Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK

from the you-need-a-seriously-large-staff-to-get-nothing-done dept

Mon, Jul 30th 2012 9:00am — Tim Cushing

"Just ask for permission."

When it comes to dealing with the "permission culture" that goes hand-in-hand with copyright these days, there's really no way to win. Certain rights holders claim they just want to be asked, but the actual process involved makes it seem like you'd save a ton of time just assuming the answer is "no."

Hugh Brown (a.k.a. Huge), an Australian recording artist and music business coach, experienced this circuitous process firsthand when he attempted to craft a parody of Adam Lambert's "If I Had You," entitled "If I Had Stew." Parodies are handled a bit differently in Australia, despite recent concessions in Australian fair dealing laws. According to APRA (Australasian Performing Rights Association), "lyric changes and parodies of works must [be] cleared directly with the copyright owner."

"If I Had You" wasn't written by Lambert, but by Swedish songwriting team Maratone (Max Martin, Shellback and Kritian Lundin). But Huge couldn't approach Maratone directly as its website indicated that all the trio's songs were owned by the writer's respective labels. So he emailed Maratone and sent another form asking RCA/Jive Records for permission to make this recording.

Huge heard nothing from Sony but did hear back from Maratone... who told him to contact Kobalt Music Publishing and clear it with EMI as well. Quick count of players involved: There's Maratone, the trio of songwriters behind Adam Lambert (who's likely off sleeping the undisturbed sleep of successful angels). Sony Music. RCA/Jive Records. Kobalt Music Publishing. And EMI. That's four labels and not a single person willing to discuss clearing Huge's parody.

A couple of weeks pass and Sony still hasn't responded. Kobalt UK and EMI Australia have... sort of. The two labels directed Huge to yet another set of forms to fill out, despite him having given them all this information in his initial emails. The new forms aren't even for requesting permission to record a parody. All they do is assist the labels in compiling a price quote on the as-of-yet unrecorded song. And even if permission is granted, it likely still won't be enough. EMI only owns one-third of the track in question. Songwriter Savan Kovetchka, an EMI signee, contributed to Lambert's track, along with Max Martin and Shellback. This means Huge still needs permission from the other two songwriters and some sort of answer from Sony.

It's now nearly a month since Huge first made contact and no progress has been made. Sony appears to be ignoring his requests. If anything, he's further behind than he was 27 days ago, when this whole thing kicked off. The "good" news is that Kobalt Media (representing Kotecha) said "yes," giving Huge one-third of a "permission" -- pending EMI's approval... and when it comes to getting written permission, one-third of a permission slip is worth approximately one-third of nothing. Huge did the right thing and asked (and asked... and asked) for permission, but despite the ever-growing list of interested parties, it looks as if "permission" might be something they simply can't give. And then... things go completely off the rails.

Huge opens his last post on the debacle with, "Well, I'm gobsmacked! No wonder the major labels are in so much trouble." Kobalt has given their blessing but EMI begins a long process of royalty-related correspondence so twisted it would make Joseph Heller proud.

It starts out with a simple request for clarification by EMI.

What is your main goal for this use?

In your original enquiry you have noted that you intended to make a video for the song but have said "maybe" in your request form. Is this principally for release as an mp3 single?

Huge responds:

To be honest, my main intention is to make the song for my own amusement.

If I play it to few people who agree with me that it's fun and good, then I'll think seriously about making a video as cheaply as possible and releasing it on YouTube. I have a few people who are interested in helping with that, though they wanna hear it first.

If it gets any traction on YouTube, then I'll think about releasing it as an MP3 and via iTunes, etc ... I just wanted to clear everything properly first.

Gauging the market before putting the song up for sale is just common sense and YouTube's a pretty good place to get quick feedback. But as soon as YouTube is mentioned, EMI fires off a preliminary standard contract for sync rights, showing that its share of any money generated would be 33.34% and a guesstimated one-time fee of $1000.

Huge forwards EMI his approval letter from Kobalt, which sends the label off on an entirely different tangent.

I just want to clarify with you that we are the licensing department of EMI Publishing, so we are quoting you on the synchronisation rights if you intend on using the work in a video clip. If you want to request approval to record and release this song you will need to get in contact with our copyright department.

So, Huge has been talking to the wrong people. He sends a letter back acknowledging the fact that he (obviously) can't sync the video until after he's recorded the song. He asks EMI for a contact name in the copyright department and receives this in response:

Will you be getting a mechanical license from AMCOS before putting this song on youtube or will you be putting it on youtube before you get a mechanical license?

This a question that can't be answered. According to APRA/AMCOS rules, Huge needs to secure permission before he can worry about uploading it to YouTube. He tries again to get EMI to follow his line of thinking: get permission, record, upload.

That depends on whether I am allowed to use Sony's backing music or whether I have to completely re-record it myself ... still no word from Sony.

My instinct is to clear everything before I do anything. If I know what it's all gonna cost me I can do up budgets and set targets and so on. I just figured that securing permission was the first step ...

EMI takes this clear statement of ducks-in-a-row and it decides that the mechanical license question needs to be clarified before anything else can proceed, except that other stuff (getting permission) also needs to happen first and perhaps simultaneously.

So does this mean that you do not intend to release the song with a mechanical license prior to putting a video on youtube?

If you intend on getting a mechanical license first you will need to get approval to record and release an adaption but if you do not intend on releasing the song first you will need a synchronisation license.

At this stage, Huge is still waiting for permission from two more writers. EMI, however, only seems to be concerned with properly licensing a song that a.) doesn't exist and b.) quite possibly won't exist if permission is denied. It's also given Huge the "opportunity" to pay an upfront fee of $1000 for a track he might not even make. Huge (once again) points out his thought process: permission, record, YouTube/mp3. This repeated clarification makes no difference. EMI is still hung up on the mechanical license for syncing when it's not trying to just punt the whole thing over to the copyright department. EMI also insists that its previously mentioned $1000 "contract" is valid for only four weeks, after which it will need to issue a new contract. Huge points out (again) that he still is waiting on permission to record.

EMI responds with this amazing statement, which baldly states that the label doesn't particularly care whether or not Huge ever gets a chance to record this parody if he's not willing to throw some cash its way:

We can not give you permission to do anything with the song until you commit to a sync license (internet video) or a mechanical license (release) so please confirm if and when you are ready to proceed.

Huge attempts to wrap his mind around this:

OK, so let me get this straight: EMI will not contact the writer and ask for permission for me to make a parody unless I fork out $1000 upfront and possibly also a mechanical license ... for a song I might not be given permission to make and that might turn out to be unreleasable ...

Alternatively, they won't ask for permission for me to record the parody until ... I've recorded it and know what I'm gonna do with it. No wonder people are just breaking the rules and doing what they want with recorded music!

Precisely. If you want artists to play nice within the confines of your system, then you need to have a workable system, not just a set of loosely-related entities all acting independently and in their own best interests. Having multiple layers of corporate bureaucracy standing between two artists only hurts those who are actually trying to do the right thing. If Huge had gone the other way and decided that it was easier to ask forgiveness than permission, I can guarantee that any sort of takedown or cease-and-desist would come from a single source. When it comes to saying "no," you generally only need one person. But to get a "yes?" That's a "team" effort, apparently.

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: culture, huge, hugh brown, impossibility, licensing, mashup, music, parody, permission culture, remix
Companies: emi, maratone, sony

130 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:12am

I know this is off topic but I feel like I must tell the world.

Some black peeps moved in next door to me a couple days ago so while I was high last night I fired up an extra router and named the network FUCK YOU CRACKERS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdamR (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:18am

Wow
That's one complicated web they have weaved. Spiderman would be proud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:19am

Last time I looked, which was just minutes ago, your so-called "permission culture" encompasses virtually every aspect of our daily lives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
droozilla (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:19am

Fuck the hoops, fuck the labels, fuck the laws, just put it out.

Seriously, this is the only way to win. Ignore the system entirely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:20am

Re:
+1
I support your view.
Fuck The Corporate A-Holes !!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:23am

Refactoring.
This reminds me of the book The Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison when the protagonist is attempting to get a job with his "recommendation letter" which instructs the business owners to keep stringing him along until he gives up. (I'm paraphrasing)

They could save a lot of money if they just hired one guy to answer the phone and tell people "No."

..unless their plan is to waste other people's time, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:29am

Re: Refactoring.
Seems like their plan is simply to try and extract as much money from gullible idiots as they can. How many people will cough up $1000 just to record their own spoofy version of a song that nobody but their mom will ever hear?

Just record whatever you want. The worst thing they'll do is takedown your Youtube video (hint: try Vimeo). They'll only sue if you're actually making money/getting noticed, which 99% of all musicians aren't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nina Paley (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:30am

This.
Oh my god, this. This is how I became a copyright abolitionist. I spent about a year in the Kafka-esque nightmare that is the music license permission system. I made it out alive, but Never Again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:31am

How to make a parody song:

Step 1: Try to play by the rules and ask for permission
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Despair
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Randy, 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:32am

Re:
Oh come on, like anyone thought it was naggers.

Let it go already
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nina Paley (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:35am

Re:
No art for you. Art is only for big corporations with lawyers and license departments. Not for you and me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:40am

Having to ask permission to use other people's property? Shocking. It takes time to make such arrangements? Double shocking. You're not really whining about a permission culture--you're whining because you all have this crazy sense of entitlement to use other people's property. That's not the way it works. Sorry, freetards. Just ask Nina. She made the movie first and asked for permission later. Woops. And then she whined when it wasn't easy to arrange. Too funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nina Paley (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:43am

Re:
...and Huge asked for permission first. Notice how my movie actually got made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:49am

But as soon as Youtube is mentioned, EMI fires off a preliminary standard contract for sync rights, showing that its share of any money generated would be 33.34% and a guesstimated one-time fee of $1000.

So, assuming the other labels responded similarly, does this mean Brown would have to pay 100.2% of money generated + $3000 for the privilege of putting his track on YouTube?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:49am

Re:
I think you're confused at the message. No one is complaining at getting permission; the story starts out with someone trying to play by the rules-- the message is that it is so complicated to do something so simple that most people say "fuck it" and do what they want. You're not seriously arguing that this is an efficient process, are you?

The "way it works" is that the people who play by the rules get shafted and the people who say "fuck the system" are successful.

How about we meet in the middle, though? If you pay taxes on your property, people have to ask permission to use it. Deal? (hint, you don't know what property means)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:50am

Re:
I don't mind asking permission to use other people's property... like asking to use my neighbor's Ladder. I DO mind having to asking my neighbor permission to create something similar on my own.

Imagine if you had to wait a year or more for permission to make a garden bed that was similar to your neighbors in your own yard. First you need a mechanical license to operate a shovel. Get permission to use the same mulch as him, add curves to your planting bed.. remember he did it first, and if you choose the same species of flower... bam Synchronization license so that both plants can grow at the same time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:51am

Re:
And that "virtually" is becoming more virtual by the minute...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:51am

Re:
Why, why do you feel the need to share your passive-aggressive racism with the world?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a Name, 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:51am

No Surprise
It's not that complicated. They (Sony) want $1000.00 to get out of bed and send an e-mail (to EMI). That's it.

They deliberately frustrated the artist by wriggling through a long, stupidly worded legalistically defensive e-mail chain. They did this to send a message: This might be a waste of time, and we want money right now, up front to do ANY work. That includes talking to you. At all.

None of them smell blood in the water, so they aren't looking to feed. What else is new?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:54am

Re: Re:
WIN!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:56am

Michael Carrier alluded to this issue through the interviews he did.

Apparently this division of permissions makes it even more difficult for artists to be paid a fair amount of money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:57am

Re:
Do you attack the corporations who "steal" both from independent artists and the public domain in the same way without repercussions?

Didn't think so. You only attack independent artists, as shown here. Try not being an asshole and a hypocrite, it helps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tunnen (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:01am

Re: Re:
I thought that was the 3rd main purpose of the Internet (I'm lumping it in with trolling). Behind massive amounts of free porn viewing and pirated music/video/games. =P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:09am

Re:
If it was actually about using someone else's property I would agree, but we're talking about being hindered by regulations preventing us from creating
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:10am

Re: Wow
Now, think 50 years in the future. You go back and try to get permissions when the artists are dead or scattered and the companies that currently hold bits and pieces of the copyright have been acquired by other companies, gone through bankruptcy and had their assets sold, and a half dozen other things we have not even thought of. Now try to get the rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:10am

Re: Re:
Oh look nina's still here, suck it troll AC in the other topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:13am

Re: Re:
The analogy already works for the ladder.

Say you have some gunk clogging up your roof gutters, and you want to clean it out, but you don't have a ladder.

Of course you ask your neighbour for permission to borrow his ladder for half an hour. However, when you ring the doorbell, an unknown person opens and says that you cannot talk to your neighbour. You cannot borrow the ladder from this unknown person but he can redirect you to someone that might be able to. He gives you a phone number and sends you on your way.

The phone is not answered for days and when you do get someone on the line, he first wants to know what you will be using it for. He can borrow you the ladder if you provide a photo of the ladder in its intended use.

Oh, and of course, while you would then have permission to use the ladder, you are not allowed to go and *take* it. For that, you will need permission from two other people, one to go to the shed where the ladder is, and one to move the ladder from the current location to the location of use. The first is unavailable for comments right now, but his representative knows that he'll most probably happily give you permission if the second one agrees.

The second one first wants a sample of the roof gutter, to prove that you are actually going to use the ladder for the purposes you claim.

So, the steps involved are:
1. take ladder
2. use ladder to get gunk
3. take photo
4. put back ladder
5. show gunk to person in charge of ladder movement
6. receive permission for ladder movement
7. show permission for ladder movement to persion in charge of ladder acquisition
8. receive permission for ladder acquisition
9. show photo from step 3 to person in charge of general ladder-borrowing
10. receive permission to perform step 1.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IronM@sk, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:17am

Baldy going where no hariy man has gone before.
EMI responds with this amazing statement, which baldly states

So, they stated this without hair?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:19am

Oh, quit belly-achin'!
It's what they gotta do to promote the progress!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:23am

Re:
Culture is not property...get a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:27am

Re: Baldy going where no hariy man has gone before.
Well, with the ED scare, who wants to use Rogaine anymore?!?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RyanNerd (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:30am

Re: Re:
If you apply how business is done in any other industry to the way things are done in the music industry things get strange and silly quickly. Thanks for the flowerbed example. Don't forget that your neighbor deserves royalties every time you replant your flowerbed because he thought of it first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
velox (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:31am

Re: Re:
For most people who do not own a business, "property taxes" are just a real estate issue, but for those of us who own businesses, we unfortunately know better. Businesses pay annual property taxes on the hard assets possessed by the business until those assets are either disposed of, or the value is written off according to a schedule written into the tax code.
The issue of paying property taxes for intellectual "property" was discussed in the LA Times more than 4 years ago in an opinion piece by Dallas Weaver, which was a response to an earlier opinion article by Jon Healy
Mr. Weaver's observed that if it was necessary to pay property taxes for IP, then there would be incentive to release non-performing instances of IP to the public domain. This would be a very laudable outcome, although I remain quite conflicted about this because it would be acknowledging that IP is actually property in the first place. As has been discussed at great length here, intellectual property has considerable differences from all other forms of property as it consists of nothing more than a government ordained right to operate a monopoly.
On the other hand, further discussion of property taxes for IP is worthwhile because it would bring the inconsistency of IP maximallist arguments into the public focus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:31am

Re: Oh, quit belly-achin'!
To promote the progress of their wallets and useful hookers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:33am

Re: Re: Oh, quit belly-achin'!
-1 for sarcasm juke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:34am

Re: Baldy going where no hariy man has gone before.
*cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Barefaced_lie *cough*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:40am

Re: Re:
Does killing a corporate head count as murder or fraud these days? I can never tell anymore...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:42am

Re: Re:
No, culture is property....of the inaginary kind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:44am

Re: Re:
I think you're confused at the message. No one is complaining at getting permission; the story starts out with someone trying to play by the rules-- the message is that it is so complicated to do something so simple that most people say "fuck it" and do what they want. You're not seriously arguing that this is an efficient process, are you?

Um, if you don't get the permission you need, then you don't get to use the property you don't have permission to use. Just like everything else in the real world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:45am

Re:
No, Brown would have had to pay �10m dollars, of which $9m would be in deductibles, and $900k would be in "lobbying" expenses, with $1k going to pay off the actual content creator's "debt".

And yes, that is accurate before you ask, $99k really did disappear like Shadow on acid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:46am

Re: Re: Re:
For most people who do not own a business, "property taxes" are just a real estate issue, but for those of us who own businesses, we unfortunately know better.

Indeed.

When I started my first business, this was what surprised me more than anything else. Chairs, desks, etc., are all taxable property. I even had to pay property taxes on certain office supplies.

Although IP is not, in fact, property and so I don't think that property taxes should apply to it, the maximalists often make the argument that it is property. I wonder if they realize that's a sword that cuts more than one way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:46am

Re: Re:
...and Huge asked for permission first. Notice how my movie actually got made.

And you showed your movie before you even had permission. Guess you don't care about other people's property rights. No big surprise there. He's trying to get permission. He may never get it. Life goes on. But you, Nina, you're super special. The rules don't apply to you, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:49am

Re:
and then deal with the lawsuits designed to bankrupt you for 20,000 times anything you might earn from it, of which you will never see anything as they squash it over and over around the globe to stop you from making a dime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:50am

Re: Re:
Culture may not be property, but copyrighted works are. Your sense of entitlement is hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:50am

Re: Re: Re:
Wowie Zowie! ! ! i think you are on to something there...
until you just mentioned it, i didn't think about the flip side of the 'rights' the MAFIAA insists upon, and that is the 'responsibility' part which they are avoiding...
IF so-called "intellectual property" is a 'real' thing, AND it confers benefits, AND we 99% have to pay real taxes on real property; why don't patent holders, copyright holders, music rights orgs, and all the rest of the parasites have to PAY TAXES on this 'valuable' 'property' ? ? ?
i pay taxes on my property, why don't they ? ? ?
oh, they want all the (made-up) 'rights' and privileges without ANY responsibility (WE even get to pay for enforcing THEIR 'rights' ! ! !)...
nice 'work' if you can get it...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:50am

Re: Re: Re:
I thought it was an uninteded consequence of people speaking freely, their quirks fall out. I didn't realize people woke up in the morning thinking, I really need to share with the world how I passive aggressively harassed the black family that moved in next door.

"Hehe, look I made it look like they are the ignorant fucks, hehehe"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:50am

Re: Re: Re:
So? You do not have a moral right to stop other from copying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:52am

Re: Re: Re: Oh, quit belly-achin'!
Juke? Like a Jukebox?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:52am

Holy shit I'm just at 50% of this article and it all sounds like lunacy!

How the heck did copyright get so fucked up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:52am

Isn't it wonderful how they have made a system so complex that even the majors can't work their way through it.
Now imagine what would happen if he wanted to let his parody be seen world wide....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TimK (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:53am

In retrospect, it would have been cheaper, faster, and easier for him to buy a plane ticket, fly to the US, record and release the parody here, and fly back home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:58am

Re: This.
You, miss, are my hero. I almost went mad reading this article alone.

Btw, wtf is a mechanical license and a sync license? How the heck can I respect something that doesn't make sense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Re:
Jesus man, have you taken a look on the madness this copyright system is?!

Hint: it is NOT promoting creativity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tunnen (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is always the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory that may provide insight into this as well.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040319h.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:03am

Re:
That's what he should do. Give this lunatic system a big fat middle finger and just release it. Then set a donation button on his page. Damn it, I'm feeling compelled to donate him some money just to help with his psychological treatment after he's done with this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:03am

Re: Re: Re:
How's that working out for you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:04am

Re:
Who gave you permission to look?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:06am

Re: Re: Re:
Treason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Espionage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
velox (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:09am

Re: Re: Re:
I recommend readers have a look back at Mike's response to the Healy article in 2008. The article and following discussion in the comment section are excellent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:09am

Re: Re: Re:
"He's trying to get permission. He may never get it. Life goes on."

Yes, but it goes on without "If I Had Soup". A condition that would not apply if Huge didn't need to ask permission to make fun of someone's song.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:11am

Re: Re: Re:
Copyright was a mistake.

And like all mistakes, it'll be fixed, eventually.

And we'll all be better for it.

* * *

Entitlement?!?!...I'm a producer of culture as are all (even you trolls) people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:13am

Re:
Or he could ignore everything and just release the thing in the wild. Nobody would ever take it down ever again. You know, like doctors ignore patients afflicted with madness? Ignore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:14am

Re:
Oh that's easy. It started to get that way when someone thought it'd be a good idea to give out monopolies on ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carlos Sol�s a.k.a. ArkBlitz (in the rest of the I (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:14am

Re: This.
So, does that mean that your copyleft movie is *still* proprietary and privative? And how long must we wait until the songs go into the public domain?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's amusing that ppl like him accuse pirates of killing music when the copyright system is effectively the one killing music. Because music today is being made outside this system if it wants to actually be born.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:19am

Makes perfect sense
This makes perfect sense if you assume one thing:

The legacy music industry is not in the business of selling music.

Music is not the product. What they are in the business of is selling promotional and related services to artists. And by selling, I mean doing a bait-and-switch and strongarming by whatever means necessary to get the artists to sign away their "rights" - and then doing a completely shitty job providing those services to 99% of those that signed.

They only care about sales and licensing in as much as it is how their artists pay them - but that is money they can funnel into their own coffers without much work since they've got their whole infrastructure of lawyers, accountants, affiliated businesses and industry contacts already built to do it.

Hugh is not their customer. At best, he is a potential small scale revenue source, but they'd have to do a bunch of extra work for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AG Wright (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now all we need is a web site and someone organized enough to start a movement.
Then we can start the petitions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vog (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The irony being that most 'ignorant fucks' would probably just their router name as the default myrouter_0548 or whatever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vog (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
just leave* ffs (speaking of ignorant fucks)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:32am

Re: Re:
One has to go into the system to see how broken it is. The famous artists that support anti-piracy efforts probably never actually stopped to understand how the system works. And frankly, if Sir Elton John wanted to make a parody he'd get permission automagically, because he is one of the milking cows that makes shitloads of money so he'll never know about this madness. The really hurt ones are the smaller artists. You can replace Elton John with any artist that signed that letter and many others that complain about piracy (U2, Kiss etc).

Maybe we should help rising THEIR awareness that they are not the center of the world and that copyright is broken?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:41am

Re: Re: Re:
Except that this isn't "just like everything else in the world". Parody is fair use in the part of the world I live in. No one in my portion of the world needs to ask permission to make "If I Had Soup" and upload it to YouTube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:48am

Re:
So virtually every aspect of daily lives involves MPAA-like copyright practices and/or getting permission to use almost any piece of media or other creative work?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 11:52am

Re:
Having to ask permission to use other people's property?

Except it's *not* their property. It's they property of the public, and they're just allowed a limited ability to charge rents.

Nothing is created in a vacuum. All art is built out of existing material.

"Oh, but they built it! Of course they own it!"

Suppose you were going to build a house. You had all the materials delivered one day, with the plan to start the following week. You show up, but lo and behold, I had used the materials to build my own house. Do I own it because I built it, or do you own it because you owned the stuff it was made out of?

you're whining because you all have this crazy sense of entitlement to use other people's property.

No, that would be you. You're using "property" that belongs to everybody, and then claiming that because you built something new out of it, it belongs to you. Sorry, that's not the way it works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 12:03pm

Re: Re: Re:
Um, if you don't get the permission you need, then you don't get to use the property you don't have permission to use. Just like everything else in the real world.

Except most everything else in the world does not involve the Kafkaesque process above.

Seriously: read the article once more and think for a second (I know you can do it) about what exactly you're defending here. You can defend copyright without defending this. That you still choose to defend this... well... that says a hell of a lot about what sort of person you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
His job isn't to defend copyright, it's to take the opposite stance of this blog. He's doing that like a boss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 30 Jul 2012 @ 12:42pm

Seriously
This is an example that must be used in court when anyone is accused of wrongdoing. The labels must provide a clear path to getting permission to use copyright work or lose that power altogether.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 12:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I found the flaw in your logic:

"and think for a second (I know you can do it)"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RadialSkid (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 12:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
Attitudes like yours are the reason 80% of the silent movies are lost. You treat art as "property" and actually believe the copyright holders have a right to destroy it and deprive the world of it...or just let it rot away on a shelf.

That's bullshit. Once you publish it, it's the "property" of the world. Got a problem with that? Don't publish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: This.
A mechanical license is what you need if you are going to use a song written by somebody else, but you're recording yourself. A sync license is what you need if you are using a song along with visuals (as a soundtrack, for instance).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 12:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
I think what Nina's trying to say is that the current set of rules are so bad creators would be better without them. She doesn't want these rules inflicted on anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 1:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
The physical works that embody an idea are, but the idea being embodied (i.e., the thing that is actually being copyrighted) are not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 1:37pm

Except...
...it's not property. If it were, the "owner" could lock in up in a safe.

It's not property, so the "owner" can put it out there for people to consume and enjoy, and, yes, make parodies thereof...

You can't have it both ways. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
You obviously know nothing about "culture", or "art".
We are trying to have an adult conversation here - something that could not possibly interest you. Run along, sonny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CaitlinP, 30 Jul 2012 @ 1:42pm

Yes We Can't!
I think it's lovely that they're at least trying to work together. /sarcasm.

It's like this:

Yes, We Can!
No, You Can't

As soon as someone has to decline something, it's no longer "we" but "I". What a shame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re: Re:
Do you realize the person singing the song Nina had to get permission for died in 1985? Who the hell is benefiting from this so-called property?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 1:59pm

Re:
Not sure what you mean... I rarely if ever ask permission for anything... forgiveness is typically so much easier to obtain ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 2:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
Your sense of entitlement is hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 2:53pm

Re: Re: Re:
Um, if you don't get the permission you need, then you don't get to use the property you don't have permission to use. Just like everything else in the real world.

Did you get permission to act like a jackass on this blog?

No? Well STFU & GTFO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carlos Sol�s a.k.a. ArkBlitz (in the rest of the I (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 2:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which means that, given the longest copyright terms in the world (currently Mexico, 100 years after death), we'll have to wait *73 more years* until Sita Sings the Blues is truly free-as-in-freedom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mudlock (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 2:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
Wasn't this puzzle in Monkey Island 5: Copyright-infringer LeChuck?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 2:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
And you shoved your monopoly down everyone's throats after you became obsolete. Guess you don't care about other people's cultural rights. No big surprise there. You're trying to keep monopoly. You may never keep it. Life goes on. But you, MAFIAA, you're super special. The rules don't apply to you, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
athe, 30 Jul 2012 @ 3:50pm

Re: This.
Hey! You're not supposed to be here. At least, that's what some troll was telling us yesterday. . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 4:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
broken link man
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 5:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except most everything else in the world does not involve the Kafkaesque process above.

Seriously: read the article once more and think for a second (I know you can do it) about what exactly you're defending here. You can defend copyright without defending this. That you still choose to defend this... well... that says a hell of a lot about what sort of person you are.

First of all, there's obviously more to this story that you guys aren't reporting. You're doing what you usually do: Take an anecdotal story and say, "See! The whole system is broken!" Common sense tells me that if they're into the business of licensing content, then they don't make licensing content some labyrinth that no one can figure out. Something tells me the market would have weeded out such self-destructive companies. Give me a break. I'd love to hear their side of this. Of course, we won't get that from TD. We get only yellow journalism and stories about the bogeyman. You don't have a right to license someone's property. If you don't like doing business with someone, don't do it. But please stop whining. Don't you get tired of whining about copyright every single day? If the "sky is rising" and the business is at an all time high despite the copyright cartels, then why isn't your friend using all that great music that isn't so locked up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 5:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with this blog on some things. But the incessant whining about how you can't use other people's property to the extent you feel as though you should be entitled (even though in fact you aren't) just gets old. I mean, give me a break with this whining. If you don't like how someone licenses their property, then don't do business with that company. It's called the free market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 5:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would say that I'm an invitee to this blog, which is open to the public. Mike could lock it down and exclude me if he wanted to. That's his prerogative because it's his property. So yes, I do have permission to be here. As do you. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 5:55pm

Re: Re:
Copyrighted works and copyright rights are not owned by the public. They are by definition personal property, for copyright is the right to exclude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 30 Jul 2012 @ 6:05pm

Re: Re: Re:
Goverment granted monopolies are not private property, they are the erosion of the general public's private property rights to modify their property into the form they choose
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 6:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The free market breaks when you introduce monopolies- like copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 6:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But the incessant whining about how you can't use other people's property to the extent you feel as though you should be entitled (even though in fact you aren't) just gets old."

Except I am entitled to do what this guy was asking permission for. Parody is fair use in America, which means that I can do this without fair of retribution:

Bad laws, bad laws, bad laws, bad laws
They cripple innovation, they make singing a sin
If you aren't a corporation then you just can't win
They need evaluation, but so much money's coming in
A heinous crime? Rewriting songs,
Unless you suck EMI's dong
Bad laws, bad laws, bad laws, they're bad
Electric and Musical Industries is watching so beware
There are no parodies that they will let you share
So just pay them and say please,
Or you will know true fear
They're lawyered up, they'll find your flaws
There's no saving you
Signed, bad laws.

See that drivel I just whipped up in half an hour? That's what Huge was trying to do. It's what he was being asked a thousand dollars for the honor of doing. If this post had been written by an Australian, they could be taken to court for this, but it's cool since I'm posting from the other side of the ocean. That doesn't seem the least bit silly to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 30 Jul 2012 @ 6:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Attitudes like yours are the reason 80% of the silent movies are lost. You treat art as "property" and actually believe the copyright holders have a right to destroy it and deprive the world of it...or just let it rot away on a shelf.

That's bullshit. Once you publish it, it's the "property" of the world. Got a problem with that? Don't publish."

This. A million times, this. Copyright is an agreement WITH THE PUBLIC. You HAVE to give SOMETHING back in order to have this GRANTED privilege, and then eventually you MUST also give it ALL back.

Any copyright-defender or ShillTroll(tm) must accept this as reality, or they are being disingenuous liars who are willfully attempting to twist and subvert this constitutionally granted privilege through misleading deception and outright falsehoods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:32pm

What would be really funny is while this Aussie is trying to fight through the system to get permission to do the song, someone else says "fuck it," takes his idea, and releases their own version of "If i had stew" before the guy with the original idea even gets 10% of the way through the red tape.

By funny i mean sad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
If memory serves me correctly, the vast majority of privately owned land within the US was granted by the government to private party/parties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 8:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. I highly doubt you asked Mike (and all the other editors, of course) for permission before posting here. Just because the site has comment's section doesn't mean you are allowed to post here, that's like saying you are allowed to trespass on someone's property because the door is unlocked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 8:46pm

Well, let's see... I want to dig a trench across my property to add drainage. You would figure I could just do it, after all, it's my property.

Not so simple, right? I need a permit from the city for those sort of works. I also need to clear it with the gas, the phone, and the electric company. I may need to get clearance from the city's water and sewer department depending on how the drainage goes out. I may need permission from my neighbors (if the drainage comes close to their property, or might drain onto their land), and I may need insurance for the workers and so on.

Real life is complicated. Get use to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:18am

Re:
You do realise you're conflating real property (land) with a fucking song? Totally not the same thing at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:23am

Re:
Not trivial perhaps, but every single one of those steps you list is discoverable before you start, is well defined for your municipality and are the same for everyone.

It is also very likely, depending on local laws, that a permission response is required to be given within a certain timeframe from receiving the request, and permission can only be denied for a list of reasons that can be discovered before you apply.

All of that is the complete opposite of the copyright permission debacle in the OP, where there is no way to find out who to speak to before you start, where there is no requirement for them to respond to you, and each respondent is free to make up their own rules and they can have different sets of rules depending on who is asking.

And that's not even the point. It's perfectly valid for a copyright-holder to withhold permission just because they feel like it, that is exactly the right that copyright gives them! And THAT is the point. Arguments that copyright is required to encourage people to create new things should not ignore the fact that copyright ALSO prevents things from being created. We should be able to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of the current (or proposed) copyright systems, or other alternatives, and look at what makes the most sense for artists, and what makes the most sense for consumers... and with luck they may even intersect.

If that happens to also benefit gatekeepers, then that's fine... but they shouldn't be the priority, even if they have the loudest voices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tobias Harms (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:38am

Re: Re: Re:
Either copyright infringment or trademark violation, which ever they feel like and can get the most money for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First of all, there's obviously more to this story that you guys aren't reporting

Excellent, so if you could just point out what that is...

*crickets*

No, didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If memory serves me correctly"

You were around during the 1800? Are you Abe Simpson?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:58am

Re:
Doesn't matter how much you post your bullshit, copyright is a right of copy, not property. It says so in the fucking name.
It expires, got it? E-X-P-I-R-E-S. Property doesn't expire, a monopoly does, in recognition that it is indeed a government granted monopoly. Not natural, artificial. Not saying bad or good, but it is an artificial monopoly on OTHER people's property. Get that though your thick scull. In life, there property, and then there is a monopoly. Copyright is a monopoly. You can't change that fact, no matter how much you try.

Real life is complicated. Get use to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but try doing detailed title searches as are often required for land disputes and you will very quickly come to realize that land as property is not as immutable as many, if not most, seem to believe is the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff Woods (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:53am

forgiveness & permission
"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."
-- RADM Grace Hopper (July 1986)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff Woods (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:09am

Re: forgiveness & permission
The complete quote is even better:

Why don't you just go ahead and do it? Remember, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."
-- RADM Grace Hopper (July 1986)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim Griffiths (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:33am

Re:
I think the term "intellectual disobedience" has started to be thrown around for this kind of active refusal to follow current IP laws. While most people may not think they are taking part in civil disobedience in regards to copyright laws and such a lot of people kinda are. Who actually refuses to break digital locks to legally copy content they own because it's illegal? We just need people to start understanding why they should be breaking that law and that they actively and knowingly are doing so.

I know a lot of people who don't see a problem with downloading a copy of content they've brought. A friend of mine pointed out that it's easier and quicker for him to go torrent a rip of old album his owns rather than go digging around to find the CD and to rip the content off it.

The way people live day to day is becoming more and more illegal and tipping point will be reached when we'll be faced with the question "Do we keep living as we feel we should and have a moral right to in the face of breaking the law and being taken to court for doing do?" That's when I think the term Intellectual Disobedience will actually start to become meaningful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drew (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 4:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"then why isn't your friend using all that great music that isn't so locked up?"
Because he wants to make a parody of THIS FUCKING SONG!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cynyr (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 4:31am

Re: Re: Re: This.
so what do i need if i'm recording my own version/parody of a song and then using that in a video?

your description would seem to mean I need one of each?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 4:42am

Culture
This 'everyone can say no, no-one can say yes' situation smacks of a culture where everyone's trying to cover their own ass.

IP protection is such a hot topic for this industry that no-one wants to risk permitting use of their material, in case it turns out that they shouldn't have (for whatever reason).

The irony that this discredits the institution of copyright, and prevents it from being a workable system, scarcely needs pointing out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arrow101 (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 7:21am

copying is not illegal, the text on this webpage was copied from a server to your computer....

intelectual copyright is broken, by the internet

the genie is out of the bottle

these are merely echoes of its impending demise
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 7:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. there is ALWAYS 'more to the story', we are ALWAYS making decisions on imperfect knowledge; THAT IS ALL WE CAN DO...
2. pardon me, but your extreme deference to authority is showing... 'oh, i cain't nebber ebber bewieve that masters of the universe would ebber do nuthin' untoward; must be those dirty fucking freetards...'
3. u r a dick, and an authoritarian one at that... get your nose out of the collective butts of the MAFIAA, and maybe the world will smell a little better...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 7:54am

This is just a ridiculous situation. There should be an openly available, legally binding list of all the copyright holders of each piece of content, with contact details. They should be required to re-register (in a really simple, 'go to the website, put in my details and click ok' kind of way) on a regular basis, say every 3 years, and pay a token sum (like, a dollar, or 10 dollars).

This would ensure that:

1. There is a list that people can access to find out who to get permission from.
2. The people/parties who have the copyright actually care that they have it, and it's an active, not passive, right.
3. There is a simple way to ask permission.
4. The small sum isn't out of the reaches of everyday folks.

This won't stop people from saying no, just because they don't want to share - but this is their right as a copyright holder. It might, however, make it a little bit easier to get permission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: This.
That is the case that the labels make, yes. This is exactly what Hugh Brown has come up against.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 12:37am

Re: Re: forgiveness & permission
I hear EMI's lawyers are quite forgiving.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 4:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how it works: we don't do business with various entertainment companies, they earn less money and blame alleged losses on piracy. Subsequently they purchase legislation that makes it harder to be legitimately paying customers, all the while their shills insist that we're hopelessly addicted to their content - despite us already refusing to have anything to do with them.

"Don't do business with that company" is clearly not working out, despite the fact that it should.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 5:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Careful what you write!
They might extradite!
Don't try to make a funny
Cos when it comes to money,
They'll find an excuse
To tie the noose
From near or far
So put your cash in their jar.

(Etc.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 5:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You DO realize that that racist comment came from an EMI IP address right?

Trying (and failing as they do at everything including the music business) to derail the conversation...

Lord, how many times must Sony, EMI and Universal try to push unwanted topics off-track before they realize people will just vote them down into obliteration?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 5:38am

Re: Re:
Did you complete the permission slips for asking for forgiveness?

NO? didn't think so....have a lawsuit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2012 @ 3:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds almost like you're married to them. Admit- deny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Silver Fang (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 4:00pm

He should've just uploaded the video and hoped he didn't get caught.
[ link to this | view in thread ]