Eminem, Apple in settlement talks, ask for trial delay

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    Fubuki you are confused.



    Apple's Aqua interface is not open to fair use. It's not a performance. Please provide empirical evidence to support your claim that the person singing "lose yourself" was an actor expressly hired to sing. I don't think it can be done.



    You are correct, copyright exists to ensure that the originator of the property is compensated. However music does come with fair usage that doesn't apply to say an computer interface so your comparison between Aqua and Lyrics is not valid.



    Just as I am able to quote from texts without paying licenses others are allowed to satire, parody or perform very small snippets of copyrighted material. This really isn't an open and shut case at all for Eminem. This is very borderline and Apple stands just as much a chance of winning as they do losing.
  • Reply 22 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JK47

    http://boss.streamos.com/download/i...loseitclean.mp3



    Thats a link to eminems new single if anyone cares.

    Subpar for someone who was once a great lyricist




    Agreed ...not impressed at all with this latest track. His music is/has been on the decline since moving away from Dre. It's beginning to look like "The end is extremely f***ing nigh" for "E"
  • Reply 23 of 30
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AppleInsider

    "any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million.?







    That is a lot of money for the endorsement of white trash.



    What is next, the Briteny Spears iMac?



    Hummmmm.....eminem and Spears...theres a match made in well...you decide...
  • Reply 24 of 30
    hegorhegor Posts: 160member
    A hard lesson in copyright infrigment.



    I'm quite sure that this has been filed under "lesson learned" by Steve & Co.



    I think it would be cool if Apple used its commericals to boost young and upcoming acts. That might get them more pull with other artists once they see the power ITMS has to promote their music.



    By the way, what is going on with the Beetles' Apple Corp vs Apple Computer lawsuit?
  • Reply 25 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Please provide empirical evidence to support your claim that the person singing "lose yourself" was an actor expressly hired to sing. I don't think it can be done.



    Obviously, unless you were there to see the money change hands, observe the contract, or other similar acts, you cannot provide empirical evidence for such an event, and why would anyone need to? It changes nothing. Apple approved the add, and used it to promote their brand and product.



    Quote:

    You are correct, copyright exists to ensure that the originator of the property is compensated. However music does come with fair usage that doesn't apply to say an computer interface so your comparison between Aqua and Lyrics is not valid.



    Fair usage has nothing to do with this case. It's designed to protect the consumer. Examples include allowing consumers to make copies of media for their own personal backup (assuming they have a legal copy of the original), copying a TV show for later private in-home use, or singing a popular song. Doing any of the above for commerical gain however is not protected under fair use, and this is where I think people get confused. If you stand to gain from it, then you have to get permission. It's as simple as that.



    Fair use does not give someone the right to use another persons work commerically without permission. Not samples. Not lyrics. If the child were to go on stage and perform the song in front of a school, this would be legal. For Apple to shoot a commerical and air it on TV to sell a product however, this is not legal, and is not protected under fair usage laws on any planet.



    Also, I think you missed my point on Aqua. Please reread it. I wasn't comparing Aqua directly to music, or suggesting they're protected under similar laws. I was using it at as a tool to illustrate how Apple has done the same thing in the past that Eminem is doing now to protect their copyrighted materials. Nothing more, nothing less.



    Quote:

    Just as I am able to quote from texts without paying licenses others are allowed to satire, parody or perform very small snippets of copyrighted material.



    This was not a parody or satire, so both points are irrelevant. Also, you quoting someone is not the same thing on any level as what Apple has done in this commerical, so again, this is an irrelevant point. You give good examples of fair use, and of how other laws such as those protecting parodies can be used, but none of them have anything to do with the case being discussed, or what actually happened.



    I understand people's willingness to cheer for the home team and bash the villain, but don't let brand loyalty blind you to the facts.
  • Reply 26 of 30
    After submitting that last article, I had to run to the store real quick. I heard Eminem's new song on the radio. What a catastrophy.



    hmurchison, you don't have to worry about him rapping about being mad or living in the ghetto any more. I'm still not quite sure what he was rapping about though.
  • Reply 27 of 30
    It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.
  • Reply 28 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hegor

    ...



    By the way, what is going on with the Beetles' Apple Corp vs Apple Computer lawsuit?




    A hidden lawsuit? Tell me more.
  • Reply 29 of 30
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Fair Use principals hold that if a performance(satire, parody etc) does not interfere with the copyright holders ability to profit from their work then that usage is ok.



    What Eminem's legal beagle is trying to say is that they own the keys and even the citizen on MTV that decides to sing a couple bars of their favorite tune are in copyright violation. That's just not the case. Copyright is not your license to collect money in perpetuity.




    The difference here is that fair use becomes exponentially harder to prove when profit is involved. A live camera that happens to capture J. Random Person singing a song is one thing. A scripted, top-shelf commercial for a high-profile consumer product that features J. Random Person singing a song is another. For one thing, it doesn't quote the work as part of comment or criticism, and I'd love to see the argument that it's parody.



    Apple can't credibly claim fair use. Given that, they're down to licensing the use of the song, and whether Eminem's terms are outrageous or not, they're his terms. As law and practice currently stand, he's entitled to name his price.



    At any rate, this report confirms my assumption that both the $10 million price and the running of the commercial without permission boiled down to hardball negotiating tactics.
  • Reply 30 of 30
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fubuki

    How easily they forget.



    When Linux users started creating Aqua look-alike desktop themes for KDE and GNOME, Apple immediately started firing off cease and desist letters to anyone creating or hosting the themes. They also sent the letters to anyone using the word Aqua in their desktop themes.



    Why? To protect their property. They're required to do this by law.




    FYI, at least in the US, copyright law no longer requires an active defense on the part of the copyright holder, as of the 1976 Copyright Act.



    However, judges will take prolonged inaction as permission, or at least tolerance, so while you no longer lose your copyright altogether for failing to defend it, you can lose the ability to prosecute a particular case of infringment if you let it go on too long. Whence the C&D letter.



    Trademark law still maintains the defend-it-or-lose-it standard.
Sign In or Register to comment.