Parody or Satire? Threat To Sue JibJab

The Importance of writes "Internet multimedia producers JibJab have been getting a lot of attention recently for their version of Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" that pokes fun at Bush, Kerry and America in general. Now, JibJab is being threatened with a copyright lawsuit by the rights holders. They've already contacted EFF and there is an ongoing debate about whether the flash animation is protected parody or infringing satire."

Comments

Re:Sold out for a buck

[Archangel Michael]

My namesake? The Archangel? HA. He would lead the armies of heaven against the darkness of the enemy. There are exactly three books of scripture that menition the archangel, Daniel, Jude and Revelation. They all have the Archangel contending against demonic forces in spiritual realm.

I am at a loss as to how this applies to Songs and Parodies. Or even my analogy.

Re:Yeah

[RazzleFrog]

I am registered as a Republican and actually voted for Bush last time (I really hate Gore and his censorship hungry man-wife Tipper) but I can't in good conscience vote for him again. The war is one thing (I believe that eventually Saddam was going to be a threat again, if not his psychopath son) but what really drives me nuts is that he has not just blurred the line between church and state - he has completely obliterated it. With this comes overly stringent decency laws, trampling of gay rights, and the threatening of legalized abortion. As much as I think Kerry is a fake and a typical kennedy-esque bullshit politician I will not waste my vote on any other party and risk Bush winning again.

Re:Did they listen to the original?

[Izago909]

"During his first run for office he billed himself as a compassionate conservative. If the last 4 years have shown anything, it's that his definition of 'compassionate' is seriously flawed."

I hear this claim alot from people, stated in these accusative terms or in general terms.
Never once have I heard someone tell what criteria they have judged his compassion on.

I'm going to focus on one topic. If you read through this thread, other people have raised other good issues and how they demonstrate Bush's lack of compassion on social topics. I just wrote at length on this one, not because it directly affects me, but because it can set a dangerous precedent for government. It has the most substance, best examples, and usually leads to the most volatile conversations. The topic is Bush's attempts at a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

First off, it is without a doubt based on religious pressure. It's almost Marxist to use the supreme law of the land to enforce religious dogma that affects only a small percentage of the population. Forcing the ideals of the majority on the minority solely because of religious inspired (and sometimes mandated) intolernace is about as anti-constitutional as one can be. I think Jon Stewart stated it the best way. He was on Larry King and was asked what his stance of the subject was. "At first I was against it. I love my wife. Then I did some reading on the topic and realized it wasn't mandatory [marrying a man]. Now I'm pretty much for it." There is no legitimate reason why two people who love each other can't go to a courthouse and proclaim their love by announcing their desire to live together for the rest of their lives.

The fact that 50% of American marriages lead to divorce and the popularity of game shows and reality TV that make a mockery of marriage show that there is no way someone can say with a straight face gay marriage defiles a sacred institution. Heterosexual American society beat them to it.

Others argue that it will open the door for other untold perversions like people marrying animals. That completely ignores the fact that animals have neither legal standing nor the ability to sign their name. Besides, using an animal reference as a simile to gay marriage equates to calling a black person a 'coon'. It's ignorant to say the least.

The most used argument is that it will somehow devalue heterosexual marriage. If a gay couple moved in next door, I couldn't imagine how it would make me love my wife any less. This is the one of the same arguments people used to discourage mixed race marriages.

The most important reason everyone should care about this topic is because it is not the governments' role to define or ill-define love. A constitutional amendment for such a topic is an abuse of power and a complete disregard for the separation of church and state. This is much more a religious problem than a social issue. Any attempt to rationalize a ban is so politicians can say that they are not doing it because of religious reasons (which would violate one of our most important amendments). Religion has been used by people to support perverted positions throughout history; like slavery, Jim Crow, and prohibition. Generally speaking, the bible contradicts itself on too many topics to trust it as a source of social law, but that doesn't stop people from trying. Besides, the founding fathers did their best to keep America from becoming a theocracy, and for very good reasons.