EA Sued For Copyright Infringement Over College Fight Song
from the what's-good-for-the-goose? dept
Isn't it funny how some of the strongest defenders of copyright seem to have other opinions when they're on the other side of the fence? EA, which has kicked up lots of dust about copyright and DRM and the importance of intellectual property, is now finding itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit from from a composer and song writer alleging copyright infringement for the use of the UNLV "fight song" in various EA sports games. The guy claims to own the copyright on both the lyrics and the music. It's unclear if EA was under the impression that UNLV had licensed the song, and we often don't think of university fight songs as being helped along by copyright (you generally want more people singing them). So, while I think EA should be able to use the song without any trouble, it's always amusing when strong defenders of copyright suddenly find themselves in legal battles in which they may discover that copyright creates some new problems they didn't expect.
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
Filed Under: copyright, fight song, infringement, unlv, video games
Companies: ea
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ya
You said it Mike, down with copyright law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ya
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fly-by-night U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This ISN'T ironic, it ISN'T poetic justice. It's just the state of normal day-to-day operations in the software industry.
Can you imagine the world without any copyrights or trademarks? How would you know if the Folgers coffee you bought was from Folgers? How would you know that the Transformers movie you paid to see was the one directed by Steven Spielberg.
Copyrights and Trademarks provide consumers protections as well as corporations. Constantly bashing companies and individuals for enforcing their IP rights in ridiculous. Then again the system does need reform as does the patent system in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a trademark issue, not a copyright one, and I have made quite clear that I believe trademark is perfectly find for consumer protection, such as in the cases you described above.
Nice try at a straw man, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a Transformers movie directed by Steven Spielberg?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those are examples of trademarks, which are given to help curb consumer confusion. The blog post never mentioned trademarks. The article is about copyright.
Nice try at clouding the issue, though.
Oh, also... Normal operations and irony are not mutually exclusive states. It can be both, ya know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF Mike
...likely are not adhering to the basic purpose of copyright law: to encourage MORE creativity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF Mike
That wasn't the reasoning I used, but... ok.
I see this kind of moral bankruptcy all the time with you economist/libertarian types
Please explain what you mean by "moral bankruptcy." I find that hard to fathom. We are explaining ways that the overall economic pie can be bigger so that everyone can benefit more. I find it difficult to see how improving the situation for everyone could be morally bankrupt. So, please explain.
If it isn't making money for someone you assume they clearly didn't value it and so it's fair game to use as you wish.
Whoa. I have said nothing of the sort. I'm not sure what sort of pent up anger you have against some people, but that's no excuse for pretending I said something I didn't. I never said anything like what you just said. Please, I would suggest you apologize, admit you were wrong, and start again.
Not everyone wants monetary compensation for their work and those people shouldn't have to be treated with the condescension and disregard you and your type treat them with.
Apparently, you don't read what I write. You have set up a total strawman. Just the other day I was DEFENDING the idea that not everyone wants monetary compensation, and here you are complaining that I treat them with condescension.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/0118202528.shtml
Dude. Try reading before spewing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think EA should pay the licensing fee for these songs so long as they intend on profiting from them. If they're going to use the money to make horrid DRM schemes, then why not make them pay for it ahead of time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA HA HA HAH AHA HAHAH HAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
I hope they lose!
EA has betrayed all its customers with DRM, so it would be justice!
Not 1 cent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha Ha
What comes around goes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha Ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha Ha
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EA uses Fight Song?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope.
or can anyone use your words and simply change the name?
Yes, you are free to do what you want with it. We have addressed this, at length. It's rather tiresome for people to keep bringing this up, but I'll repeat exactly what I've said before (from here: http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070412/183135#c612)
---
as we've said repeatedly, we have no problem with people taking our content and reposting it. It's funny how many people come here, like yourself, and assume you've found some "gotcha." You haven't. There already are about 10 sites that copy Techdirt, post for post. Some of them give us credit. Some of them don't. We don't go after any of them.
Here's why:
1. None of those sites get any traffic. By itself, they offer nothing special.
2. If anything, it doesn't take people long to read those sites and figure out that the content is really from Techdirt. Then they just come here to the original source. So, it tends to help drive more traffic to us. That's cool.
3. As soon as the people realize the other sites are simply copying us, it makes those sites look really, really bad. If you want to risk your reputation like that, go ahead, but it's a big risk.
4. A big part of the value of Techdirt is the community here. You can't just replicate that.
5. Another big part of the value of Techdirt is that we, the writers, engage in the comments. You absolutely cannot fake that on your own site.
So, really, what's the purpose of copying our content, other than maybe driving a little traffic our way?
So, if you really want to, I'd suggest it's pretty dumb, but go ahead.
---
Just curious if you are willing to allow the things you have written to be used for purposes other than those you intended. And similar to this case, would you be upset if you weren't credited with creating this content?
As I said, go right ahead. We built our business model such that it doesn't matter, and we encourage you to spread our content as far and wide as possible. Please help us. It only encourages more people to come here and sign up for our services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should be higher
Go get em Gerry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Law
That, of course, is simply untrue, but nice strawman.
How about we have YOU work for free?
You seem mightily confused. I'm assuming you're new around here. But not having copyright does not mean working for free. The business models we have laid out (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml) are actually about helping people make more money by not relying on the copyright crutch.
How would you like THAT?
Making less money by shrinking my own market? That sounds pretty bad, actually. Why do you support it?
I hope the composer gets a licensing fee/royalty to which they are very much entitled.
You do realize the more likely result is that EA simply stops using the song, decreasing its awareness level, and potentially substituting some other song that gets a lot more attention and potentially replaces the original? The composer is shooting himself in the foot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Law
Not necessarily - first of all if he wins the lawsuit he gains a healthy sum of money. Better yet: did anybody even know his name before now, let alone his music? You can say what you will, he got some mighty publicity in exchange for that "limb" you talked about... ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA HA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like to point out that ...
I'd like to point out that this may not be EA's fault; in fact, it's probably UNLV's. The fight song for the University of South Carolina uses the music from an Elmer Bernstein musical (How Now, Dow Jones), and Bernstein's estate still holds the copyright on the song. USC and several others license the music for merchandise, but EA does not; the fight song is replaced with another USC song (Cocky's 2001 or Old Fight Song, depending on the year).
It's possible that UNLV's licensing department is to blame here for not giving EA the correct information. It's also possible that this guy is full of it, and UNLV really does hold the rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, as much as it must be ...
Sorry, as much as it must be a bother to you Mike, I love it when you use that "gotcha" statement and pretty much wipe the walls with the ignorant people on this site.
BTW, most college fight songs sound about the same anyways, it wouldn't be hard for EA to just pick another similar fight song from some small school and no one but the students and alums would know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was indeed a great ...
It was indeed a great comment.
But, did you mean "not" un-installable?
SecuRom is a pain, crashes programs, messes with stuff it shouldn't, and also a pain to remove.
There are some things as a coder, you could pay me any sum of money to work on, and I would still refuse based on principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you're saying it's wrong ...
So you're saying it's wrong that a college has adopted a new fight song any time in the last 90ish years? Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Auburn has never had their ...
Auburn has never had their fight song in any NCAA game because EA won't pay to use it. I stopped buying the game a few years ago. Never would pay for a fight song, had voice overs saying welcome to "x stadium, home of x team" when it was a home game in Auburn and they'd say another team at another location. EA sports department sucks at QA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Songwriters rights to sue for copyright infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]