response. I bought the song. I'm guessing that Fox/Glee either doesn't know how stupid this makes them look or they believe that any publicity is good publicity. Now all we need is the bear-luv inman cartoon for Adam Anders [1], the executive music producer for Glee. [1] http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2946490/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2946490/
- BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
  "I'm guessing that Fox/Glee either doesn't know how stupid this makes them look or they believe that any publicity is good publicity." What exactly do you predict this publicity will do to Glee? Are its fans going to walk out on it? Will the Cyber Police come and take its producers away?
  - tracker1 14y ago
    I think it would be worth a call/write in campaign to the biggest commercial advertisers on Glee that you don't feel that supporting their show is appropriate for their "family values" image to support a show with such unscrupulous management.
  - jerf 14y ago
    It will someday show up in some Congressional testimony as an anecdote "proving" that the media companies are not actually interested in artist's rights. It won't be logical, but such is the way of Congressional hearings. I wouldn't be surprised this does get walked back over the next couple of weeks, or if the practice ends despite its legality, and I bet it won't be any fan outrage, but internal RIAA-based pressure. This is not an anecdote they want floating around where it can be easily verified.
    - stcredzero 14y ago
      > It won't be logical, but such is the way of Congressional hearings. When such statements are made routinely about an organization, it's time to move on to another one. (Roman Senate as precedent. I'm sure there are many others.)
tunesmith 14y ago
I think it's important to realize exactly what Fox is (regularly) doing here. Fox/Glee finds a popular song. Fox/Glee wants to do a cover. Fox/Glee searches the internet to find a popular cover of the song. Fox/Glee does their cover in the same style, by having musicians play/record a note-for-note re-creation of that popular cover. Fox/Glee pays mechanical royalties to the original songwriter/publishing-company, pays absolutely nothing to the arranger that came up with the stylized cover version, and refuses to acknowledge them. This is 100% legal, no matter how creative the arranger was in coming up with their cover. If the cover artist was granted a mechanical license, the only copyright protection they were granted was to their sound recording. This is also not the first time it has happened. In episode 1, Glee's cover of Don't Stop Believing was practically identical to a famous a cappella arrangement (from a college a cappella group that released a cd and won some awards from it). There was another "regionals" number that was largely identical to another similarly famous a cappella arrangement. It's lousy behavior and I think they deserve every bit of blowback for being poor citizens, but it is technically legal. (Big asterisk: There is reason to believe that Fox actually took Coulston's karaoke version of BGB and recorded vocals over it. This, in contrast, would be a copyright infringement.)
- marvin 14y ago
  Well, the music industry has threatened lawsuits before over very similar "fair use" by consumers. This is a pretty obscure piece of knowledge, but some years ago a web site called Powertab hosted very detailed transcriptions of guitar arrangements for lots of rock/metal/pop bands. The transcription was done by ear and provided very detailed scores for thousands of songs. It was a very good source for learning some more complicated arrangements. However, the Music Publishers' Association threatened to sue over alleged copyright violation and the site's administrators took the site down. This happened in 2006, and I don't know what has happened since then. My impression was that the move killed off the entire PowerTab transcription community. This case was never tried in court and is very similar to what this story describes. What strikes me is the double standard. http://www.power-tab.net/ http://www.power-tab.net/
  - asynchronous13 14y ago
taylorlb 14y ago
While it would have been nice for Glee to acknowledge Jonathan's influence, an arranger can only claim copyright when the original songwriter has granted that privilege to said arranger, which I don't believe was the case when Coulton recorded his cover.
- dahart 14y ago
  You don't believe it was the case, or you're speculating? "Back when I released it, I bought the statutory license to distribute my version of this song through Harry Fox."
  - taylorlb 14y ago
    Speculating... but a statutory license is not equal to a copyright in this case.
danso 14y ago
I haven't been paying much attention to the legal details but I love that Sir Mix is getting royalties from this (partly because this stops the debate from descending into a "everything should be free" tangent). Edit: after taking the 30 seconds to find and listen to an excerpt of Coulton's song, I can reasonably weigh in on the debate: Fuck Glee
IvyMike 14y ago
Coulton (or for that matter, you or I) could release an entire album of covers of Glee songs, and only owe money to the original author, not the Glee dudes? Someone should make the "Low Rent Glee Ripoff Band" and do this.
- re 14y ago
  It's been done: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003YYUSP6 http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003YYUSP6 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005I88LY6 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005I88LY6
- stcredzero 14y ago
  Colton could do this, make some money, and maybe get a guest spot on Glee.
NamTaf 14y ago
Glee isn't the only thing to do this sort of shitty move, either. Ludachrist [1] did a remix of Major Lazer's "Pon De Floor" vs the Beverly Hills Cop song, entitled Pon De Foley. Several months later, DJ Hero 2 (same family as Guitar Hero) took the same two tracks and made one of their game songs the exact same remix [2]. Players have to mix both tracks together and if they successfully do it, it plays the arrangement that Ludachrist had come up with. Activision had permission from both Diplo (Major Lazer) and Harold Faltermeyer (composer of the BHC song), and therefore had legal clearance from it. At no point did they acknowledge the arrangement as coming from Ludachrist and legally didn't have to. It's really scummy but that's how the outdated copyright laws work. It's just another argument for large-scale copyright reform. [1]: NWS remove the space if you want to view it: http://www.youtube.com/watch http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=9TYEgFfFdUY [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M93Aji4MJBk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M93Aji4MJBk
joeconyers 14y ago
While it's a tad low to do this without any acknowledgment, this stuff happens all the time. Particularly with commercials. At least he has re-released his master and can monetize this way. This controversy will probably earn him more money than had it just been a 2 second blip in the credits.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  He's donating all the proceeds after licensing fees to charity. It seems all he wants is acknowledgement that they used his mix.
droithomme 14y ago
This is not just a cover it's clearly a new arrangement. As an arrangement it is a derivative work. Derivative works, specifically including arrangements of preexisting compositions, are most certainly themselves copyrightable materials by their authors, which in this case is Coulton as he is the author of the arrangement. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf Coulton notes that he has bought a license from the Harry Fox Agency giving him the right to perform and distribute his original arrangement of Sir Mix a Lot's work, so that is all proper and legal. There is no doubt legally that Coulton holds a copyright to his arrangement and that Fox is engaging in copyright violation since it is obvious the Fox piece is a cover of the Coulton arrangement, given there are almost no differences between their cover and his original arrangement. The opinions of the Fox lawyers who contacted him are predictable, but incorrect regarding law.
- elemeno 14y ago
  There have been comments in previous threads which have made persuasive arguments that per the licensing agreements, Coulton doesn't have any copyright over his arrangement. Music licensing is a not-straightforward business and the protections we assume exist often don't seems to be the gist. Links - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5119701 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5119701 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5121349 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5121349
  - taylorlb 14y ago
    Very not-straightforward. A compulsory mechanical license to distribute a derivative work as a sound recording does not automatically grant you copyright over the derivative arrangement of the song itself. You kind of own the sound you recorded (you pay a statutory publishing rate, which is around 10 cents, per unit sold to the songwriters, which the Harry Fox Agency collects and distributes on behalf of the music publishing industry) but you don't actually own the song. That said, it's most certainly not nice/cool/ethical to steal non-copyrighted arrangements simply because someone can't sue you.
    - 14y ago
politician 14y ago
I don't understand the law here. Fox/Glee can separate two independently copyrightable components of a work -- the lyrics and the arrangement --, then pay off the lyricist and rip off the arranger with the law being none the wiser? Why do lyrics receive preferential treatment under the law? What happens if you take two popular songs, strip the lyrics from one and combine it with the arrangement of the other? What if you add your own lyrics to someone else's arrangement: do you now own the work? What if your cover of their cover is byte-for-byte identical to their cover, that's not a copy?! Can this channel separation copyright hack be reused in other contexts (software, movies)?
- KMag 14y ago
  My understanding is that the crux is that in exchange for a very simple and easy licensing of the original, Jonathan Coulton signed away all of his rights except for his rights to his actual performance/recording. Weird Al gets more complicated (and presumably expensive) licenses of the originals, so that he full out owns his creations.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    That can't always be true, because in the debacle over Amish/Gangstas Paradise he stated that he was misinformed that the original artist has OKed it as a matter of courtesy, but that he had parody freedoms anyway.
tlrobinson 14y ago
I bought his version of the song. I hope he uses the proceeds to sue the shit out of Glee/Fox.
bitsoda 14y ago
At the time of this writing there are 719 ratings for this single on iTunes. This isn't scientific, but I'd say the song is doing well. Ultimately, this whole Glee fiasco will undeniably end as a net positive for JoCo.
- eridius 14y ago
  Depends on whether any of the people buying and rating it are actually new listeners, or if it's mostly just people who are already familiar with JoCo.
  - KMag 14y ago
    Right now, JC's song has 1,324 ratings, 1,314 of which are 5 stars. The ripoff has 1,472 ratings, 1,285 of which are 1 star. People are stepping up to bat for Jonathan Coulton. It just takes one person with media connections to step up to bat for this to get wide mainstream coverage. That's where the real upside for JC is. Unfortunately, my only solid media contact works for a Newscorp company. It's time to think if any of you have news media contacts. I also imagine there are a lot of Anons just looking for an excuse to rally against Fox/Newscorp. I'm not endorsing vigilantism, but Glee is one influential Anon away from wishing it had pulled its collective penis out of this hornets' nest and apologized before it felt the first sting. If the hive awakes, it's too late for apologies and Jonathan Coulton may be sucked into the media draft of Fox/Newscorp's supersonic pain train ride to Agonyville. I don't see any situation where he makes retirement bank off of this, unless it turns out Fox actually used his recording. However, it's definitely within the realm of possibility that he comes out a few tens of kilobucks ahead on this if it gets picked up by mainstream media and/or some Anons use this as an excuse to go after Fox/Newscorp.
chris_wot 14y ago
How much does this cost on iTunes for those of you in the US? It cost me $1.69 in Australian dollars, but the exchange rate is 1 USD to 0.96 AUD.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Hey, why the down vote?
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    I've got points to kill. Whoever is down voting is a coward, or a censorious douchebag. Perhaps both.
stcredzero 14y ago
The best revenge involves laughing all the way to the bank.
shawnc 14y ago
Well, I never would have heard his version if it weren't for this fiasco. I don't watch Glee (I enjoyed the first few episodes, i'll admit... then it just got silly). I'm not saying it's a good thing they did this - it's not. But hey, he did a great arrangement here, and i'm happy to have heard it now.
Evbn 14y ago
It would be wonderful if JoCo makes more money off thissnafu than if Fox had give you him a gratuity or credit in the first place. It would be beautiful if the above were true and the creative team did it on purpose, for example by intentionally preserving the duck sound after being told to swipe and wipe and the song.

193 points by spiffyman 14y ago

kt9 14y ago

Can someone give me some more context on what this is about and the backstory here? A link to something that explains whats going would be great!

sontek 14y ago
JoCo created a cover of Sir Mix A Lot's song "Baby got back" in 2005 and paid the proper license to distribute his version. Glee (A TV show in the US on Fox) copied his version but did not pay him any royalties. So he has re-released his 2005 version with the title "Baby got back in the style of glee" so that people searching for the stolen copy from fox will find his as well.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  He apparently isn't owed royalties, he just wants acknowledgment. http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/ http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-...
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  Thanks for the response. Is there a reason why he doesn't take Glee/Fox to court?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Seemingly what Glee/Fox did is technically legal, while clearly unethical.
- subsystem 14y ago
  "and paid the proper license to distribute his version" So his version doesn't count as a derivative work?
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Yes, why wouldn't it? Derivative works still have to license the original work to be legally distributed.
    - elemeno 14y ago
      Because it turns out that that isn't how music licensing works. If you look at the comments on previous threads on this issue it's been pointed out that JC doesn't have much in the way of rights over his version due to the way licensing agreements for cover versions work. Whether or not it's right (morally) for Glee to not give him credit is a different matter, but all evidence is that Glee is in the right legally.
    - subsystem 14y ago
      Derivative works need permission from the original publisher, while cover songs only needs a mechanical license. Or I'm I mistaken in assuming he only had a mechanical license? http://www.harryfox.com/public/Licensing-GeneralFAQ.jsp#131 http://www.harryfox.com/public/Licensing-GeneralFAQ.jsp#131
DigitalJack 14y ago
http://musicmachinery.com/2013/01/25/joco-vs-glee/ http://musicmachinery.com/2013/01/25/joco-vs-glee/
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Simple recap: Sir Mix-a-lot does a song, 'Baby's Got Back' which Jonathan Coulter does a cover of. Mixalot's more techno/rap and Coulter is more of a musical arrangement. Then Glee (TV Show) does a cover using Coulter's arrangement (music and additional lyrics) and doesn't so much as acknowledge his existence, much less pay the required licensing fees.
- kt9 14y ago
  Ah! Many thanks for bringing me upto speed. Not cool of Glee to avoid giving credit where credit is due!
- lylejohnson 14y ago
  *Coulton
- tunesmith 14y ago
  This has been covered elsewhere - there are no required licensing fees unless Glee actually used Coulter's sound recording. Fox is guilty of a dick move here, but as long as they recreated the instrumental track themselves, they are legally in the clear. However, I think it's likely that Fox actually used Coulton's karaoke backing tracks, which would mean Fox infringed Coulton's copyrights. I'm hoping for someone to do a digital analysis showing whether this is true.
  - jeffool 14y ago
    It has been done! In particular a look at the "quack" that Coulton used in his version (instead of cussing like Mix-a-lot did): http://geeklikemetoo.blogspot.com/2013/01/about-that-quack.html http://geeklikemetoo.blogspot.com/2013/01/about-that-quack.h... He also points to a great example indicating that the beginning was likely edited too: http://imgur.com/a/F0HTP#1 http://imgur.com/a/F0HTP#1 Also, if you're someone that trusts their own ears and has headphones, you can hear Glee's in your left earbud, and Coulton's in your right, in this pairing: https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back
    - 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jevinskie 14y ago
Glee is an American musical TV show that covers a high school glee club (singing club) complete with all the teen drama of high school. They sing covers of existing songs during their musical acts. They sang Jonathan's cover of Sir Mix a Lot's "Baby Got Back" recently. Except the cover was sampled either 100% for the medley or recreated to a point of being imperceptibly similar. Jonathan was not given any attribution for this. Now Fox is selling recordings of this cover of Jonathan's cover. Does Jonathan have a claim to his cover of an already copyrighted work?
- aidos 14y ago
  They've definitely overstepped the line on it. Next time they're thinking about taking down material on copyright grounds they might want to reflect on this case.
  - eslaught 14y ago
    It is perhaps worth noting that the reason why this can happen is that the group of people running Glee and the people handling copyright takedowns are two completely different sets of people. Unless this event catalyzes communication between those two groups, you can expect to continue to see inconsistencies in policy enforcement like this.
    - begurken 14y ago
      There's an implicit assumption here that consistent behaviour within a corporation matters. I think this is wrong. Corporations' interests are served perfectly well by them behaving inconsistently whenever it suits their interests. There may well be executives in Fox who know about the inconsistencies here who simply don't care, because it doesn't affect the bottom line.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    This isn't the first time Glee's done it either. https://twitter.com/richardcheese/status/292725851068440577 https://twitter.com/richardcheese/status/292725851068440577
aidos 14y ago
Took me a moment to figure it out too. You can compare his version with the Glee ones to see how their cover is identical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Awesome response. I bought the song. I'm guessing that Fox/Glee either doesn't know how stupid this makes them look or they believe that any publicity is good publicity. Now all we need is the bear-luv inman cartoon for Adam Anders [1], the executive music producer for Glee. [1] http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2946490/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2946490/

BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
"I'm guessing that Fox/Glee either doesn't know how stupid this makes them look or they believe that any publicity is good publicity." What exactly do you predict this publicity will do to Glee? Are its fans going to walk out on it? Will the Cyber Police come and take its producers away?
- tracker1 14y ago
  I think it would be worth a call/write in campaign to the biggest commercial advertisers on Glee that you don't feel that supporting their show is appropriate for their "family values" image to support a show with such unscrupulous management.
- jerf 14y ago
  It will someday show up in some Congressional testimony as an anecdote "proving" that the media companies are not actually interested in artist's rights. It won't be logical, but such is the way of Congressional hearings. I wouldn't be surprised this does get walked back over the next couple of weeks, or if the practice ends despite its legality, and I bet it won't be any fan outrage, but internal RIAA-based pressure. This is not an anecdote they want floating around where it can be easily verified.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > It won't be logical, but such is the way of Congressional hearings. When such statements are made routinely about an organization, it's time to move on to another one. (Roman Senate as precedent. I'm sure there are many others.)

tunesmith 14y ago

I think it's important to realize exactly what Fox is (regularly) doing here. Fox/Glee finds a popular song. Fox/Glee wants to do a cover. Fox/Glee searches the internet to find a popular cover of the song. Fox/Glee does their cover in the same style, by having musicians play/record a note-for-note re-creation of that popular cover. Fox/Glee pays mechanical royalties to the original songwriter/publishing-company, pays absolutely nothing to the arranger that came up with the stylized cover version, and refuses to acknowledge them. This is 100% legal, no matter how creative the arranger was in coming up with their cover. If the cover artist was granted a mechanical license, the only copyright protection they were granted was to their sound recording. This is also not the first time it has happened. In episode 1, Glee's cover of Don't Stop Believing was practically identical to a famous a cappella arrangement (from a college a cappella group that released a cd and won some awards from it). There was another "regionals" number that was largely identical to another similarly famous a cappella arrangement. It's lousy behavior and I think they deserve every bit of blowback for being poor citizens, but it is technically legal. (Big asterisk: There is reason to believe that Fox actually took Coulston's karaoke version of BGB and recorded vocals over it. This, in contrast, would be a copyright infringement.)

marvin 14y ago
Well, the music industry has threatened lawsuits before over very similar "fair use" by consumers. This is a pretty obscure piece of knowledge, but some years ago a web site called Powertab hosted very detailed transcriptions of guitar arrangements for lots of rock/metal/pop bands. The transcription was done by ear and provided very detailed scores for thousands of songs. It was a very good source for learning some more complicated arrangements. However, the Music Publishers' Association threatened to sue over alleged copyright violation and the site's administrators took the site down. This happened in 2006, and I don't know what has happened since then. My impression was that the move killed off the entire PowerTab transcription community. This case was never tried in court and is very similar to what this story describes. What strikes me is the double standard. http://www.power-tab.net/ http://www.power-tab.net/
- asynchronous13 14y ago

taylorlb 14y ago

While it would have been nice for Glee to acknowledge Jonathan's influence, an arranger can only claim copyright when the original songwriter has granted that privilege to said arranger, which I don't believe was the case when Coulton recorded his cover.

dahart 14y ago
You don't believe it was the case, or you're speculating? "Back when I released it, I bought the statutory license to distribute my version of this song through Harry Fox."
- taylorlb 14y ago
  Speculating... but a statutory license is not equal to a copyright in this case.

danso 14y ago

I haven't been paying much attention to the legal details but I love that Sir Mix is getting royalties from this (partly because this stops the debate from descending into a "everything should be free" tangent). Edit: after taking the 30 seconds to find and listen to an excerpt of Coulton's song, I can reasonably weigh in on the debate: Fuck Glee

IvyMike 14y ago

Coulton (or for that matter, you or I) could release an entire album of covers of Glee songs, and only owe money to the original author, not the Glee dudes? Someone should make the "Low Rent Glee Ripoff Band" and do this.

re 14y ago
It's been done: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003YYUSP6 http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003YYUSP6 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005I88LY6 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005I88LY6
stcredzero 14y ago
Colton could do this, make some money, and maybe get a guest spot on Glee.

NamTaf 14y ago

Glee isn't the only thing to do this sort of shitty move, either. Ludachrist [1] did a remix of Major Lazer's "Pon De Floor" vs the Beverly Hills Cop song, entitled Pon De Foley. Several months later, DJ Hero 2 (same family as Guitar Hero) took the same two tracks and made one of their game songs the exact same remix [2]. Players have to mix both tracks together and if they successfully do it, it plays the arrangement that Ludachrist had come up with. Activision had permission from both Diplo (Major Lazer) and Harold Faltermeyer (composer of the BHC song), and therefore had legal clearance from it. At no point did they acknowledge the arrangement as coming from Ludachrist and legally didn't have to. It's really scummy but that's how the outdated copyright laws work. It's just another argument for large-scale copyright reform. [1]: NWS remove the space if you want to view it: http://www.youtube.com/watch http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=9TYEgFfFdUY [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M93Aji4MJBk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M93Aji4MJBk

joeconyers 14y ago

While it's a tad low to do this without any acknowledgment, this stuff happens all the time. Particularly with commercials. At least he has re-released his master and can monetize this way. This controversy will probably earn him more money than had it just been a 2 second blip in the credits.

DigitalJack 14y ago
He's donating all the proceeds after licensing fees to charity. It seems all he wants is acknowledgement that they used his mix.

droithomme 14y ago

This is not just a cover it's clearly a new arrangement. As an arrangement it is a derivative work. Derivative works, specifically including arrangements of preexisting compositions, are most certainly themselves copyrightable materials by their authors, which in this case is Coulton as he is the author of the arrangement. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf Coulton notes that he has bought a license from the Harry Fox Agency giving him the right to perform and distribute his original arrangement of Sir Mix a Lot's work, so that is all proper and legal. There is no doubt legally that Coulton holds a copyright to his arrangement and that Fox is engaging in copyright violation since it is obvious the Fox piece is a cover of the Coulton arrangement, given there are almost no differences between their cover and his original arrangement. The opinions of the Fox lawyers who contacted him are predictable, but incorrect regarding law.

elemeno 14y ago
There have been comments in previous threads which have made persuasive arguments that per the licensing agreements, Coulton doesn't have any copyright over his arrangement. Music licensing is a not-straightforward business and the protections we assume exist often don't seems to be the gist. Links - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5119701 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5119701 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5121349 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5121349
- taylorlb 14y ago
  Very not-straightforward. A compulsory mechanical license to distribute a derivative work as a sound recording does not automatically grant you copyright over the derivative arrangement of the song itself. You kind of own the sound you recorded (you pay a statutory publishing rate, which is around 10 cents, per unit sold to the songwriters, which the Harry Fox Agency collects and distributes on behalf of the music publishing industry) but you don't actually own the song. That said, it's most certainly not nice/cool/ethical to steal non-copyrighted arrangements simply because someone can't sue you.
  - 14y ago

politician 14y ago

I don't understand the law here. Fox/Glee can separate two independently copyrightable components of a work -- the lyrics and the arrangement --, then pay off the lyricist and rip off the arranger with the law being none the wiser? Why do lyrics receive preferential treatment under the law? What happens if you take two popular songs, strip the lyrics from one and combine it with the arrangement of the other? What if you add your own lyrics to someone else's arrangement: do you now own the work? What if your cover of their cover is byte-for-byte identical to their cover, that's not a copy?! Can this channel separation copyright hack be reused in other contexts (software, movies)?

KMag 14y ago
My understanding is that the crux is that in exchange for a very simple and easy licensing of the original, Jonathan Coulton signed away all of his rights except for his rights to his actual performance/recording. Weird Al gets more complicated (and presumably expensive) licenses of the originals, so that he full out owns his creations.
- Evbn 14y ago
  That can't always be true, because in the debacle over Amish/Gangstas Paradise he stated that he was misinformed that the original artist has OKed it as a matter of courtesy, but that he had parody freedoms anyway.

tlrobinson 14y ago

I bought his version of the song. I hope he uses the proceeds to sue the shit out of Glee/Fox.

bitsoda 14y ago

At the time of this writing there are 719 ratings for this single on iTunes. This isn't scientific, but I'd say the song is doing well. Ultimately, this whole Glee fiasco will undeniably end as a net positive for JoCo.

eridius 14y ago
Depends on whether any of the people buying and rating it are actually new listeners, or if it's mostly just people who are already familiar with JoCo.
- KMag 14y ago
  Right now, JC's song has 1,324 ratings, 1,314 of which are 5 stars. The ripoff has 1,472 ratings, 1,285 of which are 1 star. People are stepping up to bat for Jonathan Coulton. It just takes one person with media connections to step up to bat for this to get wide mainstream coverage. That's where the real upside for JC is. Unfortunately, my only solid media contact works for a Newscorp company. It's time to think if any of you have news media contacts. I also imagine there are a lot of Anons just looking for an excuse to rally against Fox/Newscorp. I'm not endorsing vigilantism, but Glee is one influential Anon away from wishing it had pulled its collective penis out of this hornets' nest and apologized before it felt the first sting. If the hive awakes, it's too late for apologies and Jonathan Coulton may be sucked into the media draft of Fox/Newscorp's supersonic pain train ride to Agonyville. I don't see any situation where he makes retirement bank off of this, unless it turns out Fox actually used his recording. However, it's definitely within the realm of possibility that he comes out a few tens of kilobucks ahead on this if it gets picked up by mainstream media and/or some Anons use this as an excuse to go after Fox/Newscorp.

chris_wot 14y ago

How much does this cost on iTunes for those of you in the US? It cost me $1.69 in Australian dollars, but the exchange rate is 1 USD to 0.96 AUD.

chris_wot 14y ago
Hey, why the down vote?
- chris_wot 14y ago
  I've got points to kill. Whoever is down voting is a coward, or a censorious douchebag. Perhaps both.

stcredzero 14y ago

The best revenge involves laughing all the way to the bank.

shawnc 14y ago

Well, I never would have heard his version if it weren't for this fiasco. I don't watch Glee (I enjoyed the first few episodes, i'll admit... then it just got silly). I'm not saying it's a good thing they did this - it's not. But hey, he did a great arrangement here, and i'm happy to have heard it now.

Evbn 14y ago

It would be wonderful if JoCo makes more money off thissnafu than if Fox had give you him a gratuity or credit in the first place. It would be beautiful if the above were true and the creative team did it on purpose, for example by intentionally preserving the duck sound after being told to swipe and wipe and the song.