A Guitar Hero lawsuit you won't see from Kurt Cobain's estate

I think they’d rather not allow a precedent to be set that could very well be applied against numerous other tracks in other games of theirs, present and future…

I’m not going to speculate too deeply on this issue because it’s hard to know what was involved in the contracts that are worked out between Activision and the management companies for these bands.

But I have to assume several things:

A. They’re pretty standard contracts, similar to what Sound Choice, Hot Hits, and other karaoke production companies have been signing for years.

B. These contracts give the company the right to recreate the band’s songs, fullstop.

Obviously, I’m not privy to what kind of verbiage is in these contracts, but if I’m the karaoke company, or Activision, or whomever, I’m going to be as vague as possible when it comes to specifying what I’m getting the rights to.

“The right to use the music created by the band and reproduce it in a videogame/for karaoke/whatever.”

Not “reproduce as accurately as possible,” because that would probably be a more expensive contract. Certainly not “reproduce closely but not exactly,” because now we’re into shades of grey and when the band gets pissed that it’s “almostly exactly,” we’ve got to rely on some judge’s ear to determine the definition of “not exactly.”

No, if I’m writing up this contract, we’re just getting the rights to take this sheet music and have our hired guns reproduce it, fullstop. They might do a bang-up job, they might sound like a bad dive bar cover band, but that’s none of your concern, so take this money hat and go do a line of coke.

Now, the musicians might have the power in these situations, because the karaoke companies want to use their shit. But then, on the other hand, back when karaoke started, it wasn’t exactly a cash cow, and precedent might’ve been set back then that put the power in the karaoke company’s hands.

All of this is just idle guesses.

But until I see otherwise, I just can’t imagine that the contracts that they work out for these situations don’t specifically avoid the topic of “accuracy” or whatever you’d call it, specifically to avoid this sort of scenario. And if that’s the case, if the Romantics gave Activision the right to reproduce the song, no ifs ands or buts, then it doesn’t matter if they nailed it note for note, they’re off the hook.

Edit:

I just listened to those links on RPS. Jesus fucking christ, they’re not even remotely identical. If the Romantics thought it sounded like themselves, then they definitely weren’t wearing ear protection for the last 25 years and have some major hearing damage.

There wouldn’t be any contract. Lyrics and sheet music are under a compulsory license, which comes to about 10 cents per transmittal. Band can’t refuse.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000115----000-.html
http://cdbaby.net/dd?f=8

By not using original tracks, they save tons and tons of money.

I don’t see what’s supposed to be interesting about this question. Is it OK to pay for a cheaper license here? Of course.

The point of charging more for the real, actual version of the song as recorded by the band themselves is that they think only they can do it the way they do it. The Romantics lost that bet, and are now crying sour grapes. I guess they don’t make enough from those damned eSurance commercials.

Also, the fingering on that looks absolutely ridiculous. Pretty sure it’d be easier to play it on a real guitar.

Hey, great. Maybe you should just go open up a speculative law office while you’re at it. Best part: you already have a logo!

Money grab.

Yes, that was the song I got stuck on in both Hard and Expert and had to practice repeatedly just to pass. It’s unrelenting the whole way through, especially with the three-note chords.

Seeing as how I said right off the bat that everything was speculation and guesses, I don’t see the need to slag on me for it.

IANAL, as I’m aware you are, but I don’t see why that should utterly exclude me from participating from this discussion as long as I make it clear that’s the case.

This band is just making a bullshit money grab, and nothing at this point indicates that the law is even remotely on their side.

This is stupid. You license a song to so you can perform it, not so you can only perform it with a 20% or more difference.

What’s next? Comedian impersonators having to license celebrity voices?

Don’t give the bastard lawyers any ideas.

I swear I saw this one guy do Walken better than Walken does. If anything, he should sue Walken.

Too many “http’s” in that link.

OK, I was being a bit of a dickhead and I apologize. It was just weird how you went into a fair amount of detail about how you would have written the licensing contract, when obviously those things are complicated and you don’t have the first idea what goes into one (I don’t, either). It’s like if you had said “I can’t believe those people blew up the Space Shuttle, if it had been me I would have shut down the engine and hit the emergency eject button.” Huh?

Agreed.
Since GH was made famous and successful, they see money potential for their anciently dead band and swing for the fences, probably hoping for an outside-of-court settlement, basically making money without doing anything.
This kind of attitude makes me sick.
Regardless of whatever laws there are, morally speaking:
Should they pay the band for use of their music sheet and lyrics (as if it was any other type of IP)? yes.
Should they get sued because they had someone do a good job at reproducing the work? no.

As to whether they should pay royalties per game sold? I leave that to the experts.

No worries. I just let my own rambling theorization get the best of me.

Licensing is all weird. Why is it that game companies have to license the right to use products, but the product makers pay to have their products placed in movies?

  • Alan

They pay to have their products in games, too.

But not for the advertising!

Is it OK to pay them for the cheaper, lyrics-and-music license, and then use a cover artist to record something that sounds exactly like the (presumably much more expensive, and maybe with some sort of residuals needed?) original recording?

The simple answer is yes. Until the government starts implementing an artist tax for people who have more talent than the common masses, how can you possibly object to people doing extra work within their legal agreement?

It’s bull shit on the band’s part. They’re just out for money.

This is as stupid as suing Hendricks for making All Along The Watchtower famous even though Dillon wrote it. I’m usually for the little guy, but in this case, the Copyright was secured properly and they attempted their best to compensate the original authors. If they win, it simply would be a slap in the face to musicians everywhere, expecially tribute bands.