bit-gamer.net

The Romantics sue Guitar Hero Encore

Published on 22nd November 2007 by Joe Martin

Careful Bindi - you don't want to sound too similar to the original version of the song...

This is possibly the oddest lawsuit I've read about in a fair while, but The Romantics are apparently suing Activision, Harmonix and Red Octane over use of a song of theirs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rock the '80s.

It's not because the game doesn't have the license to use the song though - oh no. It's because the cover of the song featured in the game sounds too much like original version of "What I Like About You". Bizzare, I know.

The Romantics are now trying to halt the sale of the game and want a breakdown of all the profits, as well as an unspecified sum of monies. This is based on the claim that the games version of the song is 'virtually indistinguishable from the authentic version", according to Joystiq.

Oddly though, all the lawsuit is doing at the moment is propel the cover band, Wavegroup Sound, into the limelight and earning them more sales on iTunes wheras previously fans of the song may have bought the original version.

I personally can't see how Guitar Hero could have avoided the lawsuit though as, if The Romantics has got what they wanted and and a really bad version of the song had been made then they could have sued for damage to the bands reputation.

What do you reckon to the news? A load of aging pop-stars making a final grab for some cash, or a legitimate complaint? Let us know in the forums.

12 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply

Veles 22nd November 2007, 11:35

Obvious money grabbing there, or attempting to get into the lime light again.

Krikkit 22nd November 2007, 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veles
Obvious money grabbing there, or attempting to get into the lime light again.

Bingo - I fear someone may have spent all their moneys and need some more for a gold plated bar in the swimming pool.

Rebourne 22nd November 2007, 15:37

Well it is their song. If guitar hero is using it without their permission to make a profit I would have to agree with them.

Bluephoenix 22nd November 2007, 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebourne
Well it is their song. If guitar hero is using it without their permission to make a profit I would have to agree with them.

he point is they didn't, they did it with a license, but are being sued anyway for having something too close to the licensed song

money grubbers, flush them I say

Omnituens 22nd November 2007, 16:14

Dropping your pants in a court of law does not deploy star power.

Edenalig 22nd November 2007, 17:20

Are they trying to argue that the original song was not used because the cover could be made just as good for less but still be legal or that the cover was to close to the original and erm... you know what there is no logical explination to this other than to grind some money out of it.

Quote:

The current (2006) statutory rate for royalties is 9.1¢ for every copy sold if the playing time for the song is under five minutes.

Quote:

Remember the law is on your side. You are entitled to a compulsory license by law. You have permission - (a compulsory license) - as soon as you send the notice, described above, to the proper publisher.

As long as your notice complies with Copyright Section 115, (described above), the publisher need do nothing other than receive the royalty payments. You don't even need to wait for their reply.

all found here http://cdbaby.net/dd?f=8 closest thing I could find that seemed to compliment the story.

mclean007 22nd November 2007, 18:44

Quote:

all the lawsuit is doing at the moment is propel the cover band, Wavegroup Sound, into the limelight and earning them more sales on iTunes wheras previously fans of the song may have bought the original version.

Much like the 'Streisand effect'. They really should have seen it coming.

Rebourne 23rd November 2007, 04:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebourne
Well it is their song. If guitar hero is using it without their permission to make a profit I would have to agree with them.

he point is they didn't, they did it with a license, but are being sued anyway for having something too close to the licensed song

money grubbers, flush them I say

Oh, hrmmmm... Well that is rubbish.

Don't make your cover song too good or you'll get sued.

Sparrowhawk 23rd November 2007, 06:06

Quote: