Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Movies Piracy Sony

Sony Accused of Pirating Music In "The Interview" 180

Posted by timothy from the such-a-loaded-term dept.
the simurgh writes As the controversy surrounding Sony's handling of its hack, the movie The Interview and its aftermath continues, a singer is claiming that after failing to reach terms with Sony, the company put her music in the movie anyway. Yoon Mi-rae (real name Natasha Shanta Reid) is a U.S.-born hip hop and R&B singer who currently releases music on the Feel Ghood Music label. Sshe and her label claim that her track we learned that the track 'Pay Day' has been used without permission, legal procedure, or contracts.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Accused of Pirating Music In "The Interview" More

Sony Accused of Pirating Music In "The Interview"

Comments Filter:

  • Hmmm ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Sunday December 28, 2014 @09:36AM (#48684173) Homepage

    So, once again, if we do this we get crushed under the heel of a team of lawyers.

    But a multinational like Sony does it and I bet they'll just dicker and claim some bullshit like fair use they routinely deny exists.

    I sincerely hope Sony has to pay a massive fine for this ... something on par with what we'd get beat down with.

    • Re:Hmmm ... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28, 2014 @09:42AM (#48684197)

      Maybe she should have put a rootkit on her CD?

    • Unless Sony shows that they did have a contract. I seriously doubt an outfit like Sony wouldn't just replace her music if the couldn't get a contract, and I seriously doubt they couldn't get a contract.

      • Indeed. A possible scenario is that she doesn't actually own the music, her label does; and they were only negotiating with her out of politeness; though they aren't legally obligated to.

        • A possible scenario is that she doesn't actually own the music, her label does; and they were only negotiating with her out of politeness; though they aren't legally obligated to.

          TFA actually quotes the label threatening to sue.

          • Considering Sony's HUGE corporate interest in making sure everybody obeys copyright law, if this really happened it could only be a screwup and if that's the case, they'll settle. There's absolutely no rationale for them to fight the claims if they're true.

          • According to this article [spin.com] they will not sue Sony:

            A spokesperson for the agency told Billboard that the artists were "hesitant" to allow the song to appear in the film, given that it's plot, which features the assassination of Kim Jong-Un, is "very sensitive topic in Korea" at the moment. It seems that at this point Sony Pictures will be spared the brunt of the lawsuit, FeelGhoodMusic instead intends to take the agency who handled the negotiations with Sony, DFSB, to court instead.

        • How do you know which kind of contract she has with her label and who 'owns the rights' to the music?

          • How do you know which kind of contract she has with her label and who 'owns the rights' to the music?

            What did I say that makes you think I know?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      Not if they slapped the press all over with it. The best way to combat sony is to humiliate it in every media possible. get it out there that they STOLE her music and are making millions off of her hard work.

      Under the DMCA Sony needs to pay her $22.7 Trillion dollars for her losses. Use SONY's own bullshit made up numbers, bankrupt the whole fucking company over it like they do to people that can't defend themselves.

    • So, once again, if we do this we get crushed under the heel of a team of lawyers.

      But a multinational like Sony does it and I bet they'll just dicker and claim some bullshit like fair use they routinely deny exists.

      I sincerely hope Sony has to pay a massive fine for this ... something on par with what we'd get beat down with.

      They should get decently hammered though I don't think it should be crazy. The summary suggests Sony wilfully used the song despite knowing they didn't have a license, but that's a stretch based on the quote from the label

      “There were initial discussions for using ‘Pay Day‘ in the movie, but at some point, the discussions ceased and we assumed that it would not follow through,” Feel Ghood Music says.

      Almost certainly this was just some production screwup. Someone at Sony thought the th

      • Almost certainly this was just some production screwup. Someone at Sony thought the the license was taken care, because of that they stopped calling back and the music never got licensed.

        What probably happened was the music supervisor was working on getting the clearance right up until the day of the hack, and he hasn't been able to get onto his computer since -- all of the PCs at Sony have been down ever since the Day because they're doing a huge forensic audit. And then a week went by and Sony announced

        • Almost certainly this was just some production screwup. Someone at Sony thought the the license was taken care, because of that they stopped calling back and the music never got licensed.

          What probably happened was the music supervisor was working on getting the clearance right up until the day of the hack, and he hasn't been able to get onto his computer since -- all of the PCs at Sony have been down ever since the Day because they're doing a huge forensic audit. And then a week went by and Sony announced they weren't going to release the movie, and the music sup just forgot about locking down the last licensing deal since it seemed like a dead letter.

          And then Sony announced they were going to screen the movie with one days notice and they rushed the due-diligence.

          I don't think they're related, the film was almost ready to release when the hack occurred meaning they had a final or very nearly final cut. I don't see Sony putting themselves in the position of having not-yet licensed music in the final cut, that gives the publisher far too much leverage when negotiating terms.

          • I don't think they're related, the film was almost ready to release when the hack occurred meaning they had a final or very nearly final cut.

            I am a sound editor on features, I worked about 9 months at Sony this year (on Fury and 22 Jump Street mostly, not Interview). They can replace music days before the movie is released, particularly now because most shows are distributed almost exclusively on DCP. It's not unusual to printmaster the movie (finalize all the sound) and still not have all the music deal

            • I don't think they're related, the film was almost ready to release when the hack occurred meaning they had a final or very nearly final cut.

              I am a sound editor on features, I worked about 9 months at Sony this year (on Fury and 22 Jump Street mostly, not Interview). They can replace music days before the movie is released, particularly now because most shows are distributed almost exclusively on DCP. It's not unusual to printmaster the movie (finalize all the sound) and still not have all the music deals in place. Music is an independent process from the "final cut".

              All of the PCs at Sony were still down in mid-December, nobody in any of the administrative departments could access any of the work they'd left on their machines or on servers prior to the hack, everybody had to lug in their Macbooks to get any work done -- Macs were unaffected by the hack. I can't imagine how they could have dotted all their i's for the delivery with one days notice and no corporate PC infrastructure.

              Alright, I can buy that. I would have assumed the music got finalized earlier, but I guess you have a lot of options when it comes to the soundtrack. I suppose if nothing else works you can run it at double speed and throw in Yakety Sax.

              • The music situation is always really fluid, it's not uncommon to have a particular song in the film but a different song on the DVDs and VOD for rights reasons. Also it's not unheard of for the studio to replace a song after the film's released, they used to ship new reels to the theater but now they just upload a new DCP to the theatre chain headquarters, they all program it from their via satellite.

                It's the music supervisor's job to clear all the music, he'll give the picture editor music that he thinks h

    • They very likely don't have to pay a fine, why should they?
      They will have to pay royalties, and likely more than they had payed if they had licensed the music.

    • I sincerely hope Sony has to pay a massive fine for this ... something on par with what we'd get beat down with.

      And we can even get the actual number of infringements if we go by number of theatres, number of showings, number of streams distributed to homes, number of DVD and Blu-Ray sold, etc.

      And then apply the magical MPAA mathematics of multiplying that number by 1000 and add extra damages on top of that for knowingly disregarding copyrights.

  • *sigh* (Score:3, Informative)

    by L. J. Beauregard ( 111334 ) on Sunday December 28, 2014 @09:41AM (#48684195)
    http://angryflower.com/itsits.... [angryflower.com]

  • one they didn't originate...

  • In hindsight it would have been far more hilarious if Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson brought the news.

    Do you ever feel, feel so paper thin
    Like a house of cards
    One blow from caving in
  • I would very much like for this to be true. That way Sony could be caught stepping on its own dick .... yet again. They champion RIAA and MPAA and all the while do dirty shit like this. It would be about mot just.

  • Time for Sony to bow out. No credibility left. But then, don't expect the buyer who puts a new name on the firm to act any diffferent.

  • Okay.... so what? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Sunday December 28, 2014 @11:31AM (#48684709) Journal

    It's not like Sony doesn't have money.... they can pay for the song's inclusion and all is good.

    I don't defend Sony here, but it's also entirely possible that this was just a mistake... someone at Sony might have thought they had already secured permission, because it was something they intended to do, and they just put in the sound track without thinking about it, and afterwards, nobody else thought to double-check. It's a really stupid mistake, and one they should most definitely pay for, certainly, but it's not like Sony can't reasonably afford to pay for permission to include the work unless the artist was never willing to give Sony permission in the first place, at any price.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      it's also entirely possible that this was just a mistake

      I'd go with someone decided that artistically they wanted the song and then assumed that the artist would agree with whatever Sony would negotiate. The artist didn't, but Sony kept the song in anyway. There is a comment above that says Sony listed the artist for the song in the movies credits. TIMHO this is no "mistake".

      • I love how, when Sony here has used a song without permission, the aggrieved musician is an "artist" and Sony is exploiting them.

        But, when someone pirates an MP3, nobody is hurt but the "evil record labels."

        In this situation, the money Sony would pay to use the song would go to the RECORD LABEL. I don't understand why people are so excited about taking sides in a dispute between large corporations neither of whom want sharing to succeed, and both of whom are doing their fair share of exploiting.

        I mean you'r

        • Which artist would make a contract with a label that allows them to resell the music to movie makers without getting a share for that?
          Sorry, contracts like this are in Europe not even possible. And they should not be possible everywhere where the 'Bern Convention' is signed (AFAIK the USA is the only country with such retarded copyright laws).

    • It's entirely possible that Yoon Mi Rae did not want the song included at any price, for political or security reasons. She was born in the U.S., but she undoubtedly has relatives in South Korea. Due to being associated with this controversial film, the lives of her family could be endangered. Also, it is possible that she, like at least SOME of the South Koreans, is sympathetic to the plight of the North Korean populace, and does not wish to be associated with a film that treats North Korea as a whipping b

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        ...a film that treats North Korea as a whipping boy.

        You know it was a comedy, right? (and not an overly good one, from what I've heard). You realize that the only reason NK is claiming that the film is insulting is because they seem to always want to find any reason they can that garners sympathy for them, right? The only thing this movie makes fun of is not North Korea, or its leader, but rather, it really only satirizes the popular mindset that people have about NK and its position with respect to the U

      • a film that treats North Korea as a whipping boy.

        Ironically I think the film's a lot harder on American celebtriy culture than North Korea. I mean Kim Jong-un's a bad guy, but the North Korean people are portrayed as sympathetic and the real butt of all the jokes is invariably James Franco's character. The idea that the movie is actually "anti" North Korea is sorta overblown.

  • Common sense from TFA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by resfilter ( 960880 ) on Sunday December 28, 2014 @11:32AM (#48684711)

    "It seems unlikely that this lawsuit will result in a messy legal battle. The huge publicity the movie has enjoyed in the past few weeks will virtually guarantee decent sales for Sony, even without lucrative box office revenues. Yoon Mi-rae should not only be able to secure a piece of that but also raise her profile in a way that would not have been possible had Sony paid her in the first instance."

  • Oh look, aonther poorly edited Slashdot summary! (Score:4, Informative)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Sunday December 28, 2014 @12:08PM (#48684875) Homepage

    As the controversy surrounding Sony's handling of it's hack, the movie The Interview and it's aftermath continues

    "It's"? Good job. Pretty poorly punctuated and written all round, in fact.

    she and her label claim that her track we learned that the track

    timothy, what do you do, exactly?

    • I don't like to jump on the hater bandwagon, but this is, once again, ridiculous. What is happening to Slashdot?

    • Be thankful he didn't write: "she and her universe" because timothy likes using that word where it absolutely doesn't belong.

  • File a take-down notice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by paulproteus ( 112149 ) <slashdot@a[ ]esh.org ['she' in gap]> on Sunday December 28, 2014 @02:14PM (#48685437) Homepage

    YouTube has a standard DMCA complaints procedure. I recommend that Yoon Mi-rae and the label follow that process, partly because it actually works which is great in this case, and partly to give Sony a taste of their own medicine.

    Here is the link: https://support.google.com/you... [google.com]

    (Note that I have a bunch of experience with the take-down process, including participating in an EFF lawsuit ~10 years ago; see https://www.eff.org/document/d... [eff.org] .)

  • Except that little flaw. Sony did a nice job convincing everyone that it was their patriotic duty to go see "The Interview", and if you were anything less that totally enthusiastic, then the commies would win.

    But it seems that they pirated some music, which is not going to be a big deal, because piracy laws were only designed to protect people with huge amounts of money to spent on lawyers.

    Like most other capitalist property schemes they are only designed to protect people in power, albiet they talk a

  • Normally a standard ASCAP/BMI license would cover using a song like this in a TV show. I don't know how movies handle licensing but supposing it is the same, then Sony has to attribute the song (and supposedly is IS listed in the credits roll), cut a check to the copyright holder and performer, and then cut a check to ASCAP or whichever company is doing the rep for the song. End of issue.

    And by TV standards, which again may not be the same as in movies, the production does not need permission to use the

  • ...I hope they wind up having to pay her treble (clef) damages.

Slashdot Top Deals

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Close