Infringement State of Mind

If you're reading this then that probably means you have an internet connection. And if you do, then you may well have watched a video spoofing the song "Empire State of Mind" by Jay-Z and Alicia Keys, but setting it in Newport. It was well written, well executed, and consequently gained over two and a half million hits on YouTube.

Here is what you see if you search for it now:

Yes, EMI decided that it was infringing on their copyright.

Now, I am not against copyrighting material. Artists have to earn money like everyone else, and if you want well produced music or films, someone somewhere has to pay for it. I would actually quite like to see The Times's paywall succeed, even though its content is not for me, and, I would argue, their pricing is questionable. But this EMI claim is something different.

The question is simple: is this song contributing to a loss of revenue for EMI? I would find it hard to believe that a video placed free on YouTube is a replacement for the original song. Although I don't have any figures to back this up, I would imagine that very few people may have been about to buy the original track, then decided that they would stick with this YouTube spoof instead.

In fact, I would go further than that. When I first heard the spoof, I thought it was clever, funny and brilliant, and immediately went over to the original song's video to compare, instantly giving EMI the income from that play (which I know is tiny, but unexpected profit, nonetheless). My interest rekindled, I almost bought the track, and I'm sure many did. All this, despite the fact that I'd got pretty fed up with it when it came out however many months before.

It used to be that if you were to mention, say, Jeff's Chip Shop on the television, Jeff would be so thrilled with the free publicity that you'd get a free portion of chips (I may be stretching this whole "chip" thing). Following EMI's example, Jeff would presumably demand that the tapes be destroyed and never brought up again.

The whole thing is exactly like the Downfall "Hitler reacts" case. Companies have become so paranoid by people stealing their material that they think anyone using it is infringing on their copyright. EMI are perfectly justified legally in what they are doing, but they've missed the point entirely, and not only are they taking away a highly successful, completely unpaid for advert for their product, but they are making themselves look like petty destroyers of creativity. With that kind of public image, it's only going to be easier for people to morally justify why they're happy to illegally download whole albums. For an industry apparently obsessed with image, they are, if nothing else, showing a remarkable lack of public awareness.

UPDATE, 11/08/10: Looks like this take isn't quite fair. According to a Guardian report today, it's the songwriters who opposed to the video, not EMI itself. The arguments stand though: what possible loss of revenue does it lead to? Is the notion of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch so abhorrent to you that you don't want it associated with your song? As artists, do you not at least appreciate the skill of adapting lyrics? I know that you have every legal right, but you have singularly failed to take advantage of a situation based on an infatuation with ownership, and to me that is just idiocy.