Guitar Hero World Tour Won't Allow Copyright Infringement

1Up did an interview with two of the developers for Guitar Hero: World Tour about the process of creating the game. One of the interesting things they mention is that they won't be putting up with people who use the song creation tools to make covers of existing songs. "We'll be actively monitoring the site. And, obviously, if the copyright holder complains, Activision will pull it down immediately. We can't condone people putting up covers of music. It's really there for original content." We discussed the creation tools themselves recently. Since then, Activision has announced that they'll be including a MIDI sequencer to assist with making your own tunes.

I wonder if...

[megamerican]

I wonder if "covers" of songs made with Mario Paint [youtube.com] ever get DMCA take down notices.

Yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

Performances are allowed under copyright. So how is this copyright infringement?

Get the PC version

[rtechie]

They're just MIDI guitar tracks, widely used with FretsOnFirehttp://fretsonfire.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net].

There will almost certainly be a way to work around this on the PC, mainly because NOBODY is going to use the PITA creation tools on the 360 and PS3. It's almost infinitely easier to do it with a MIDI sequencer.

Annoyingly, it looks like the MIDI songs will only be usable on the PS3, not the 360. It is probably due to their tools being MIDI-to-USB. The PS3 is pure USB so that's why it works on that platform.

This is highly annoying for me, because I was going to get the 360 version and I wanted to import my own MIDI tracks. Looks like I'm going to HAVE to go with the PC version now. Does anybody know if the 360 instruments are the same as the PC instruments?

Re:I wonder if...

[Sparton]

What I want to know is what will happen when people start remixing video game themes from Mega Man, Halo, Metal Gear, etc. For me, one of the largest selling points for this game is being able to arrange my own versions of these prominent video game compositions.

Re:Does this mean no sampling too?

[halcyon1234]

It's true. Turning to the Ongoing History of New Music transcripts [ongoinghistory.com] (which, for some reason, are bizarrely out of format...):

If you're a fan of The Verve, you obviously know the song 'Bittersweet Symphony' from their 1997 album, Urban Hymns. It was the biggest hit of the band's career and the song that helped The Verve sell millions of albums around the world. However, you may also have heard that Verve didn't make a cent on 'Bittersweet Symphony', that is absolutely 100% true. The problem lies in a six-second sample based on a cover version of a Rolling Stones song...let me explain. In the mid-60s, Andrew Loog Oldham was the Stones' manager and producer. He also formed something called 'The Andrew Loog Oldham Orchestra', which specialized in orchestral versions of pop songs of the day. In June 1966, the Orchestra released something called the Rolling Stones Songbook. Track 11 on the album was an orchestral version of a Stones song called 'The Last Time', this is where the six second sample The Verve used for Bittersweet Symphony came from. Through some monumental screw-ups, The Verve never properly and legally cleared the use of that sample. As a result, Andrew Loog Oldham, who, by this time, was living in Cartagena, Colombia, was moved to sue. He did, and he won, that meant all the royalties generated by 'Bittersweet Symphony' and a chunk of the royalties generated by sales of Urban Hymns were funneled to Andrew's bank account in South America. This also explains why 'Bittersweet Symphony' turned up in a Nike commercial even while the song was still on the charts. It's now Oldham's song to do with what he pleases. The Verve were not amused, and they soon broke up. Did this issue have something to do with it'...do ya think' For adding a few more cents into Andrew Loog Oldham's bank account, and also the accounts of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, The Verve's 'Bittersweet Symphony' is a good lesson kids...clear your samples!

In another show (that I can't find in the transcripts, but I'm sure its there in the archive), Cross explains the "monumental screw-ups". Basically, the legalese read something along the lines of "50% of the royalties of the song go to the song owners", and then defined the owners as Mick Jagger and Keith Richards-- and THEN was worded in a way that said "Mick Jagger, an owner, gets 50%. Keith Richards, an owner, gets 50%". And thus, 100% of royalties for the song went straight to the Olding Stones.