Comments on: The Romantics Sue Activision… For Being Too Good

By: peterq9

peterq9 — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:10:22 +0000

Lol “This video has been removed due to terms of use violation”

By: Rob K-L

Rob K-L — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:48:21 +0000

“however its like you going to work and not getting payed for it”

To me it seems more like you not going to work, someone doing your job for you, and you not getting paid for it. Which is fair enough in my eyes.

By: jph wacheski

jph wacheski — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:55:19 +0000

Well I think most of you are missing the point here,. music rights are goofy to be sure, but my understanding of this case is that they got paid for the ‘song’, that is the music and the lyrics to be used in the game,. the problem the band, or their lawyer, has it that the cover is a sound-a-like of the bands ‘performance’ and if the company wanted the performance they should have payed for that,. and used it,. by paying only for the music and lyric rights (I assume a bunch less $$) and then producing a ‘sound-a-like’ version they cheated the band out of that money,. sure you can quibble that is a bit nit-picky,. however its like you going to work and not getting payed for it,. would you like that?
And yes I am quite fermiliar with the Romantics haveing grown up on Detroit rock radio,. where they where from and quite popular,. I dubt they are ‘rich’ rock stars, bet they have jobs and all,. . the point to me is if the game developers liked the song er ‘performace’ enouph to base their gameplay around it then sure pay the pipers,. or let them try to pry some cash from the big rich corporations fat pockets.
Peace.

By: Tom Lillis

Tom Lillis — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:38:27 +0000

Further more, depending on the rights that Activision etc have on the song, a near identicle cover of a very popular song couold be a very lucrative cashcow if they’re able to sell it as a download, or license the cover to other media projects.

I don’t think Midler v. Ford carries over. My (very brief) reading of the ruling suggests to me that the problem was that the impression was used to create the false impression of an endorsement. The ruling pretty clearly states that a voice is NOT protected by copyright; I would imagine that something as ephemeral as a “style” would then be considered protected.

By: The_B

The_B — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:14:48 +0000

Their whole case has nothing whatsoever to do with their “Distinctive sound”. That is simply the argument that they are bringing to the table, but it is not really important to what they are trying to do.

OK, well I meant that their case rests on that argument then. :P

By: Rook

Rook — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:12:15 +0000

After thinking about this, I think Romantics probably have a stronger case than people think. Midler vs Ford saw Midler win, and the phrase “as made famous by” isn’t exactly obvious to people.

Further more, depending on the rights that Activision etc have on the song, a near identicle cover of a very popular song couold be a very lucrative cashcow if they’re able to sell it as a download, or license the cover to other media projects.

By: Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:08:53 +0000

I know back in the day Tom Waits sued Frito-Lay for getting an imitator in to do a version of Step Right Up for one of their commercials (Actually he sued Opel in 2005 for the same reason) but that’s advertising, not Guitar Hero. What did these guys think was going to happen when they signed the rights over?

By: Rob K-L

Rob K-L — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:46:57 +0000

Their whole case has nothing whatsoever to do with their “Distinctive sound”. That is simply the argument that they are bringing to the table, but it is not really important to what they are trying to do.

It is a bunch of has been nobodies trying to get a slice of the cake by bullying it out of the game publishers with litigation.

They are hoping that they will get handed a settlement cheque because the case will not be worth fighting.

Cuntish behaviour by any standard.

By: The_B

The_B — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:15:28 +0000

How is people’s knowledge of the band in any way relevant to this?

In Kieron’s defence, surely their whole case is based around the fact they supposedly have a “distinctive” sound, so whenever that is heard, people think of that band? They’ve kinda failed if you don’t know who they are even after hearing their “distinctive sound”, or something…

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:02:18 +0000

Okay, double-posting is really bad, I know and apologize. But I can’t leave that “procude” typo uncommented. It should have been “produced”, obviously.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:57:33 +0000

What did they expect when they allowed Activision to procude a cover? A reggae-style reproduction with opera singers?

And the Guitar Hero version isn’t even that close to the band’s unique, distinctive sound.

By: Crispy

Crispy — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:21:45 +0000

Dunno, sounds like something about moral high ground and ‘we’re a much of teeny boppers’ and ‘in my dayery’.

I haven’t heard of the Romantics, but because of the game they’re trying to get taken off the shelves I have, and I like the music. So, essentially, they are fighting to have their pensioners savings diminished by aborting any Guitar Hero-related Romantics music sales while they’re still in the metaphorical womb.

Hopefully the Alzheimers will set in before they do themselves a disservice.