Record Labels Continue Their Stand Against Parodies

from the let-it-go dept

Tue, Nov 21st 2006 11:47pm — Mike Masnick

Following the news earlier this week that Universal Music was threatening to sue Bank of America over a parody song a staff member performed at a company meeting, it seems that other labels have their own problems with the concept. Boing Boing points us to news that EMI has threatened legal action against a group of sports fans who put together a booklet of modified parody lyrics to various famous songs to build up some fan spirit. It's hard to see how this could possibly be seen as damaging in anyway to EMI or its artists, but an EMI exec recently pointed out, they don't care about the business issues when making decisions about who to sue. In other words, they threaten to sue because they can, not because it's a good idea -- which should be the point where the company recognizes that the lawyers have taken over for the business people and the company is no longer in good hands. There's nothing wrong with lawyers in business positions, but they need to make business decisions, not legal ones. If the move serves no good business purpose, and has a high likelihood of creating serious ill will towards the company (and its artists), why would the company continue to do it?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Search Engines WEB, 22 Nov 2006 @ 12:19am

Well...Ex---cu-use Me!
In other words, they threaten to sue because they can, not because it's a good idea
NO perspective on bad PR for RIAA
NO perpective on extra publicity generated for Songs
NO perspective on damage to Artist's karma by fans, who do not know any better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Search Engines WEB, 22 Nov 2006 @ 12:20am

Well...Ex---cu-use Me!
In other words, they threaten to sue because they can, not because it's a good idea
NO perspective on bad PR for RIAA
NO perpective on extra publicity generated for Songs
NO perspective on damage to Artist's karma by fans, who do not know any better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel, 22 Nov 2006 @ 1:23am

Re: Well...Ex---cu-use Me!
Are you stupid? Since when has someone singing a parody affected the RIAA? The only bad PR the RIAA get is when they sue someone for such a stupid thing as singing a parody - like its anything new!

"As Oscar Wilde is supposed to have said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not to be talked about at all" (quote taken from Wikipedia) This can be taken in 2 ways, since the only worse thing you can do with a song is not to sing/play/buy it, even a parody should be a good thing ... And secondly, maybe we should just ignore all these stupid court cases since giving them the publicity they crave only plays into their hands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Krum, 22 Nov 2006 @ 3:33am

So what's next, are they going to sue Weird Al? I hope not. He rules. Especially his song making fun of the RIAA called "Don't Download This Song."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NA, 22 Nov 2006 @ 4:19am

Re: Well...Ex---cu-use Me!
"The only bad PR the RIAA get..."

is anything they try to do!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Duncan Yoyo, 22 Nov 2006 @ 4:52am

Re:
Weird Al generally asks for permission. This is why It's Only Billy Joel to Me hasn't made it to an album. There is one song that Weird Al is giving out on his web page because the label chickened out of putting it on the Lynnwood Album.

Mad Magazine gets around the issue by not using the music and telling people what tune the the lyrics should be sung to. They had a court decsion to fall back on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Techie Chick, 22 Nov 2006 @ 6:33am

Next they'll want to sue if you're caught singing along with or humming a song!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gregory Block, 22 Nov 2006 @ 6:42am

Here's one for you, then.
R - I - A - A
It's fun to $#@! with the
R - I - A - A

They hate everything
That you want to enjoy
You'll pay twice, little girls and boys...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 22 Nov 2006 @ 6:57am

Adam Sandler and Jimmy Fallon better hide
I think they are reviewing all the SNL tapes right now. NBC is going down via the RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
August West, 22 Nov 2006 @ 7:08am

Don't buy
Don't buy from EMI. Don't buy from Universal Music. This is at least as ridiculous as the RIAA things going, on, maybe even worse. Until the people running thse comanies pull their heads out of their asses and realize that WE pay their checks when we buy music, I'll continue on my merry way of catching an artist live and asking if I can record the show. I don't know who these people thinkthey are, but they obviously think way too highly of themselves, their jobs, and their actual importance in the grand scheme of things. When the actions of the company affects the artist by alienating the fans, the artist will move.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2006 @ 7:30am

Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to download I go...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
peter, 22 Nov 2006 @ 7:36am

Stupid
RIAA should be happy that someone is even playing that Artist music at all. Who cares if it is a Parody of a song. That music is still being reconized for something who.

Duh maybe the artist is jealous because the parody is better than what they wrote.

Who cares stop the MADNESS... Put the law suits away and stop taking up valuable assets in the court system.

RIAA can you say "DEE DEE DEE" a quote from Carlos Mencia
[ link to this | view in thread ]
webbers, 22 Nov 2006 @ 8:11am

Not just
This is so far beyond Stupid, that it actually has its own catagory.... A SPECIAL KIND OF STUPID. Next they will try to sue me for singing the song (badly) in the comfort of my own car! For the most part it is BECAUSE of the parodies that I buy the actual song! I have all of the Weird Al stuff, and about 95% of the original songs he made his parodies from. Has the RIAA never heard "Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BillDivX, 22 Nov 2006 @ 8:29am

Next weeks news...
Wierd Al Yankovic gets sued into oblivion, even though he probably went through proper channels, just because lawyers "think they can"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BillDivX, 22 Nov 2006 @ 8:37am

no they can't.
"RIAA can you say "DEE DEE DEE" a quote from Carlos Mencia"

No, they can't...they're probably afraid it would be some kind of infringement...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BillDivX, 22 Nov 2006 @ 8:37am

Next weeks news...
Wierd Al Yankovic gets sued into oblivion, even though he probably went through proper channels, just because lawyers "think they can"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
teknosapien, 22 Nov 2006 @ 8:53am

Stop bitching and take a stance
Personally I don't support any recording industry artists. If they are independent or signed with an independent label I will. 99% of the music I listen to comes from free sources -- Etree.org archive.com or the band itself-- I use these sites to see if I will go and support the artist.

So if you dont like their tactics or the way they conduct business. DON'T DO BUSINESS with them. every time you do you are pretty much saying I agree with your business tactics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BillDivX, 22 Nov 2006 @ 9:16am

I did take a stance...
I rarely ever buy a CD, and if I do it's not published by one of the "big four."

Even if I find a band on those labels that I like (a good recent example is system of a down) I will pirate the albums, and if I really like the band, I will send them money anonymously. I document everthing I do with regards to that. If the RIAA comes after me, I'll make them look really bad regardless whether I win or lose, because I have every bit of evidence I need to prove that my "piracy" was motivated by a boycott, a stand on principles, and not by any desire for "theft"

It's gonna be pretty hard for them to rationalize that "I simply didn't want to spend my money on their product" since I generally send the band 10 times what they would get for the legitimate sales. I think that proves my point that I DO care about the artist (being one myself). just not a bunch of lawyer a-holes who have no clue how to make good music. they don't deserve my money, and they don't ever get a dime of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
satan, 22 Nov 2006 @ 12:49pm

Just do
Just do what you want, fuck the riaa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WarranT33, 22 Nov 2006 @ 1:06pm

Record Labels Continue Their Stand Against Parodie
Here's one to figure out: How mant RIAA lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not Mike, 22 Nov 2006 @ 1:30pm

There's nothing wrong with lawyers in business positions, but they need to make business decisions, not legal ones. If the move serves no good business purpose, and has a high likelihood of creating serious ill will towards the company (and its artists), why would the company continue to do it?
Because if you're a lawyer, lawsuits _are_ your business and creating them is _good_ for business. And if you're a lawyer, people already don't like you so what have you got to loose?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2006 @ 1:34pm

Re: Record Labels Continue Their Stand Against Par
Here's one to figure out: How mant RIAA lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. That's what the "artists" are for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fernando, 22 Nov 2006 @ 3:49pm

The BofA song was not a parody. Look it up -- parody is imitating somebody's work "for comic effect or ridicule." The bank employees were dead serious about promoting comradeship between the two merging banks through their little ditty.

If General Motors wrote new lyrics for Paul McCartney's "Yesterday" ("Chevrolet ... all I want is a new Chevrolet ...") for a commercial, there would likewise be smacked down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles Griswold, 22 Nov 2006 @ 7:40pm

Weird Al
OK, just to clear things up, here's the real poop from the Weird Al FAQ.

Does Al get permission to do his parodies?

Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.

[ link to this | view in thread ]
BradleyS, 27 Nov 2006 @ 3:04pm

Re: Fernando
The BofA song was not, technically, a parody. It was, however, also not a commercial. It was sung in a meeting, towards company employees. It wasn't made for marketing, but for the amusement of the bank employees.

Had it been intended for public view, UM would have a right to sue; the fact that it was made public, however, does not give them that right.

To compare this to home videos, it would be like somebody videotaping you performing karaoke at a bar, then you being sued when they upload that video to youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]