Universal Music Lawyers Realize That Taking Down Charlie Brown / Smiths Remix Not The Brightest Idea They've Had

from the about-time dept

We've already written about Universal Music issuing totally bogus takedowns to Lauren LoPrete for her amusing remix that takes Peanuts comic strips and replaces the text with lyrics from The Smiths. And we wrote about the counternotice she sent to Tumblr, done via awesome law firm Booth Sweet. Apparently, someone within the lawyerly ranks at Universal Music realized that this was an incredibly stupid thing to be doing, and told the LA Times that it is "dropping its pursuit" of LoPrete's site. Why it even started in the first place is a question for another day. Of course, now we await the news that Iconix Brand Group, the owners of Peanuts Inc., decides that it, too, wants to be ridiculously overly lawyerly. After all, it's done it before.
Hide this

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: charlie brown, copyright, peanuts, remix, the smiths
Companies: universal music


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 26 Sep 2013 @ 3:14pm

    Oh, maybe you've been manipulated yet again.

    Bu congratulations on a victory, Mike! Break out the bubbly -- by which I mean good old Coca-Cola (R), the real thing. You see, sometimes ad agencies stage battles sheerly because any press coverage is to the good. It's even (things go) better (with Coke) than subliminal techniques.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Keroberos (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 3:51pm

    Two words sum up the take down--billable hours. And two words sum up them dropping it--bad publicity.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2013 @ 4:05pm

    Re:

    You beat me to it. "Billable Hours" was exactly what I was going to say.

    How long will it take before companies realize that their law firms don't necessarily have clients' best interests at heart.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    S. T. Stone, 26 Sep 2013 @ 4:32pm

    Re: Oh, maybe you've been manipulated yet again.

    Most press companies don’t resort to government-sanctioned censorship vis-á-vis the DMCA to drum up press coverage.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    bigpicture, 26 Sep 2013 @ 6:05pm

    Conflict of Interest

    Are you just noticing the "conflict of interest" now? With lawyers it is never about giving ethical legal advice, it is about giving actionable advice with the most billable hours. Same for Doctors, it is not about making you well, it is about temporarily masking the symptoms. In ancient China you only paid your doctor when you were well, not when you were ill.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 9:15pm

    Re: Oh, maybe you've been manipulated yet again.

    The website was already giving the Smiths great (and free) publicity that could last and grow and inspire others to do the same. It made people want to listen to the band. I know because that's exactly what I did when I first saw the website.

    Going legal might have gotten a headline or two, but it created a bad reputation for the Smiths (because most people equate the label's actions with the band). It doesn't make them want to listen to them. Not all publicity is good publicity, esp. in the arts.

    But go ahead and believe it was all a scheme if that makes you feel superior.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 9:18pm

    Re: Re: Oh, maybe you've been manipulated yet again.

    I might add that it's highly unlikely that Universal is spending a single dime promoting a 25-year-old band like the Smiths.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  8. icon
    PaulT (profile), 27 Sep 2013 @ 12:47am

    "After all, it's done it before."

    The more optimistic among us would hope that the lack of any action in this case means that they learned their lesson and realise that legal action will do nothing to protect their material, and that there's nothing negative to come from leaving it up. I try to be optimistic that these people will eventually learn, anyway.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    Ninja (profile), 27 Sep 2013 @ 4:29am

    Why it even started in the first place is a question for another day.

    Obviously because lawyer. Think of the poor lawyers!

    link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    btrussell (profile), 27 Sep 2013 @ 4:35am

    Re: Oh, maybe you've been manipulated yet again.

    A confessed coke head.

    That explains lots, Lucy.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2013 @ 6:10am

    And another one that got DMCA'd

    http://calvinanddune.tumblr.com/

    link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    dennis deems (profile), 27 Sep 2013 @ 10:14am

    Re:

    Thanks for this link. Unlike the Peanuts/Smiths mashups, those are really clever and genuinely funny.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2013 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Oh, maybe you've been manipulated yet again.

    But they are probably still charging annual promotion fees against any royalties that the band would be earning....


    Bada bing, bada boom....

    Now they can charge additional "Band Protection" services against the royalties as well... if this sounds like Mob protection ... it is, you wouldn't want anything "bad" to happen to your band now would you?

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.