'Death Of ACTA' Song Taken Down In Copyright Claim

from the irony-much? dept

You may recall last fall we wrote about one of Dan Bull's excellent tracks commenting on copyright issues, called Death Of ACTA. You can see the video for the song here:
Dan Bull has embraced file sharing -- not surprisingly, given the subject matter of many of his songs -- and placed the song on various sharing networks and sites, including the cyberlocker Mediafire. Obviously, he did so on purpose, with the desire that more people hear the song. However, he noted with a bit of irony recently that the song on Mediafire was taken down due to a copyright claim. Considering the whole song is about the overreaching efforts of copyright as censorship, this seems pretty ironic.

Dan was kind enough to forward on the takedown message... and it's a total mess. There's simply no useful info in it other than that a French company called TF1 wants the file (and a bunch of others) off of Mediafire as quickly as possible. Now, it's not clear what the issue is here, but it's not difficult to take a guess. "Death of ACTA" is obviously a play on Jay-Z's "Death of Autotune" Jay-Z's song features prominently a sample of the song "In the Space" by French film composers Janko Nilovic and Dave Sarkys. It's quite likely that Jay-Z licensed the sample. Not surprisingly, Dan Bull did not, but that's the nature of creating a parody song.

Also, since all of this is happening in Europe, there aren't fair use laws. Dan would probably have a stronger argument in the US. In Europe, it's a bit more of a crap shoot. Of course, the whole thing is pretty silly if you think about it. Is there any less demand for "In the Space," due to Dan's song? Anyone who suggests that's the case is not in touch with reality.

In the end, though, how ridiculous is it that a song that's all about the excessive nature of copyright law ends up being subject to a takedown notice itself? It seems to encapsulate everything that the song is talking about as being ridiculous concerning copyright law. The song is, of course, still available in lots of other places, though it will be interesting to see if TF1 starts going after it elsewhere as well. I'm guessing that each takedown will only draw that much more attention to Dan's song and the ridiculousness of copyright law today, if it creates a situation where a clear commentary about copyright law gets taken down... by copyright law.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:16pm

    Not really parody

    The song isn't really a parody as it is not an attempt to comment on the underlying work (i.e. Death of Autotune). This isn't just a nitpick as U.S. courts are far more deferential in a fair use analysis to a parody than they are to satire.

    To be sure, many disagree with the distinction, but it is nonetheless a fairly well established doctrine.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:29pm

      Re: Not really parody

      Good catch.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:35pm

      Re: Not really parody

      I don't think that works as a definition of parody. Weird Al rarely comments on the underlying work. The only two cases I can think of that qualify under that definition are his songs "Achy Breaky Song" and "Smells Like Nirvana" Everything else is wholly differently lyrics with some added Foley sounds and accordion. (I am a fan of Al and know very much that this is not the extent of his work and he is a very talented musician and song writer)

      So under your definition of parody almost all of Weird Als music is not protected by fair use.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        A Dan (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:37pm

        Re: Re: Not really parody

        Weird Al gets permission for all the songs he parodies; he does not assume a fair use protection.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Christopher (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not really parody

          That is only because he is overly cautious. The fact is that parody is a PROTECTED part of our society all around the world. You should not have to get 'permission' to use something in a parody, because it does NOT diminish the worth of the actual thing in question.

          In fact, it's pretty much free advertising that might get people to buy the actual thing in question.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:43pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not really parody

          Not entirely true. While he does request permission, he is not required to do so.

          From his website:

          Does Al get permission to do his parodies?

          Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.


          http://www.weirdal.com/faq.htm

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 6:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really parody

            He gets permission from the authors of the song, not the copy'right' holders. His permission isn't to clear the 'rights', because then he would need permission from the copy'right' holders, his permission is to avoid offending the singers/rappers.

            I remember there was some miscommunication between him and Coolio over the song Gangsters Paradise and Weird Al's Amish Paradise parody, Al thought it was OK with Coolio if he made the parody (he asked) but Coolio was later somewhat offended after Amish Paradise was released, supposedly he didn't really give permission and Al misunderstood him.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          belg4mit, 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:43pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not really parody

          The steps he may or may not take to be polite and/or CHA have nothing to do with whether or not he is classified as parody.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          RD, 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not really parody

          "Weird Al gets permission for all the songs he parodies; he does not assume a fair use protection."

          Not entirely accurate. He pays the statutory fee to make a cover/derivative work and proceeds from there. There have been many cases where the original artist didnt approve or give permission but he did it anyway due to this method. See Coolio's grammy award backstage rant about how he didnt want Weird Al to parody Gangstas Paradise. (wow, "gangstas" doesnt get flagged in firefox as needing spelling correction....)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            PRMan, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really parody

            Weird Al DID get permission from Coolio's manager. The manager just didn't tell Coolio that he gave Weird Al permission.

            Since Amish Paradise ended up selling more copies than Gangsta's Paradise, I think Coolio changed his mind...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Skadlig, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:33am

          Re: Re: Re: Not really parody

          That is actually because Al its polite, not because he has to.
          But it is important to credit the original composer.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        PRMan, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:02pm

        Re: Re: Not really parody

        (This Song's Just) Six Words Long...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not really parody

          Ah yes. Another good commentary on the original work I forgot. I am sure there are others, but can't name any more off hand.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crade (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:01pm

      Re: Not really parody

      Not sure how the law see's these things, it is mostly satire, but I think he does also comment on the song itself as well. He comments on how it is off target on what is killing music and (am I reading into things too much?) a bit backwards for condemning future art forms that may clash with copyright laws.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cyryl, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:09pm

      Re: Not really parody

      I actually agree with your assessment. It's logical and one who would disagree with it is an idiot.

      Just sayin'...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rich, 5 Apr 2011 @ 4:00pm

      Re: Not really parody

      Yes, it is a parody. He say so in the very beginning of the song. He says that Jay-Z is wrong. Autotune isn't killing music. Idiotic copyright laws run amok is what's kill music. How is that not "an attempt to comment on the underlying work?"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 4:06pm

      Re: Not really parody

      Your argument works - right up to the point at which they issued a takedown notice - at that point it became parody and thus should be protected.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael, 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:29am

      Re: Not really parody

      Regardless of this being satire or parody, it is most certainly political speech - which in US law is supposed to be given a lot of consideration.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      vivaelamor (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:50am

      Re: Not really parody

      "The song isn't really a parody as it is not an attempt to comment on the underlying work"

      While I cannot divine the intended meaning by US lawmakers, outside of that law the meaning can be much broader than what you suggest. In fact, it has been explicitly stated by at least one scholar that a parody does not always target the subject of imitation.

      Even allowing your narrow definition, others have already pointed out how you're wrong.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    blaktron (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:32pm

    Ladies and gentleman, we have officially entered the era of meta-copyright issues....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:34pm

    Horrible excuse for talent? Check.
    Pimping piracy for attention he could never receive elsewhere (The Nina Paley Effect)? Check.
    Too stupid to realize he'll probably get busted for breaking the law? Check.
    Masnick defending him as if he is actually a useful and contributing member of society? Check.

    You pick some bonehead battles, Mike.

    Really firing up the piracy articles today. Page views were down a bit these past few days, eh?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Christopher (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:40pm

      Re:

      Anonymous, go stick it! He is not supporting piracy here, this is the epitome of parody which in most countries is a protected form of free expression, regardless of whether something is copyrighted that you use in your parody.

      I'm beginning to think that you are the epitome of a troll and really hope that someone bans you from posting very soon.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crade (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:49pm

      Re:

      stating your opinion on music? check.

      ad hominem attacks? double check.

      Actually addressing any arguments.. Sorry, no.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        blaktron (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 12:57pm

        Re: Re:

        Heh, also, what does the subjective measure of talent have to do with copyright? If talent was a precursor to legal protection the world be a bett... different place.

        Basically, the measure of art isnt whether or not YOU think its art, but whether or not SOMEONE thinks its art....

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:13pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Mike Masnick's agenda is essentially a Marxist one: all art should be considered the same in regard to quality and it all should be free.

          That makes him quite an enemy to those that are looking for exemplary art and those that wish to create it and devote their livelihood to it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:20pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Mike Masnick's agenda is essentially a Marxist one: all art should be considered the same in regard to quality and it all should be free.

            Huh?!? I have never made any argument along those lines at all. How is suggesting that *market-based* solutions are available for artists and helping them find and embrace those solutions, rather than a gov't-backed one "Marxist"?

            And I have NEVER argued that "all art should be considered the same in regard to quality." In fact, I've argued exactly the opposite, that quality art is really important if you want these new business models to work. None of them work if your art sucks.

            Finally, I've never argued that anything *should* be free. I've just explained the nature of economics and the economics forces that *drive* price towards free, and then explained how that can be used to make artists more money.

            In other words, everything you stated here is a blatant and ridiculous lie.

            That makes him quite an enemy to those that are looking for exemplary art and those that wish to create it and devote their livelihood to it.

            Considering that I stand for basically the exact opposite of everything you said in the first sentence, it only stands to reason that I am not "an enemy," but a wonderful friend towards those looking for exemplary art and those who wish to create and devote their livelihoods to it. That's why I HELP THOSE ARTISTS by helping them find sustainable business models.

            You? You admitted that you're a failed musician who keeps waiting for the government to give you money. And *I'm* the Marxist? Yikes.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Hmm, it seems you like to lie about me personally and about not looking at IP addys. Anything else you'd care to lie about today?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:18pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It's always amusing when TAM admits that he cannot actually support his claims.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Any Mouse (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:19pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                When did Mike ever say he doesn't look at IP addresses? He's said the exact opposite many times. Looks to me like you're the one lying.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Gwiz (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:29pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Heck, even I knew which AC this was by the writing style and the pompous attitude concerning art not being art unless he has giving his blessing on it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Chris Rhodes (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:51pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Analysis: Ignorant troll spouts baseless accusations that anyone could debunk after 5 minutes of reading the articles on the site. Follows up baseless accusations with baseless accusations.

                Appropriate Action: Hit "Report" and read something penned by someone literate.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            if all art is not defaulted to exemplary, then who decides what is?

            one artist deserves more protection than another? what are you trying to say?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 3:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              By Mike's definition, popularity.

              And no one gives a shit about the above buffoon's "art" except freetards.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 4:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                By Mike's definition, popularity.


                Huh? Then why is it that most of the music I like the most is not at all popular. I've spent a lot of time this week listening to an *amazing* jazz/reggae band out of Berlin that you've never heard of.

                And no one gives a shit about the above buffoon's "art" except freetards.


                The way you write off anyone who might actually understand this stuff is really quite amazing.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                G Thompson (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 10:43pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                So by your logic, you being a buffoon means that no one gives a flying monkey shit about your art, or even you, for that matter.

                Well your totally correct!

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            crade (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I guess I'm Marxist too since I'd rather decide for myself what is "exemplary" than have some moron pick for me.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              The Buzz Saw (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You uncultured swine! Everyone knows that today's music is abominable, and we should all revert to listening only to classical music.

              [sarcasm abounds]

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Greevar (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 8:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              They use the word Marxist like they know what the hell it means. It's a far sight better than our pyramid scheme capitalism model.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                crade (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 9:21pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                meh. It's a theory. Implementations are the only viable means of measure it's merit in terms of practical effectiveness. Get a government to take a leap of faith with your theory, and have their implementation work really well, then tell me it's better :)

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            G Thompson (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 10:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You do realise that 99% of what the world thinks of as so called 'exemplary' art is art where the artist is now dead and had no idea their art was any good in the first place and that their contemporaries of the time said it was basically crap.

            And art is in the eye of the beholder, like the shadows on Plato's cave it is all virtual and relative to the observer.

            And Marxist? when you have actually studied political theory and ethics and realise what marxism (like most 'ism's) is actually about, then you can talk. Until then you are just showing your ignorance.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The eejit (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:38pm

      Re:

      Well, he's much more of a contribution than you, seeing as how he's actually innovating.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Hiiragi Kagami (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:05pm

      Re:

      Hmm. Techdirt really does need a "sidebar" forum so I don't feel I'm distracting the conversation with unnecessary banter, but here goes:

      Can someone in the web department remove this automatic ability to "close" threads flagged by those who are too thin-skinned?

      Seriously. Techdirt prides itself on its comments, and I find it distracting I have to take an additional step just because a few panties were bunched up. It seems rather counter-intuitive to see Mike boast about his unfiltered comments, yet turns and delivers an option to hide them.

      How about a compromise: make it an opt-out option, like the CB?

      Half the reason I read the comments is to lap up the asinine statements made by people who think they know what they're talking about.

      Please don't take this away.

      I realize it's as simple as a mouse click, but it's a burden when I have to put down my 7 layer burrito to do so, or any other "non-free hand" moment (which I'll leave to your imagination... sorry, trying to make this light and not so serious).

      Thanks!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        jackwagon (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:21pm

        Re: Re:

        Agreed. Often the antagonistic (trollish) comments, much like those our AC blue snowflake friend made today, elicit some of the most thoughtful responses. Unless someone is going off topic or spamming, I'd prefer to keep the comments visible.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 8:32pm

        Re: Re:

        Just visit Techdirt with scripts disabled and you will see all comments.

        Also you won't see ads and buttons, those will become unicorns to you.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws.org (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:05am

      Re:

      > Page views were down a bit these past few days, eh?

      Apparently enough for suckers like you to still care and post.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:20pm

    About TF1

    Hello,
    I’m not really surprised to see that TF1 is involved here. You might be interested by their page on the English-speaking Wikipedia, especially the “Criticism” section… I can assure you that all the facts related there are, sadly, true. Even the part about “selling available human brain time” and the role TF1 played in the HADOPI story.

    I can add that Martin Bouygues, CEO of the Bouygues group (owner of TF1) is a close friend of Sarkozy and is always ready to help him when he needs to “inform” the population…

    Oh, by the way, have you seen that the Vivendi group now owns 100% of SFR, one of the biggest French Internet access providers? Yes, that’s right, Big Content has bought some Internet pipes. As you can imagine, this is very very dangerous for Net neutrality…

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chris in Utah (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:07am

      Re: About TF1

      Thanks for the info on that one. Troublesome indeed. Though I shake at pussification words of Net neutrality. I tend to hark on like a mother telling you don't come at me with those shoulda coulda wouldas.

      That being said I think the bigger issues here is if ya cant beet them buy the hardware and "attempt" to do it ourselves since our money in people cant. The other I hesitate one because it usually turns it to a crap suit for a anti-trust violation. Fun word that, violation. Wonder if he French will fight this time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    RadialSkid (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:45pm

    I have Dan Bull's album. I ordinarily don't like rap much, but the man is a freaking genius.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    y non a mouse, 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:37pm

    I didn't know of this song. Now I do and downloaded a copy of it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 3:28pm

    On a side note, filesharing is strong in Japan, not even mother nature can disrupt it LoL

    http://www.aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/blog/sendai-earthquake-japan-peers.html

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 3:54pm

    In order to properly understand the irony here, I would like to point out that TF1 is the number TV channel in France. It's only role in the music industry is promoting the pre-packaged, easy to digest, marketed to the masses 'art' that produces great 'artists' discovered on 'vote for who you think is cuter' TV shows.

    For it to take down truly original content (be it fair use or not, as I do not think the concept actually exists over here) reaches Monthy Phython levels of absurd.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    G Thompson (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:28am

    Ah but do they weigh the same as a duck?
    ;)


    Sometimes lately I think the The Crimson Permanent Assurance Accountants had it correct...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    -, 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:57am

    "Also, since all of this is happening in Europe, there aren't fair use laws"
    Don't know about France, but there ARE fair use laws in Europe. At least in Poland.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    LexPdx, 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:01pm

    (c) BS

    Hang 'im from the yardarm!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    umischumi, 9 Apr 2011 @ 4:41am

    Un-Knit.

    Way to go - Stop ACTA - Unknit the interwoven Gov/Corp Plutonmy. Organizse. Join the Pirateparty, join a NGO, get active! Now!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.