Bethesda: Maluka, the girl who did the amazing ‘Dragonborn C : V - Skyrim

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:03 am

Just so you all know, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Altman, the http://www.zenimax.com/bod.htm of Zenimax, is no angel.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:04 am

That's impossible.

As long as you give credit to the original artist, you can cover ANY song you wish, and she has not made any money off it, and therefore doesn't have to pay any royalties. If any company tries to own her music she can take them to court, and she will win even with the worst lawyer in the world. She said that the song belongs to Jeremy Soule and Bethesda, so she's set. She would only be brought to court if she took the credit for writing the song and released it for profit, then she can be taken to court (think Led Zeppelin)

Plus...it's just youtube....think about that ugly deformed girl that only sings other people's songs and has celebrities come on. She monopolized that and made money off it, and yet nobody tried to own her videos. Maluka on the other hand just recorded a cover without any profit, just for the sake of fun and sharing it with others (I think).

In other words, quit exaggerating, she doesn't need any help.

First off... that is an ugly GUY... if you are talking about the curly hair one... who just lip-syc's...

His videos were a violation. The artists took advantage of his popularity, and LET HIM continue... some of them.

Even on "American Idle"... most of the contestants get rejected because they don't have the actual rights to use music that they are entering the contest with. Thus, many good acts never got seen. (That is also the reason that you hear many old-contestants songs in new-contestants acts... because they were free to use, since "American Idle" owns the rights to those published works... since they "won" on the show.)

Karoke, is not fair-use...

Singing another's words, to a tune you created yourself, or one that is similar to the original... but at your hand... and your voice... is "Fair use"...

I also doubt that Bethesda actually copyrighted that individual song. If not... and it is just copyrighted with the game... then it is less than 5% of the games content, and is also "fair use".

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:05 am

That's impossible.

As long as you give credit to the original artist, you can cover ANY song you wish, and she has not made any money off it, and therefore doesn't have to pay any royalties.

2.5 million hits, if she is using youtube add program she's actually made a nice profit.

» Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:52 pm

2.5 million hits, if she is using youtube add program she's actually made a nice profit.

And I'm sure is Now a partner of youtube, or had been offered it.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:05 am

Guys, why do you think the law even matters enough here to attempt another one of those ignorant Internet copyright debates? The OP does not say they have a claim. Obviously they don't, whatever else you think copyright law says.

If this is true, what they are doing is going after people who just hit it big in terms of views, but are still isolated individuals with normal income or less. Just the expense of trying to defend herself would financially ruin most people who put out a popular Youtube video. The idea is to bully her into just agreeing to use her video to make them money. The court case itself is the threat, not losing it.

Beth, on the other hand, could issue a smackdown.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:13 am

In the UK it would come under the fair use laws, so that shadowy group can blow me. And sorry for being rude but patent wars are driven only by greed and I don't like greed.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:57 am

Just some losers trying to abuse the Youtube copyright protection process, like Universal did the other day. She won't have the slightest problem if she just ignores them.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:48 am

+1 to

FUS ROH DAH CRIMINAL SCUM!

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:24 am

imo they are barking up not just the wrong tree... but a tree with a very large tiger asleep in it's branches.

The material originates from Bethesda.
The girl covered it and it was fair use.
That is all.

Any legal nonsense raised by a third party will only end in pain for that 3rd party.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:06 pm

Shes not making money off of it so I'm not really seeing how they can do anything legally. Especially since it's not the original.....it's a cover.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:40 am

Kill'em with fire.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:12 am

I'm blown away by her rendition of The Dragonborn Comes. I hope those trying to extort her get Yol'ed at right in the face.

» Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:15 pm

I hate to say it, but she sings it way better than Lisette. Hah!

» Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:49 pm

Symbolic Digital Movies need to take an arrow to the knee

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:45 am

Welcome to the internet. Take a seat, please.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:06 am

If she seriously wants to protest the claim, she should sue them for attempted prostitution and claiming a human as copyrighted property. The song is owned by Zenimax Media, and attempting to claim there is copyrighted material can only mean that they are claiming she is their property. Not I am not sure where your from, but here that doesn't go to well. She needs to either get Zenimax Media to sue the hell out of the company or file a case against attempted human slavery and prostitution.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:41 am

That's impossible.

As long as you give credit to the original artist, you can cover ANY song you wish, and she has not made any money off it, and therefore doesn't have to pay any royalties. If any company tries to own her music she can take them to court, and she will win even with the worst lawyer in the world. She said that the song belongs to Jeremy Soule and Bethesda, so she's set. She would only be brought to court if she took the credit for writing the song and released it for profit, then she can be taken to court (think Led Zeppelin)

Plus...it's just youtube....think about that ugly deformed girl that only sings other people's songs and has celebrities come on. She monopolized that and made money off it, and yet nobody tried to own her videos. Maluka on the other hand just recorded a cover without any profit, just for the sake of fun and sharing it with others (I think).

In other words, quit exaggerating, she doesn't need any help.

They aren't trying to extort money directly from her, they're trying to gain control of popular videos so they can use them to advertise for their clients. Basically a bandit advertising company that doesn't want to do their own work so they steal control over others'.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:47 am

If she seriously wants to protest the claim, she should sue them for attempted prostitution and claiming a human as copyrighted property. The song is owned by Zenimax Media, and attempting to claim there is copyrighted material can only mean that they are claiming she is their property. Not I am not sure where your from, but here that doesn't go to well. She needs to either get Zenimax Media to sue the hell out of the company or file a case against attempted human slavery and prostitution.

That would be so awesome. I'd laugh so hard.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:30 am

They aren't trying to extort money directly from her, they're trying to gain control of popular videos so they can use them to advertise for their clients. Basically a bandit advertising company.

Maluka is being used unfairly as a means to get money from someone else; therefore she's a victim of extortion.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Who cares? Her cover isn't that good and that's what happens on the internet.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:02 am

think about that ugly deformed girl that only sings other people's songs and has celebrities come on. She monopolized that and made money off it, and yet nobody tried to own her videos.

Are you referring to Keenan Cahill? Calling him an "ugly deformed girl" is really ignorant, by the way.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:10 am

I've let folks know here... I don't know if there's anything specific we can do. She should be able to dispute the claim and I assume that would help.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:15 am

Wow, she seriously rules. Nice production on that recording, too.

» Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:49 pm

What they are doing is wrong on so many levels... It can't be allowed to stand and I would like to put these morons out of business.

» Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:13 am

Maluka is being used unfairly as a means to get money from someone else; therefore she's a victim of extortion.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/extortion.htm

Its not extortion because they're not forcing her to do anything, and they didn't threaten her. They're simply abusing youtube's built in IP protection system to try and assert control.

They're only stealing her rights to advertising money generated by her videos, assuming she's even participating in an ad program.

She's a victim, yes. But not of extortion. She can still sue them for damages if she's claiming their actions have harmed her ability to advance her musical career or if she can successfully sue for the advertising money they've collected using the video.