It’s All Fun and Games Until Someone Gets Sued for Thousands of Copyright Infringements
A suit was filed on Wednesday by major recording labels Arista Music, Atlantic Recording Corp., Capitol Records, Motown Record Company, Sony Music Entertainment, Virgin Records America and Warner Bros. Records against a 51 year-old woman who just loves to dance.
That woman is Ellen DeGeneres, host of the venerable and Emmy-winning daytime talk show Ellen, and purveyor — apparently — of a host of misdeeds directed nefariously toward the RIAA.
The suit, filed this past week at the U.S. District Court in Nashville, claims that the program, which airs five days a week all year round, has racked up countless offenses by neglecting to pay royalties on the licensed music played during Ellen’s now-famous “dance over” segment. The segment, which has been the source of millions of frumpy housewives “getting their grooves back,” is one for which Ellen has become most popular. And now it looks like she’s going to pay dearly.
But that’s not the best part. Obviously someone (Ellen) is feeling pretty powerful these days as the Queen of Daytime TV and American Idol’s newest judge. According to a news story published by The Huffington Post, when informed of the accusations, producers responded to the labels with a simple, and quoted, “we don’t roll that way.”
The question now becomes, then, who’s rolling with a tighter crew? The television nets or the recording industry? Who’s the “bigger pimper,” as it were? It should be interesting to see how this power vs. power plays out in upcoming months.
I’m all for the rights of artists, and I’m sure you are too. In fact, you know what? I’m going to turn my head when you pull up that mp3 of Snow’s “Informer” lest I see that it was grabbed clandestinely from Kazaa or Limewire. And let’s be honest, the other night at the Pipestone County Fair, I’m pretty sure I heard “You Shook Me All Night Long” no less than fourteen times, and nowhere in sight was a suited RIAA exec with his hand out.
This is a good discussion starter, I think. At what point should a record label truly feel violated? When “Whole Lotta Love” is played over and over again in Cadillac advertising? When a movie rolls “Solsbury Hill” over the closing credits of its schlocky tearjerker? Is Ellen really hurting anyone by playing, by all accounts, songs generally known as well-known party music? C’mon — I’m sure we’ve all heard “Shout” now roughly 3 million times apiece, and I’m guessing that Otis Day and the Knights aren’t exactly five cars deep in their garages. Is Ellen really bringing down the house here by playing one different “dance over” song each day? It’s not like she’s spinning “Life is a Highway” every single day. Thank God.
What say you? While of course there’s a legal right to what the recording labels are claiming, are they just being a little stingy about the whole thing? Should they just let it slide? Or is Ellen really the nation’s greatest music pirate?
All I know is that I hope the record giants are ready for this kind of fallout. I’ve seen Fred Flinstone hit in the head with stay-at-home mom Wilma’s rolling pin countless times over the years, and it never looks like it’s pleasant. These housewives love their Ellen. And that’s a lot of rolling pins to contend with, Warner Brothers.
Hey Tomlin, a couple days late on the comment, here, but as the resident entertainment lawyer guy, I can’t help but chime in.
While the labels have made boobs of themselves for chasing after individual file sharers, what’s happening with Ellen is perhaps the most legitimate of their legal battles. Consider this: Over the last 8-10 years, pundits have been screaming that charging for recorded music is a thing of the past. While I wholly disagree (I like records), the argument is that labels should rely more on alternative forms of revenue for their masters.
“Sync” or master use licenses in film/TV are by no means big money makers, but they are a channel of income nonetheless. Moreover, these licenses are issued almost automatically, using simple, 0ne-page forms. In-house licensing departments crank these out all day and I’ve never heard of a legitimate television show systematically skirting the licenses, especially when the relative cost to the show is so low.
Think of it another way: How much is Ellen’s show making in advertising revenue? Butt-tons. Why? (1) Because she’s funny; (2) Because her humor-and a lot of the allure of her show- revolves around the boogie. If you took the music away from her show and she were forced to boogie to silence, how significantly would it impact its profitability?
I’d also caution people against running to the defense of the Ellen show – it’s owned by a major corporation, which also happens to have a recorded music division. While we all can have sympathy for the poor schmuck who’s sharing his Vanilla Ice on Pirate Bay, TV show producers know better. For them to so blatantly shun the law ain’t a good thing.
T.D.,
It’s a.) good to hear from you — been a long time, and b.) great to hear your take on things. As you know, none of us are lawyers (except for Matt, but he’s more the Michael Richards in the Jeff Daniels/Michael Richards vehicle “Trial & Error” type).
Thanks for the layman’s terms — as we’re all laymen here. I hope you’ll chime in whenever we talk celebs and legality, as most all we know is what we’ve learned from the Law & Order series. And you can be our Sam Waterston.
C.
While it seems impossible for me to conger up why this is so completely ridiculous, I will say that Ellen is only helping the record companies by playing their music. Consider it free advertising. How could you sue someone for actually making you money. AND…It’s not like people DVR her shows every time they want to listen to the latest Rihanna song. This is what we call a symbiotic relationship, but record companies have a billion dollar stick up their butt.