Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get in bed with an egomaniac? Pass.
There are now three different Techdirt articles on the fair use story, and I'm sure you've commented in all of them. Your argument won't be strengthened by cluttering up the comments in an article is about bad TOS clauses.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get in bed with an egomaniac? Pass.
"Nope, the ad version is basically using the entire song as a crutch..."
It's pretty obvious you don't have a creative bone in your body, and think that no skill or creativity were used to write an entirely new set of lyrics.
"This isn't "transformative", it is "slightly modified"."
So changing every single word but one, and making a statement in direct opposition to the original lyrics, is just a "slight modification"? I imagine most song writers and lyricists would be highly insulted by your opinion.
I'm curious about what you think of Weird Al Yankovic's works.
"Does that excuse THE REASON they are commenting on the original source material is so they can sell more items / widgets based on evoking an emotional response in an audience?"
You know that's pretty much how all advertising works right? No, you probably don't...
"You're trying to deny intent in this context..."
Nobody has ever denied or tried to hide that this is an advertisement for a product, and it's disingenuous to claim so. But the product being sold has a message of female empowerment, so it's perfectly logical (in fact it's pretty damn obvious) to advertise the product with a song about female empowerment.
"...which is too bad, because it seems like their behavior indicates they are douchebags who are not abiding by the spirit of the law, and will get taken to task for it."
When you say the "spirit of the law", you don't seem to be referring to the original intent of copyright law, i.e. encouraging the creation of new works. Sounds more like the modern approach of obsessive control and financial greed.
"You simply can't admit that their argument is potentially too weak because you've bought into this stance at all costs..."
Given how important fair use is to keeping copyright (somewhat) under control, many people "bought into this stance" a long time ago and rightly believe in arguing strongly in support of it.
"They embraced the overall motif of the song, and absolutely did not pursue a path of artistic parody in the self-referential style that everybody associates with people like Weird Al."
Mike's right, it's very hard to take you seriously when you say stuff like this. It seems you haven't ever listened to either song.
Perhaps you're just blinded (deafened?) by the music. Google the lyrics to both songs and read them. The only line they share is the title, Girls. Every other line is not only different but convey the exact opposite message, which is the whole point of the new song. It's actually more parodic than Weird Al's songs, which usually don't directly relate the original song's subject matter.
How you can argue that this is not transformative without laughing at yourself is beyond me...
"It seems that their mission statement is in support of making money by selling play set materials."
So you're against anybody making money from developing and selling products that they hope will provide a societal benefit. They should just do it for free right?
This position seems so illogical it seems you're simply sticking to it simply as an excuse to attack Mike personally. Your concern for Adam Yauch's personal feelings do not seem in the slightest bit genuine.
"GoldieBlox is pulling a fast one (with Mike taking the bait completely) trying to state that their goal #1 was art, when it's obviously a commercial enterprise for which the original artists would be provided consideration for the potential damage to a well-known reputation of not allowing songs for commercial use."
How can the Beastie Boys reputation be damaged in any way here? Have they given permission? No. Have the offered a license? No. Their position and reputation are completely intact, and they have suffered no losses at all, financial or otherwise. In fact they're probably made more money from the increased interest in their music.
"I would bet that there are elements of both screw the big guy save the little guy and elements of help the "local" company."
You've flipped cause and effect. The juries aren't sympathetic because the company is local (but not really as you say), the company has set up a local office because they know the juries are historically sympathetic to patent holders.
It seems to me there needs to be a proper investigation into why east Texas patent cases are so must more likely to go in favour of the patent holder that it's worth setting up shell offices locally. I don't know what the cause is but the whole thing seems very unjust, as this case demonstrates.
"I, for one, am surprised at how often independent invention happens..."
It's not that surprising when you understand that it's often not the idea that's new but the ability to implement it. As new technologies enables things that were previously impractical or simply couldn't be done, ideas that have been sitting in the back of people's heads maybe for years can be implemented. If the enabling technology becomes available to many people at the same time, chances are that multiple people will give it a go.
"I doubt they sat around and talked about anything in there."
That's not a very good excuse is it? In fact if it's true (and I doubt it) it would seem pretty negligent, and suggest they're relying too much on poor lawyers.
And it's not nitpicking, it's exactly the kind of extra scrutiny you can expect when you do something that's bound to excite the legal beagles.
"So, would a reasonably minded person look at this circumstance and say GoldieBlox was engaging in artful parody for the purposes of which the protection was designed, or were they re-working the lyrics to suit their advertising desires?"
Why do you think it has to be one or the other? It's pretty obvious to a reasonable minded person that they are doing both. The use of that particular song, with lyrics rewritten to flip it's premise completely around, fits in perfectly with the company's aims of selling products that encourage girls' interest in engineering fields.
"Prediction: GoldieBlox rightfully loses."
The Supreme Court recommends you don't bet money on that prediction...
"...I want it to be where those benefiting financially from using someones content should be paying the original creator."
This case has rekindled my interest in the Beastie Boys, and I spend a couple of hours last night watching BB videos on YouTube, which they probably made some money on. You can bet there are many more doing the same. So BB are now receiving more attention, more interest and more money than they would've without GoldieBlox's parody song.
Not everything has to be about forced licences and payments.
I know where you're coming from, but letting companies get away with abuse of copyright law like this is far more harmful to culture than the possibility of a crappy sequel.
On the post: Goldieblox May Be Right About Fair Use, But Wrong About Claiming You Need A License To Link To Its Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get in bed with an egomaniac? Pass.
On the post: Goldieblox May Be Right About Fair Use, But Wrong About Claiming You Need A License To Link To Its Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get in bed with an egomaniac? Pass.
It's pretty obvious you don't have a creative bone in your body, and think that no skill or creativity were used to write an entirely new set of lyrics.
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re:
So changing every single word but one, and making a statement in direct opposition to the original lyrics, is just a "slight modification"? I imagine most song writers and lyricists would be highly insulted by your opinion.
I'm curious about what you think of Weird Al Yankovic's works.
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: Re: Re:
You know that's pretty much how all advertising works right? No, you probably don't...
"You're trying to deny intent in this context..."
Nobody has ever denied or tried to hide that this is an advertisement for a product, and it's disingenuous to claim so. But the product being sold has a message of female empowerment, so it's perfectly logical (in fact it's pretty damn obvious) to advertise the product with a song about female empowerment.
"...which is too bad, because it seems like their behavior indicates they are douchebags who are not abiding by the spirit of the law, and will get taken to task for it."
When you say the "spirit of the law", you don't seem to be referring to the original intent of copyright law, i.e. encouraging the creation of new works. Sounds more like the modern approach of obsessive control and financial greed.
"You simply can't admit that their argument is potentially too weak because you've bought into this stance at all costs..."
Given how important fair use is to keeping copyright (somewhat) under control, many people "bought into this stance" a long time ago and rightly believe in arguing strongly in support of it.
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: Re: Re:
Mike's right, it's very hard to take you seriously when you say stuff like this. It seems you haven't ever listened to either song.
Perhaps you're just blinded (deafened?) by the music. Google the lyrics to both songs and read them. The only line they share is the title, Girls. Every other line is not only different but convey the exact opposite message, which is the whole point of the new song. It's actually more parodic than Weird Al's songs, which usually don't directly relate the original song's subject matter.
How you can argue that this is not transformative without laughing at yourself is beyond me...
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're against anybody making money from developing and selling products that they hope will provide a societal benefit. They should just do it for free right?
This position seems so illogical it seems you're simply sticking to it simply as an excuse to attack Mike personally.
Your concern for Adam Yauch's personal feelings do not seem in the slightest bit genuine.
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How can the Beastie Boys reputation be damaged in any way here? Have they given permission? No. Have the offered a license? No. Their position and reputation are completely intact, and they have suffered no losses at all, financial or otherwise. In fact they're probably made more money from the increased interest in their music.
On the post: Insanity Rules In East Texas: Jury Finds Newegg Infringes On Ridiculous Encryption Patent
Re: Re: The Nuclear Option
On the post: Insanity Rules In East Texas: Jury Finds Newegg Infringes On Ridiculous Encryption Patent
Re: Re: What's with East Texas
You've flipped cause and effect. The juries aren't sympathetic because the company is local (but not really as you say), the company has set up a local office because they know the juries are historically sympathetic to patent holders.
It seems to me there needs to be a proper investigation into why east Texas patent cases are so must more likely to go in favour of the patent holder that it's worth setting up shell offices locally. I don't know what the cause is but the whole thing seems very unjust, as this case demonstrates.
On the post: Insanity Rules In East Texas: Jury Finds Newegg Infringes On Ridiculous Encryption Patent
Re: Independent Invention
It's not that surprising when you understand that it's often not the idea that's new but the ability to implement it. As new technologies enables things that were previously impractical or simply couldn't be done, ideas that have been sitting in the back of people's heads maybe for years can be implemented. If the enabling technology becomes available to many people at the same time, chances are that multiple people will give it a go.
On the post: Goldieblox May Be Right About Fair Use, But Wrong About Claiming You Need A License To Link To Its Site
Re: Re: Re: Get in bed with an egomaniac? Pass.
On the post: Goldieblox May Be Right About Fair Use, But Wrong About Claiming You Need A License To Link To Its Site
Re:
That's not a very good excuse is it? In fact if it's true (and I doubt it) it would seem pretty negligent, and suggest they're relying too much on poor lawyers.
And it's not nitpicking, it's exactly the kind of extra scrutiny you can expect when you do something that's bound to excite the legal beagles.
On the post: Beastie Boys Say They Don't Want Music In Ads, But Fair Use Doesn't Care
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you think it has to be one or the other? It's pretty obvious to a reasonable minded person that they are doing both. The use of that particular song, with lyrics rewritten to flip it's premise completely around, fits in perfectly with the company's aims of selling products that encourage girls' interest in engineering fields.
"Prediction: GoldieBlox rightfully loses."
The Supreme Court recommends you don't bet money on that prediction...
On the post: Beastie Boys Say They Don't Want Music In Ads, But Fair Use Doesn't Care
Re: Re: Re:
This case has rekindled my interest in the Beastie Boys, and I spend a couple of hours last night watching BB videos on YouTube, which they probably made some money on. You can bet there are many more doing the same. So BB are now receiving more attention, more interest and more money than they would've without GoldieBlox's parody song.
Not everything has to be about forced licences and payments.
On the post: Copyright Lobbyists And The $1 Trillion Fallacy
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: It's Not Such A Wonderful Public Domain, As Paramount Plans To Block 'It's A Wonderful Life' Sequel
Re:
On the post: US Working Overtime Behind The Scenes To Kill UN Plan To Protect Online Privacy From Snooping
Re: US working overtime etc...
Right...?
On the post: Copyright Maximalist Talking Points On Leaked TPP Draft
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Microsoft's Intense Lobbying Works: Goodlatte To Drop Plan To Allow For Faster Review Of Bad Software Patents
Re: Re: Re:
Besides, in your example the patent would be working as intended and not itself be newsworthy. The invention would be newsworthy.
On the post: Google Announces More Child Porn Blocking Efforts While David Cameron Offers To Throw The GCHQ At The Problem
Re:
Next >>