The key thing here is that FOX is saying nothing publicly, so the conversation Coulton wants is pretty one-sided right now.
Given how networks are typically predatory about their own intellectual property, this questionable activity is extra hypocritical. At least Hulu acknowledged Coulton, if only for a little bit. http://twitter.com/McTaggard/status/294962972944650241/photo/1 Given how much FOX is likely to make on the iTunes and CD editions of this theft, I'm really inclined to stream lots of their programs for free... David >________________________________ > From: Melissa P <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:57 AM >Subject: RE: [TV orNotTV] Re: Glee vs. Jonathan Coulton > > >From the Wired piece: > >“The most frustrating thing is the completely silent nature of their approach >to this ‘exposure bonus’ for me. The thing I would wish for most is a frank >and open and public discussion with them about what they have done, what they >believe they have done and what their actual policy is on this kind of thing. >And I don’t know if I’m going to get that,” said Coulton. > >Well, isn’t that what’s now happening? > >Maybe I’d have more sympathy for Mr. Coulton if his arrangement didn’t suck. >But it does. > >I’ve said this before about other musical re-arrangements that make no sense: >Just because you can do it doesn’t mean you should. > > > >From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >Of David Bruggeman >Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 12:14 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Glee vs. Jonathan Coulton > >Per WIRED, Coulton does not appear to be the first to have this happen, just >the first that more than a few people know about. > >http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/01/jonathan-coulton-glee-song/ > >David > >> >>________________________________ >> >>From:M-D November <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:36 PM >>Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: Glee vs. Jonathan Coulton >> >>JoCo has said in interviews that he probably doesn't have a legal leg to >>stand on re: copyright because of license he had to take to cover the song, >>but if it can be proven* that Glee lifted the audio wholesale and just >>removed the original vocal, then Coulton may be in for a big payday. >> >>*It may already have been proven - a number of Coulton's fans have performed >>analyses on both tracks and found the waveforms - especially on the portion >>featuring the expletive-covering duck quack, to be nearly identical. >> >>On Friday, January 25, 2013 4:46:48 PM UTC-5, Kevin M. (RPCV) wrote: >>It is official. Glee took Coulton's arrangement and aired it, and is >>now selling it on iTunes. >> >>Coulton will be able to retire young. >> >>https://itunes.apple.com/us/ album/baby-got-back-glee-cast- >>version/id592420108?i= 592420188&ign-mpt=uo%3D4 >> >>The comments on iTunes and on Glee's Twitter feed are amusing. >> >>On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: >>> All conjecture at this point... no way to know if the song he found a >>> recording of is to be used on Glee, but somebody wants him to think it >>> is, and it is identical to his arrangement. >>> >>> http://www.jonathancoulton. com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back- and-glee/ >>> -- >>> Kevin M. (RPCV) >> >> >> >>-- >>Kevin M. (RPCV) >>-- >> -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
