The War On Copyright Thieves Kicks it up a notch...Bam

[softball]

Good or bad thing? Sounds like a 10 million plus lawsuit that they will probably lose.

Record Labels Come Together, Sue Porn Site
7/10/2010 8:15 AM PDT by TMZ Staff

"Don't Stop (Til You Get Enough)," "SexyBack" and "I Kissed a Girl" could easily be mistaken for porn titles, not popular songs -- instead they are just the center of a major lawsuit involving music and porn.


Warner Bros., Eleketra, Atlantic, Bad Boy and others have filed a lawsuit against RK Netmedia and RealityKings.com (NSFW!!!!) ... claiming the websites use their music as the soundtrack -- and sometimes even the inspiration -- for porn videos.

According to the lawsuit, the songs are often playing in the background while "models or actors are 'performing' their scenes." Sometimes, according to the suit, "the performers 'lip-sync' the lyrics of a song while engaged in intercourse or other sexual activity."

On some occasions, the record labels claim, the titles of the videos are derived from the songs they use -- like "Bringing Sexy Back" uses Justin Timberlake's "SexyBack."

The labels are asking for $150,000 per each copyright infringed -- and their are 18 pages of infringements.

[gonzo]

[softball]

[spazlabz]

I would think they might have a great case if the song was used as actual background music like a score. But to have it playing on a radio or something while some hottie is getting boned is a tad over the top I would think

as for twisting the titles for porn titles... too funny for words

[softball]

Originally Posted by spazlabz

I would think they might have a great case if the song was used as actual background music like a score. But to have it playing on a radio or something while some hottie is getting boned is a tad over the top I would think

as for twisting the titles for porn titles... too funny for words

When I lived in London, all the shops on Oxford Street, a huge retail area, were playing background music, some even from radio. The Performing Rights Society or whatever it was called then, went down the street issuing warnings to pay up for use of the music. The businesses all paid. Same principle applies.
I think the titles are funny and shouldn't be prosecuted. However, when you run the music under the title, you are so busted.
I have used royalty free music forever. I respect the property of others. I would have loved to use some hot copyright music. I think I could have made more money. It pisses me off when thieves get an advantage by using stolen content.
Personally, I think there is no, never, not an argument for this.
I find it breath taking how people in this business seem to accept theft as normal and even respect the "big playas" who take/took the money and ran.
You make a case for honesty and get accused of whining. Nope. Its not whining, its just doing the right thing.

[spazlabz]

I don't think it is whining at all, I think for me it is more about intent. I have seen amateur videos that have the tv on in the background while some milf is getting nailed. I do not think of that as copyright theft at all, the same goes for a radio playing. it is background noise in my opinion.

If a company were to intentionally insert a piece of copyrighted material then hell yeah... bust their ass. That is just stupid.

this is kind of tongue in cheek for me but I think they might actually profit from their songs being used in porn vids, definitely reach a market they never had a shot at before. I mean you would have to break my arm to get me to ever listen to anything Justin Timberlake ever sang...unless a cute chubby girl with big tits is getting banged while it is playing

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by spazlabz

I don't think it is whining at all, I think for me it is more about intent. I have seen amateur videos that have the tv on in the background while some milf is getting nailed. I do not think of that as copyright theft at all, the same goes for a radio playing. it is background noise in my opinion.

If a company were to intentionally insert a piece of copyrighted material then hell yeah... bust their ass. That is just stupid.

this is kind of tongue in cheek for me but I think they might actually profit from their songs being used in porn vids, definitely reach a market they never had a shot at before. I mean you would have to break my arm to get me to ever listen to anything Justin Timberlake ever sang...unless a cute chubby girl with big tits is getting banged while it is playing

unfortunately, even though that is fairly common in amateur vids, it is not permissable and it is considered copyright theft. I have been warning people about it for years...

[softball]

Originally Posted by Far-L

unfortunately, even though that is fairly common in amateur vids, it is not permissable and it is considered copyright theft. I have been warning people about it for years...

exactly. Me too.

[spazlabz]

well one thing is for sure, it will be interesting to see how the court rules on it. I know I find this to be fascinating

[EmporerEJ]

One of the few, actual decisions on point:

Fair use. A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song "Dove sta Zaza." The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event and did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp, v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).)

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

One of the few, actual decisions on point:

Fair use. A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song "Dove sta Zaza." The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event and did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp, v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).)

That was for a news broadcast. News gets a lot more fair use protection then is afforded commercial speech.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

That was for a news broadcast. News gets a lot more fair use protection then is afforded commercial speech.

Yep...and I would think, it being in a public space, also had some bearing on that?

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Yep...and I would think, it being in a public space, also had some bearing on that?

Pornlaw is right on this one. Their are a lot of exceptions for journalists. In fact they hold a special place in your constitution. Perhaps you should lobby for a 28th amendment to protect the rights of pornographers.

[rycpitbull]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

That was for a news broadcast. News gets a lot more fair use protection then is afforded commercial speech.

Hey Michael Yeah.. last night I was watching Independance Day for perhaps the 5th time. I noticed, towards the end, Will Smith's kid had a backwards baseball cap on and huged him. They blurred out the logo of the team.

[MikeSouth]

they did that because the team didnt pay a "placement fee" most likely

what happens is they will film a scene with a pepsi, then with a coke then with a mt dew or whatever...whoever pays gets his product placed if nobody pays they hide the logo

same with ball caps and damn near everything else

[softball]