Big Music sues Ellen DeGeneres show
p2pnet news view TV | Music:- Now they’ve gone and done it!
Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music can get away with dragging young children through the mainstream media for unproven, non-existent ‘copyright crime’.
They can go after a dead grandmother, a single mum living on a medical disability pensions, a multiple sclerosis victim, a home health aide who doesn’t know one end of the computer from the other —- the line forms on the right, babe, as Mac the Knife puts it.
But now they’ve gone too far.
In what could turn out to be their worst PR disaster yet, they’ve sued the latest American Idol judge and darling of afternoon (and morning, and evening) TV, Ellen DeGeneres.
Well, they’ve sued her producers, anyway.
Named in the copyright infringement lawsuit are Arista Music, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Big Beat Records, Capitol Records, Motown Record Company, Priority Records, Rhino Entertainment Company, Sire Records Company, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Virgin Records America, Warner Bros.
In a court document reeking with indignation and self-pity, not to mention outraged innocence, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, in a nutshell, say the producers of the Ellen DeGeneres show have been using Big 4 ‘product’ without a licence since Day One.
More than 1,000 songs were used during the “beloved comic’s ‘dance over’ section – where the star strolls to her stage through the audience at the beginning of each show,” says Contactmusic.
Asked why they didn’t get sound recording licenses, according to the legal document, the producers said they, “did not roll that way”.
The lawsuit says the Ellen DeGeneres show has used “recordings by virtually every major current artist of popular music” since its start in 2003 which, incidentally, is when, in their hopeless efforts to gain complete control of all online music distribution, the Big 4 started terrorising the people who keep them in business with phony lawsuits.
But this time around, they’re represented not by their traditional extortion specialists, the RIAA, but by a Nashville law firm.
Will the DeGeneres show settle out of court? Or will they stand firm and be ordered to to pay a staggering amount in ruinous restitution fees?
Just like Jammie Thomas-Rasset who owes multi-billion-dollar corporate music industry $1.92 million not for airing the songs on international TV, but for sharing 24 of them online?
You know the answer to that. 
Definitely stay tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
September, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:54 am
I hope the producers “don’t roll that way” in court either and fork over a little cash for good lawyers to tell the RIAA to play hid and go f–k themselves. Does Ellen dance to the entire song? On the clips I’ve seen it was a segment, which should be covered under fair use.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:07 am
WB is suing Ellen’s show, which is also a WB show. How fuckin’ stupid is that??
“Did not roll that way”. Who are the producers, 21 year old “rap” wannabees?
Start using indy music for your openings, fuck the big 4 and it’s a win-win situation for the good guys!
September 11th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Maybe Ellen should have a show with all the “criminals” on to show just how un-american the riaa is.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Fair use covers commentary, criticism, satire, education, etc.
this is not fair use, this is commercial use for commercial gain, therefore whether she is using major label material or indie material, or something your 16 your old made in his bedroom, they should obtain the correct sync and master use licenses and compensate the writers and owners of the material accordingly
September 11th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I had assumed royalties were paid for all those songs she danced out to.
My guess is that deGeneres will scold or fire whatever people are responsible for NOT paying, cut a deal for future misuse of product, then make a quick speech on her show about “not stealing music” (whether intentionally joking or not).
She ceased being an activist when she stopped getting flack from the anti-gay lobby.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
p2pnet, your bias against “big music” is blinding you to reality. Reality is, when you use something that costs money, you have to pay for it. Analogously, I imagine you’d take exception if someone was tweeting under your username without prior permission. This is business, and just because Ellen is a “darling of afternoon TV,” doesn’t mean you don’t try to correct what is wrong.
Regarding the comments, these uses are not covered under fair use (again, they’re product), and if someone needs to explain the different subs under conglomerates like WB and Universal, then you clearly have no right to be calling anyone stupid regarding how business works. Not to mention the lawsuit is against the production company.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
^^
Ahhhh. Bidniz.
Cheers!
September 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Why doesn’t the music business see it the way that I see it? The music being played on Ellen’s show by Tony is free promotional material. I hope that some of the artists that have appeared on her show stand up for her. It seems that the labels and the RIAA are sue happy lately. The labels hate to admit that a 20th century business model won’t work in the 21st century.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Ben,
First, companies don’t generally jump into lawsuits unless there is no other solution because: 1. they’re expensive and 2. it’s bad PR (these negative thoughts case-in-point). Businesses make money by selling their product(s), not through lawsuits. Which brings me to your view on the music business. Songs are a music label’s product. If they gave them away for free for anything that might be promotional, what would that leave them with…record sales? Thinking this is the right solution would be a 20th century business model, not the other way around. As well, I encourage you to think about how Ellen’s show benefits with music use…the fact that everyone recognizes her ‘dance over’ section proves she’s benefitting from the music. Lastly, in terms of the artists defending Ellen, that’s like saying Ralph Lauren would laud someone who steals his clothes and wears them on TV. Come on!
September 12th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Ellen should just play indi music on her show (great PR for the artist!) and give the kartels the finger.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
The real irony of the whole issue is that any other manufacturer or producer needs to pay for advertising, whereas the music industry actually charges for advertising.
Take radio stations, they pay a premium for playing music, which is nothing more than advertising the music to the masses, yet a detergent manufacturer must pay the radio station for air time to accomplish the same result, public awareness.
The music industry, and entertainments industries in general, have us by the balls. If we purchased a regular item from a retailer, and it did not perform properly, or breached descriptions, we have a course we can follow to recover our money. On the other hand, if we buy music, or a DVD film, if we are unhappy with our purchase, we have no rights to recovering our money.
With entertainments, there is no option to try before you buy, which is why many people are reluctant to pay good money for something which may end up being cack (more often than not with modern entertainments material, which is often lacking anything substantial). Just because it can be sold, doesn’t mean it should be sold. I’d have quality over quantity any day of the week.
It seems more and more people feel the same way about the quality of material these days, hence the surge in illegal file sharing, which is the only other way to determine whether a prospective purchase is going to be worth it. I’m not condoning copyright theft, but only suggesting that the industry needs to consider why this is happening, and not treating everyone else as part of their bottomless wallet.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:24 am
I’ve stayed out of this one, primarily because I was “otherwise occupied” with Crosbie’s weird non-debate over non-monopolistic IP and Digital Ninjas — or whatever it was.
Some observations:
1. It’s really interesting to read the RIAA fanbot posts. (None of them actually SAY anything, but that’s not really news.)
2. Who the bloody blue fuck CARES if WB sues itself? Ellen Degeneres — just like Rosie O’Donnell — are nothing but celebrity sellouts.
Just like Lars Ulrich and the rest of Metallica, you simply cannot expect ANY of “Big Media’s” pampered pets to actually give two milliseconds of thought to anything other than how best to suck up to their corporate “owners”.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s totally understandable that Big-Media fanbots would swarm on this story, and it’ll be completely understandable if Ellen’s producers roll over and show “Big Media” their bellies. What I *don’t* understand is why anybody outside of the vacuous, insipid, talentless, ednessly-grasping cesspool that is the corporate “Entertainment industry” gives a rats ass WHAT happens on that show?
(Then again, I’ve never really figured out soap operas — oops, I mean “daytime dramas”, either.)
September 13th, 2009 at 2:30 am
What kills me about the music industry is that, even though the “product” is the recorded media, they have this expectation that the MUSIC itself should be viewed as product as well.
What’s the point in possessing CDs (as I’m sure Ellen’s studio does, in order to be playing all this stuff) if you can’t actually PLAY them in the presence of anyone else, without having to pay again??
September 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
@ Devil’s Advocate…
If you buy a car, tax and insure it, then charge to taxi people about, the car manufacturer cannot charge you for making a profit from their product. In fact, many products are made to make money for a second party.
Music and films are different, in that when you buy that media, it is for personal use only, and if you want to charge others to watch/listen, you need the relevant license.
If I bought a DVD, then charged my neighbours a fee to sit in my living room to watch the DVD, I would be in breach of the license agreement. If I lent them the DVD, free of charge, I would still be in breach of the license agreement, because it clearly states that the DVD is non transferable.
If I lend my neighbour my lawnmower, or my car, it is mine to lend, yet I cannot lend them my DVD. This is where the law gets stupid.
The industry says that everyone must have their own copy of something if they wish to enjoy that something, yet a lawnmower company cannot exercise the same rights. Imagine if our lawnmower came with a license agreement saying that it must be for our own personal use, and we cannot lend or transfer ownership.
It’s the same with books. If I buy the latest Harry Potter book, then give it away, or sell it, to someone else, I am in violation of the license agreement. Ironic that just about every other commodity (houses, cars, lawnmowers) can be sold on, yet licensed media cannot. This also applies to software as well. Once you’ve bought that software, it is your until you destroy it. You are not allowed to sell it on, or give it away. A bit limiting when you want to get rid of that old laptop or PC.
September 13th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Books can not be resold…hmmm… wonder when they are going to go after Amazon.
September 14th, 2009 at 2:13 am
@ Just thinking…
Amazon are not the consumer, but an outlet for the publishers. Since they are part of the distribution chain, the rules don’t apply to them, but I think you know this already.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:32 am
Good points being made here. I guess the difference in the lawn mower and the song is you own the lawnmower, you don’t own the song. The songwriter’s, publishers and record labels do. The record labels are only one part of the equation. I make my living as a songwriter and as a songwriter I can only hope that a t.v. show like Ellen’s would use my song and pay for it so that I might be able to feed my family. When I write a song and an artist records it the only way I get paid is if people pay for the right to use it. Believe me, I’m not rich, I just want to work and be paid for my work. I’m sure it is the same for you. Many of you might not be aware of the fact that when a song is played on air the artist receives no payment, only the songwriter and the publisher and record label. Just because you can’t hold something in your hand doesn’t mean it is not stealing when you take something and use it for your gain and it belongs to someone else. THIS TYPE OF THEFT IS KILLING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. Shame on you Ellen. Shame on you.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Retro:
“Amazon are not the consumer, but an outlet for the publishers. Since they are part of the distribution chain, the rules donât apply to them, but I think you know this already.”
They also sell USED books, in case you’re unaware. USED books, as in RESOLD. Which according to you, is apparently a no-no.
mooseybaby:
“THIS TYPE OF THEFT IS KILLING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY.”
No, irrelevance is killing the music industry. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:51 am
I never said anything about books, I don’t know much about that industry at all. As far as songs go, the rules apply to Amazon, Ellen, or anyone else for that matter. I do know that very, very well.
Irrelevance, gotcha.
So if any individual deems a song irrelevant they have the right to use it without paying. If you really believe that then you are a fool. All I know is if people like you think they can take for free what others dedicate their time, money, their very lives to create then the outcome can only be very bad for those of us who were put on this earth to create. I guess for thieves like you life will be just fine.
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:27 am
“So if any individual deems a song irrelevant.”
The music isn’t irrelevant, the business model is. They aren’t necessary anymore.
“I guess for thieves like you life will be just fine.”
1. Copying isn’t stealing, because nothing is being taken (unless you operate on the false premise that every song swapped online is a sale lost).
2. I don’t personally use p2p or BitTorrent, though I am a supporter of it. I prefer to pay for non-RIAA music. So much for assumptions.