GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
from the the-inevitable-end dept
This isn't a huge surprise, but given all the publicity, Goldieblox has agreed to pull down the video that included the Beastie Boys' song "Girls," with an open letter to the remaining members of the band, saying that while they believe that their use was fair use, they wanted to respect the wishes of Adam Yauch and his strong desire not to see the band's music used in commercials.Dear Adam and Mike,A very strong argument can be made that the company should have communicated directly with the Beastie Boys and their lawyers prior to filing for declaratory judgment. But what many people who are commenting on this, who have little to no understanding of copyright law, don't realize, is that filing for a declaratory judgment when threatened is both very standard and quite sensible. As the copyright maximalists are fond of reminding us, you often can't know for sure if something is fair use until a judge says so. Frankly, it shouldn't be this way. Fair use shouldn't require a court to decide, but copyright maximalists have made it so. And, given that, if someone threatens you, the best way to make it clear that it's fair use is to quickly get a judge to weigh in. That's exactly what Goldieblox did, and it's pretty standard in cases where someone is accused of copyright infringement.
We don’t want to fight with you. We love you and we are actually huge fans.
When we made our parody version of your song, ‘Girls’, we did it with the best of intentions. We wanted to take a song we weren’t too proud of, and transform it into a powerful anthem for girls. Over the past week, parents have sent us pictures and videos of their kids singing the new lyrics with pride, building their own Rube Goldberg machines in their living rooms and declaring an interest in engineering. It’s been incredible to watch.
Our hearts sank last week when your lawyers called us with threats that we took very seriously. As a small company, we had no choice but to stand up for ourselves. We did so sincerely hoping we could come to a peaceful settlement with you.
We want you to know that when we posted the video, we were completely unaware that the late, great Adam Yauch had requested in his will that the Beastie Boys songs never be used in advertising. Although we believe our parody video falls under fair use, we would like to respect his wishes and yours.
Since actions speak louder than words, we have already removed the song from our video. In addition, we are ready to stop the lawsuit as long as this means we will no longer be under threat from your legal team.
We don’t want to spend our time fighting legal battles. We want to inspire the next generation. We want to be good role models. And we want to be your friends.
Sincerely,
Debbie + Team GoldieBlox
As we've noted in multiple posts, there's also a very strong argument that this is absolutely fair use. However, that doesn't mean that Goldieblox needs to continue the fight. Pulling the video and the lawsuit may remove what would have been a very interesting copyright/fair use case, but as we ourselves have pointed out many times, just because you can go legal, it doesn't always make sense to do so. The question of whether or not the Beastie Boys want their music in ads may be relevant to whether or not the original effort was "respectful," but is not an issue in the fair use equation.
Which brings me to one final point on this. Many people have been arguing that "respect" is all about "permission." This is a very dangerous view. As we've pointed out over and over again, permission-based culture is no culture at all. Creating art is about breaking barriers, building on those who came before and doing it in new and unique ways. The Beastie Boys themselves clearly recognized and did this themselves many, many times. Often, getting permission is impossible, and focusing on needing permission crushes fair use in dangerous ways. A healthy fair use doctrine has resulted in tremendous art, culture and innovation. Demanding permission in all cases would be stifling. It also leads to a thicket problem, that tends to benefit the gatekeepers of culture, rather than the actual creators and artists, many of whom rely strongly on fair use themselves.
As Mathew Ingram notes, fair use is something worth fighting for, and while Goldieblox made the reasonable decision not to continue this fight, we should be extremely wary of attempts to shut down and close off fair use for the sake of both our culture and innovation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: beastie boys, copyright, fair use, permission
Companies: goldieblox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Also, just because GoldieBlox dropped their lawsuit doesn't mean the Beastie Boys don't have recourse to further the case. They were wronged, whether you'll admit it or not, because you won't, and like Tom Waits, they can probably get money out of GoldieBlox for acting in an illegal fashion. Yes Mike, illegal endorsement of GoldieBlox by appropriating the Beastie Boys music and name to help rack up 8 million views. Will the Beastie Boys pursue this? Likely not, because it's a publicity issue, but if they do, it's probably to publicize that they don't want anybody to think they can pull a fast one like this ever again.
Best outcome: Beastie Boys say they won't sue if GoldieBlox hands over all the ad revenue from YouTube to a girls education / engineering / scholarship fund. You know, make GoldieBlox put money where their big ego, big mouth, and big mistake are. Doubtful, but a man can dream.
At least you get to put away your shovel for a little while buckaroo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
There are many reasons to drop the case even if they would have won it.
Do you actually believe a "big fan" of the Beastie Boys wouldn't know their position on not being used for commercial ends?
Sure. Being a big fan of a band's music doesn't mean you know everything they say or do, or their positions on things.
Also, just because GoldieBlox dropped their lawsuit doesn't mean the Beastie Boys don't have recourse to further the case. They were wronged, whether you'll admit it or not, because you won't, and like Tom Waits, they can probably get money out of GoldieBlox for acting in an illegal fashion. Yes Mike, illegal endorsement of GoldieBlox by appropriating the Beastie Boys music and name to help rack up 8 million views. Will the Beastie Boys pursue this? Likely not, because it's a publicity issue, but if they do, it's probably to publicize that they don't want anybody to think they can pull a fast one like this ever again.
Publicity rights is a wholly different issue, one we've written about many times. Not sure your point.
At least you get to put away your shovel for a little while buckaroo!
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
I guess keeping all rights for yourself and not wanting others to use your music without your permission has been good for your exposure this last 20 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
http://alloutofluck.bandcamp.com/
While I'm promoting stuff here is a compilation from a friends DIY label with the bands from the 3 day DIY festival they put on and I played this year.
http://borninabarnmusic.bandcamp.com/album/spannered-festival-13-compilation
Fantastic people, fantastic bands that deserve promotion all of whom wouldn't be afraid to share their music so I find it funny that you want to use this as a way to score points but won't put your music where your mouth is.
In short actually put up what you think are your credentials or shut up. You have no right to argue that some can't speak to music because they don't make it otherwise. It's not even worth talking about the utter stupidity of that argument in the meantime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
I have never seen Mr. Masnick do/say anything to that effect.
However, you're not actually a musician, so it's nearly impossible for you to understand what goes on "under the hood" and how/why art is judged, able to be judged, and has such an important role in commerce.
Any given creator — regardless of their field — can understand the process behind the creation of works in a field outside of their own on a basic level. The details may hold some importance, but the general-level knowledge works just fine in the situations you described.
You were digging yourself a grave of misinformation and goalpost moving, always ignoring the concept of intent, and GoldieBlox stopping the lawsuit is a victory.
What goalposts did Mr. Masnick move, when did he move them, and how did he move them?
And intent shouldn’t matter in a Fair Use case, save for the ‘commercial use’ factor. A parody made out of spite should receive the same consideration regarding Fair Use as one made out of admiration/love, regardless of the possible commercial applications.
As for the ‘victory’ thing: neither side really ‘won’, as neither side achieved anything worth calling a ‘victory’. (Or do you actually think the GoldieBlox parody/video will just magically disappear from the Internet now?)
go ahead and make yourself a parody of whatever Beastie Boys song you want and turn it into a "disruptive advertisement for Techdirt" and see how far you go buddy
Hey, Mike: I suggest ‘Intergalactic’.
But you won't, because you can't, and you know you'd lose too.
You can’t know that with absolute certainty. Any case involving Fair Use has a chance of going to either side of the battle (even when the hopes for one side look incredibly slim).
I've been a musician for almost 20 years, tech head for 20 years, and you're full of it on this one.
Care to prove how/why with actual evidence and facts — or will you stick to ad hominems and appeals to authority?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
And now you are shoveling the shit.
Not fighting this does not prove they would have lost, dumbass.
I believe Goldiblox would have won this fight and no (half-assed) argument that you put forth changed my mind on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Nope. I viewed that ad and it looks like copyright infringement to me. Completely different situation there, but you already knew that didn't you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Unless it is shared, reworked and circulated, a work is dead and not a piece of culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Just guessing, but I'm pretty sure he was criticizing the current state of "art," not culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Very true, but you can still criticize the role of "art" as nothing more than a consumer product, and the monopolization of that "product." That's what the A.C. was getting at, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Nothing can be characterized as not culture in that case!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
'Bad' art can most certainly be a part of culture(see: 99% of internet memes), but to avoid being a part of culture at all, a piece would have to be kept entirely private, never released or created, because as soon as it's released, and people know about it and (knowingly or not) incorporate it into their lives/creations, it's already become a part of the culture, even if only slightly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
It is now. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
This is complete bullshit. There's every indication that they would have won if they'd have pressed for declaratory judgement. They dropped the suit because it wasn't worth going against the wishes of the band - regardless of whether they had a legal right to do so.
If anything, this disproves a lot of the myths that have been bandied about, here and elsewhere:
1. The myth that copyright's purpose (or effect) is "benefiting musicians."
2. The myth that the legal system is the best venue for fighting copyright disputes.
3. The myth that people who use others' artworks (Goldieblox in this case) are just "grifters" who want to "fuck over musicians."
It shows that, in many situations, people (even corporate "people") will stop using artists' work simply by asking nicely and clearly presenting your reasons. Because those people are often your fans, and want to follow your wishes.
This may have been a "win" for the Beastie Boys, but it was also a "win" for Goldieblox. More to the point, it was a win for common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
No one is buying you or Masnick's bullshit.
You can try to save face and ask us to believe that Goldiblox didn't think all of this through before, and were "blindsided", but everyone will know it's bullshit.
Everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
..."Everyone living in my tiny lil mind, teeheehee"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
" will stop using artists' work simply by asking"
Funny, that's what the Beasties ORIGINALLY DID.
You're completely full of shit and are a complete fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Funny, that's what the Beasties ORIGINALLY DID.
Not, it certainly isn't. To recap:
1. A lawyer sends Goldieblox a threat letter (or, at least, something that they perceive as a threat letter).
2. Goldieblox freaks out about being sued out of business, and files for declarative judgement.
3. The Beasties, themselves, wrote an open letter explaining why they didn't want the music used, and clarifying that it wasn't a threat letter.
4. Goldieblox essentially said, "Oh, that's what's going on? OK, then," and pulled the ad.
All I'm suggesting is that the Beasties should have bypassed Step 1, and gone straight to Step 3. Had they done that, Step 4 would have happened a lot sooner.
And for that, you do nothing but scream "bullshit" at me (and this mythical "Masnick" straw man), calling me "full of shit" and "a complete fucking idiot."
Why are you so angry about it? There is simply no reason to froth at the mouth when I (or anyone else) calls it what it is: a win for everyone.
...Unless, of course, you have some sort of agenda where you want people to jump straight to legal enforcement. Regardless of whether it helps anyone, artists included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got to go with the Beastie Boys on this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Got to go with the Beastie Boys on this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Got to go with the Beastie Boys on this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think you get to be "proud" (or "not proud") of someone else's work. This language reflects the sort of muddy, collectivist thinking about authorship which one would expect of a copyright infringer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have anything to say in support of your dismissive attitude to writing lyrics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shame really
My only comment on the whole permission culture issue is that permission isn't something that should be required/demanded. It should be up to the parody artist to decide if they should ask the original creator or not.
In fact, it shouldn't be so much 'asking permission' as it should be giving the creator (provided they're alive/actually known) a heads-up that you created something based on their art. The remixer/parody artist can ask the original artist if they have any problems with the parody work, if only so that the creator of the content parodied isn't completely blindsided by the whole affair.
However, it should be more a nice gesture than an actual requirement (in other words, completely optional).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shame really
They were wrong. It wasnt fair use and they slithered away like the pathetic snakes that they are- and lost untold amounts in sales as a result.
And musician-hating Mike Masnick was once again exposed as the complete buffoon that he is.
We'll be reminding you about this folly for quite a while, Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shame really
Such a declaratory statement!
Back it up with evidence and facts, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shame really
Court is expensive, so unless you feel like coughing up the cash for their court fees, you've no grounds to say that just because they avoided that route it means they were wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shame really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shame really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shame really
You may want to be the wreckingball of fair use, but morally Weird Al is doing things the right way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Shame really
No, the moral thing is to not to have ask permission every time you want to do something. The moral thing is for artists to have the freedom to express themselves in any way they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shame really
The ARTIST said Yes. The LABEL is who said no.
Because the artist said yes, he made/released it.
Because the label said no, the release was for free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shame really
However, when you start talking about morality and copyright law, you're opening a huge can of worms.
(and whether Weird Al releases it for free or not has nothing to do with the legality of the parody)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shame really
He gives the 'source' artist a head's up that he's making a parody of one of their songs, and if they give him the go-ahead, he sells/performs it as normal. If they don't give him the go-ahead, but don't give him a decent reason not to put it out, he still releases it, but for free. And if they ask him not to release it, and give a good reason, he follows their wishes and doesn't release the song.
Such a way of handling it provides a good balance between creativity, and respect for the original source material I'd say, though at the same time it's important to note that he does things that way due to wishing to, not because the law demands it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shame really
Not so great for your average artist who might have more pointed commentary to make with their parody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shame really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect
The articles have always been about whether the work is fair use or not, which trumps the artists wishes whatever they may be. Many artists have wished for things they cannot have - often wishing things they did in the past would go away.
Thankfully, artists do not get to dictate everything that happens to their work forever. We'd be in a real mess if that were the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect
These don’t actually matter when it comes to Fair Use — and, I should add, shouldn’t matter when it comes to creating new works of culture based on those existing works.
You worked hard to create a piece of music or a really good book or an amazing bit of animation. Congratulations! Now you have to realize that publishing that work makes it part of culture, regardless of how much space it takes up in the grand scheme of things. That opens your work up to parody and satire — to commentaries, both loving and spiteful, of which you may or may not approve.
The creation of new culture relies on a willingness to ‘steal’ from old culture to craft new culture. God help me for saying this, but Justin Bieber would never have become a celebrity if he hadn’t ‘stolen’ old culture (i.e. sang cover songs and uploaded them to YouTube).
Culture does not exist in a vacuum. Culture exists in a living, breathing world that evolves just as much as the culture it creates. We cannot create new culture — we cannot create, period — if we have to ask for permission to create, to feel inspired, to take what has come before us and look at it from a new perspective.
Culture should not require permission to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect
No offense, but none of those things have anything to do with copyright, fair use or any of the legal issues in play in this instance.
Copyright is not about "the wishes of the artist" at all. It's a bargain between the creators and the public which grants certain, specific rights to the creators in order to promote the progress of culture and learning for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Respect
The essense is:
"Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation."
It is not far fetched to say that copyright covers more than what an old document says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect
And just because it's called "moral rights" doesn't make it moral, any more than calling it "intellectual property" makes it property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect
Object? What exactly does that mean? They retain the right to say "I don't like that!"? Or does it mean that they maintain control of their works EVEN AFTER THE TRANSFER OF THE SAID RIGHTS (as quoted by you). In fact, if your quote actually is true...then this means that when companies buy copyrights from artists, then they're actually getting nothing at all.
You might want to think your sources through a bit first before quoting them. Try and imagine what other ways they can be interpreted first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
FYI: The "moral rights" (droit d'auteur) in Europe are very limited in scope, and very different than the "economic rights" that exist both in Europe and here in the States.
For example, "moral rights" cannot be transferred while "economic rights" can, and in many countries, the term lengths are different.
They are usually limited to the right to get credit for the work, as well as the right to remove their name from works they don't approve of. They usually do not have the right to outright block the works on "moral rights" grounds (though they do as part of their "economic rights," as we do in the States).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
Which is astonishingly what all the comments that are opposite Mike's viewpoints usually are. I'm not saying that Mike is infallible, but when he runs a popular blog, writes every day for it and the only comments that are critical of what he writes about can be quickly countered...then it does lend that impression.
Come on guys! Those of you who don't like Mike. Pick up your game and actually make a half-decent argument for once. I've been a member here for must be two or three years now, and not once have I seen a strong comment that was opposite what Mike says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
I wouldn't go that far, but even "moral rights" generally wouldn't apply to parodies. So, meaningless in this specific case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect
Moral rights are NOT covered by copyright laws in the US. Period. Full stop.
Congress side-stepped that by stipulating that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
That's not quite true, There are "moral rights" on a very limited number of works (visual arts, e.g. sculptures). The original artists (regardless of whether they are the copyright holders) have the right to prevent the modification or mutilation of the original artworks (it does not apply to copies), and to get credit for those works (and refuse credit for works that they did not create).
It's in 17 USC 106A, Rights of Attribution and Integrity.
This statute is generally what "moral rights" are like in Europe as well. They probably wouldn't apply at all to Goldieblox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
I guess that never came to my attention because when we talk about copyright here it usually deals with copies and rarely stuff like sculptures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
Right. It wouldn't apply to this case, or any of the other cases Techdirt deals with, because it doesn't apply to things like fair use, and it couldn't possibly apply to things like secondary liability or the Internet (the favorite bugaboos of copyright defenders).
It's normally brought up (as here) when commenters confuse "moral rights" with "ethics," in an attempt to show that file sharing is "evil." It's usually a red herring. Still, best to be informed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect
And you clearly don't understand copyright law and the reasons why it exists. It has nothing to do with respect for an artists wishes and everything to do with encouraging creation of new works (at least that's supposed to be what it's for). Mike's articles on this topic were about the legal issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect
I have tremendous respect for artists, but that includes their own ability to create new works as well. What if an artist declares they no longer like a particular song and you still like it?
Are you disrespecting their wishes by still listening to it?
The point is that once something is out in the world it will inspire different people in different ways, and that's the nature of culture. Artists don't get to control that. They can influence it, but not control.
How would you feel if the Isley Brothers -- who the Beasties copied to write this very song, "Girls," found it disrespectful? Would you slam the Beastie Boys in the same way? The Beastie Boys did not get permission to mimic "Shout" and they did so anyway. Given the lyrics of the song, the Isley Brothers would have a very strong argument that it was disrespecting their own wishes. Would the world be a better place without the Beasties being able to write record and release that song?
Respect comes in a number of different ways.
And, thankfully, the whole point of fair use is to allow a creative outlet that allows for greater creation without having to seek permission -- even if the original artist doesn't like it. That's kind of a good thing, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kke9kaV9sMU
Girls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e8j3-TuzCs
I'm not a student of music, but even I can hear the similarities.
Care to retort? Or is this game, set and match?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
Like I said, if you're musically retarded, you'd think the Beasties "copied" this song.
Are you a simpleton?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
From what I read, you and the people who agree with you (although I suspect it is at most one or two people operating many handles, given the similarity of the writing styles), you seem to have this desperate need to be right in this case. No matter how much evidence my side pulls, you retaliate with ad-homs, and constant assertions that you are correct.
Do you have a stake in this game? Otherwise, why this constant passion that I read in your comments, this compelling drive to be shown to be correct against "anti-musician" Mike Masnick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
Oh I'm sure of that. Probably somebody who's made out quite well during the period when record labels had total control over music production and distribution, and a tiny fraction of musicians won the 'label lottery'. Now that control (and hence money) is readily available to all musicians and their fans, and that's terrifying to old-school label types and their pet musicians.
Ignore the musician-hating claims being thrown at Mike and others, it's just a desperate attempt to gain the appearance of a moral high ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
As noted above, Rick Rubin directly has admitted this.
You might want to actually learn something before throwing around baseless insults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
You know absolutely nothing about music which is why you're unable to grasp this distinction. But seriously, keep going. Keep digging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
So this AC demonstrates exactly what I predicted. In desiring to be contrary to Mike, he has abandoned logic and reason. In desiring to be contrary to Mike, he says that rock hard evidence that proves him (the AC) wrong doesn't say what it says in plain English.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect
They certainly did, at least as much as Goldieblox "copied" the Beastie Boys. Listen to "Shout" and "Girls" back-to-back: they're a different arrangement of the same song, with different lyrics.
Better yet, listen to a mash-up of the two:
https://soundcloud.com/itshard2bgod/beastie-boys-vs-isley-brothers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
You're musically retarded and a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
Then again, you are straw-manning. Classic sign of fail on the part of one side of a debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
Nope. Just that listening to the mash-up makes it more obvious.
But, of course you knew this. It's telling that the only things you have to offer here are lies and insults. It means that you have neither facts nor convincing arguments on your side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
So now that the producer of the song has proven Mike right and you wrong, as you going to retract your incorrect assertion and apologise for the baseless insults? Or will to keep on digging your deep hole of stupidity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect
" I can remember we wrote the song “Girls” on the train to Washington, D.C. We started with the idea of what the song would be. It was rooted in the Isley Brothers’ “Shout.” What would a rap version of “Shout” sound like? And if you listen to it now, you’ll see it’s really similar." -- Rick Rubin, producer of "Girls"
http://mag.newsweek.com/2013/06/26/rick-rubin-on-crashing-kanye-s-album-in-15-days.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
So AC, we have a quote by THE PRODUCER OF GIRLS that they did indeed copy Isley Brothers. How are you going to come back from that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
BOOM! Headshot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
"That's why I say hey man, nice shot" -Filter
Pretty sure this is Fair Use. Please don't sue me whoever holds the copyright on that song!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect
And you don't understand respect for the public, rights, the law, or culture. An inventor, artist, company, or gatekeeper that tries to exert more authority that they have does so by taking away the authority and rights of others. This is disrespectful and not part of their rights or how they are required to be treated. The law specifically says how an inventor/artist/company/gatekeeper should and must be treated in order for their rights to be respected. Simply meeting those requirements IS being respectful to an artist...
To use your own words against you:
"I'm not sure why you don't understand and I will refrain from speculating."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Lesson To Take Away From This
One .MP4, one .SRT and let the Bastard Boys just TRY to take them from me while I ignore their music completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One Lesson To Take Away From This
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One Lesson To Take Away From This
http://www.mediafire.com/download/puho8auaeaz2dvt/GoldieBlox++Rube+Goldberg%2C+%26+Beastie+Boys +Princess+Machine+Commercial.mp4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flame out
I wish there was a timeout device on this blog.
One that would limit comments after the first three.
1/2 hour delay on #4, one hour on #5, and so on.
Allow Mike to override the delay if there was actually a reasonable discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flame out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flame out
Oh...that was what you wanted. Gotcha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok so the one side has calmed down!!!!
Now to ask for the video to be released onto YouTube , sans the advertising part and let everyone enjoy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given their claim to be a scrappy startup, I had been surprised they had such an expensive and large firm (Orrick) as their counsel in the litigation, and had wondered how the fees would be paid, but now I realize the lawsuit was likely just for more publicity and the legal fees intended to be minimal all along and Goldieblox knew its resolve would break down quickly when faced with large attorneys fees from the aforementioned well funded musical group). I’m not voting for them anymore since I don’t feel very mensch-like while doing so.
And, I should add, Goldieblox dropped the lawsuit and the video the day before Thanksgiving, just about ensuring no adverse publicity since their target audience (families and kids) won't read about while busy with family and kids on Thanksgiving Day. Nice work to the PR team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder what their backup plans were if the video didn't go viral or if there was a bigger backlash from the unauthorized but most likely legal parody of the Beastie Boys song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's somehow OK to tell a woman her place is in the kitchen (in jest?), but it's not OK to tell a woman to take an interest in science and technology because they might have to buy something other than dolls and ponies from stores that actually cater to science and technology toys for girls.
Actions speak louder than words. It does not matter that the Beastie Boys claim that they support the message of empowering women, their actions resulted in that message being silenced forever and *that* is misogyny. They claim that they support women in science and technology, but don't want to be associated in any way with the promotion of educational toys and tools designed to get girls interested in science and technology.
If the wishes of the author of a work mattered in deciding what is fair use, such as a parody, then Weird Al would have pulled "Amish Paradise" when Coolio objected that he hadn't given permission and objected that it made a mockery of his serious song "Gangster's Paradise". Libraries would pull from the shelves books that an author objected to being loaned out for free. A wedding dress designer could have their dresses removed from stores that cater to same-sex couples because they object to gay marriage.
This is why the actions of the Beastie Boys and their fanatics here have infuriated me and made me an ex-fan, and nothing short of having Goldibloxs lost parody restored with a full and proper apology from the Beastie Boys for overstepping their bounds here would ever win me back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Other than that, I agree with what you wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
end meet means, the poor excuse
It is sort of telling that you have felt the need to make a half a dozen posts to try to force your point of view. Volumes of post don't change the reality.
The fair use as a parody is something that, while given a wide range by the courts, is not a free lunch. Fair use does not in any manner hide or cover for the commercial use aspects of this case. This isn't a "similar picture in parody", it's the same song, same, music, with lightly different lyrics.
Moreover, the parody was created only to sell the product. It wasn't a parody done for the sake of art, it was done with the intention to use it's popularity or notoriety to obtain eyeballs and gain promotional value for their products. Without the product, these guys would not have created the song. The intent (which is very important in law) was to gain commercial benefit.
It's pretty clear that the goal was to make a video that would go viral. It's most easy to do that by piggybacking on someone else's success. They could go to court and they could argue fair use, but it's pretty doubtful that any judge would be able to rule in their favor due to the nature and intent of their actions.
What you are suggesting in claiming fair use is that any music used in a commercial, provided you change the words slightly, could be considered a parody and thus, the authors and musicians would lose their rights. That would be a wholesale land grab for fair use, and one that just wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Commercial use (not use in a commercial, but use in a commercial manner) certainly hurts any fair use claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beastie Boys and Goldieblox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video Not Pulled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not fair use
The case was a good one and only ended up being called off due to Cobain's death.
So whether a song is a parody or not is hardly an argument, when it concerns advertising or artist material. The fair use is even less of an issue after DMCA. That law pretty much destroys fair use in favor of publisher IP rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]