JibJab Sues for Fair Use of Right to Parody

An anonymous reader writes "A few days ago, Slashdot mentioned that JibJab was threatened by a copyright lawsuit. Well, it looks like JibJab decided to sue first with the help of the EFF. Lots more info here." (Here's the Bloomberg News article.) Update: 07/31 20:43 GMT by T : Seth Finkelstein has posted the court info on his website.

Comments

Good for them

[raistphrk]

In intellectual property cases, a good offense is probably the best defense. At least this way, if they lose their declarative judgement, they can minimize the amount of damages. But I don't see that being a problem, in this case: the JibJab parody is grounded in the orignal work, not simply capitalizing off it. The criticism in the clip is that this land ISN'T your land AND my land, but just "my land", in that each candidate is saying "I deserve respect and you don't."

But yeah. I think Woody is up in heaven, proud of JibJab for their work.

Re:Good for them

[raistphrk]

If Woody Guthrie isn't in heaven, I'd be worried that God doesn't have a sense of humor.

Re:Good for them

[jeffasselin]

I think the parent was implying that belief in heaven was bullshit, not that belief that Guthrie was in heaven is bullshit.

Re:Good for them

[Jayfar]

And I think 'heaven' is sentimental, hopeful bullshit.

You posted AC just in case there is a god and he reads slashdot?

Re:Good for them

[fcolari]

The real question is, "Is Blaise Pascal in heaven?"

Re:Good for them

[hunterx11]

I don't know, if someone decided to be good solely because of Pascal's Wager, I think a sensible god would send him to Hell. Of course, this assumes that there is a sensible god :)

Re:Good for them

[base3]

I'd like to think that He has unlimited mod points and the ability to resolve MD5'd IP addresses in His head.

Re:Good for them

[h4rm0ny]

We now require a three dimensional matrix:

let us represent it with the three axes x,y,z.

The X axis has two positions: x1{There is a God}, x2{there is not a God}
The Y axis has two positions: y1{You believe in God}, y2{You don't believe in God}
The Z axis has two positions: z1{God is sensible}, z2{God is not sensible}

Of course, we also have to determine whether God is the Christian God, Islamic God, Hindu, etcetera...

Hmmm, I appear to need 22-dimensional graph paper...

Re:Good for them

[Troed]

The Christian and Islamic God are one and the same.

(Which is "God bless America" spoken by Bush and "Allah Akhbar" spoken by bin Laden is so incredibly funny)

Re:Good for them

[h4rm0ny]

The Christian and Islamic God are one and the same.

Ah, only if 'they' exist. Which is to say that they are both the deities of monotheistic religions and that if they exist then they must therefore be one and the same. This applies of course to the Judaic god also.

However, if they do not exist, then we can determine that they are not the same. The reasoning for this is that if they do not exist they must be defined purely in terms of human belief in and attitude towards them. Now although they have the same origins (both being taken from Israelite mythology), they are clearly attributed different qualities by their adherents. As this attribution is all that defines the non-existent $DEITY, they are therefore different.

So it really depends on the existence or lack of, of God.

(Which is "God bless America" spoken by Bush and "Allah Akhbar" spoken by bin Laden is so incredibly funny)

I've never been convinced of Bush as a Christian. He seems to have missed quite a lot of stuff about loving your neighbours, forgiving trespassers and renouncing wealth.

Still, who am I to judge?

Re:See it: It's very funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, dude - this very same link is in the story.
Prepare to be zapped by the almighty Wand of Redundancy.

More political humor:

[Futurepower(R)]

More political humor: It's tough to be a Republican.

Re:More political humor:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's better. This is funny stuff that I haven't seen before :-)

Re:More political humor:

[cynic10508]

Not humor so much as propaganda.

Re:More political humor:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is even better. A great parody site for the Dem's.

Re:More political humor:

[caramelcarrot]

That photoshopping of the front page image gives it right away though (isn't that banner replicated several times on the right?)

Re:More political humor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or see what Fafner, Giblets, and The Medium Sized Lobster have to say about politics.

Re:More political humor:

[Entropius]

Saying "The Emperor has no clothes on!" when nobody else realizes it is (+1, Informative.)

Saying "The Emperor was seen in public with almost no clothes on!" when he was just on the beach in swimming trunks is (-1, Propaganda).

Saying "Hah, what a 'tard! He's standing up there giving a speech, with no clothes on... why does he have a tattoo of a smurf on his chest?" is (+1, Funny).

Grandparent's link is the last.

Re:More political humor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, his link is the second.

Re:More political humor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush attended a meeting with a half brother of Osama bin Laden a day after the bombing on September 11, 2001.

Bombing? There was a bombing too? I don't know how those Republicans covered that up.

Please stop now and leave the childish stupidity to the right wing. I'd like the left to keep being the intellectual wing.

Re:More political humor:

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush family has investments in very large weapons manufacturers. That make a conflict of interest. The violent solution to a problem gives them more profit.

Re:Its not about IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we all know the rights holders are going to be Bush lackeys...

Idiot.

Well

[iamdrscience]

By the letter of the law, Jib Jab's use of the song is probably not parody. That said though, I feel that really, their use of the song should probably be allowed. So hopefully, this will come out favorably for Jib Jab and establish some nice legal precedent. I think that this is probably why the EFF has chosen to take this case in particular.

Another thing though, I feel less inclined to protect the rights of the owner of a song or other work when the owner is not the person who actually wrote the song. In this case, it is not Woody Guthrie's family suing, it's a company.

Re:Well

[Veridium]

Out of curiosity, what letter of the law inclines you to think that their use of the song is not parody? I'm no lawyer, so this is my own opinion, but that song seems very much a parody to me.

From wordnet:
parody: a composition that imitates somebody's style in a humorous way

It clearly fits this definition of the word, but I have no idea how the law defines it.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a parody of the song itself. A parody of the song would be permitted. Instead it is satire on Bush and Kerry using the song as its medium.

Re:Well

[Jim McCoy]

A parody mocks the artist or composer. A satire mocks someone else using the work created by the artist or composer. Parody is protected by fair use (since it is a sort of review or statement about the work in question) while satire is not.

JibJab is probably going to be ruled satire since it does not comment directly on Woody Guthrie or his works, but rather uses his works to make a statement about Kerry and Bush.

The relevant case law here is Dr. Seuss Enterprises vs. Penguin Books (9th circuit)

Re:Well

[iamdrscience]

Lawrence Lessig explains it well (and with examples) on his blog entry about it.

I'll attempt to do an executive summary though. The video will probably not be considered a parody because it does not make fun of the song itself, it just uses the song in its parodying of George Bush and John Kerry.

Re:Well

[nudicle]

The relevant case law here is Dr. Seuss Enterprises vs. Penguin Books (9th circuit)

Interested people can read the decision here.

Re:Well

[pipingguy]

Jim McCoy's evaluation of the situation is undoubtedly correct.

Sorry, this comes viewpoint from a Canadian.

eh

Re:Well

[jrockway]

Who cares anyway? Just put the damn flash file up on Freenet and the problem is solved. The message gets out and there's nobody to sue. Fuck the government's idiotic regulations. This is exactly why we have Freenet.

Re:Well

[Veridium]

Excellent link. Thanks alot. Did you follow to read what Martin and Ernest had to say? I side with Ernest on this.

While jibjab definetly incorporates political satire, the thing that makes it so funny and such genius(IMO) is that it is also making fun of the original song. That is clearly being done in my opinion. They took a song about seeing our country in an unselfish way and made it a song about seeing the country in a selfish way. That it happens to incorporate political satire at the same time, IMO, does not take away from the parody of the original.

But again, I'm not a lawyer. Just my opinion.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

By the letter of the law, Jib Jab's use of the song is probably not parody. That said though, I feel that really, their use of the song should probably be allowed. So hopefully, this will come out favorably for Jib Jab and establish some nice legal precedent.

The U.S. government is split into three branches for a very, very, extremely good reason. I'm not aware of any part of the constitution which protects a person's right to quote the words and melodies of others without consent, and unless they declare the law itself unconstitutional courts have no business ruling in a way which doesn't match the letters written by the legislature. Hoping for judges to ignore the law and use their own feelings as a measure of justice doesn't do us any good at all.

Re:Well

[Ohreally_factor]

I think the argument could be made that Jib Jab is making fun of both the candidates and the song, or at least the common perception of the song (the last few verses are usually left off the song as they aren't the most optimistic).

Satirizing the candidates for president does not rule out that the song is being parodized in a secondary manner.

Lastly, as noted elsewhere, there is some question of whether Guthrie released the song into the public domain and whether the current copyright owners improperly reclaimed it from the public domain.

Re:Well

[Veridium]

I disagree. There is definetly satire involved, but it is also parodying the original song. The message of the original song was one of viewing things in a non-self centered way. Their parody is about viewing it in a very self centered way. Parody and satire are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Well

[Veridium]

When you said this, you reminded me of an earlier version of a parody of that song:
This land is their land,
It isn't our land,
From the Wall Street office
To the Cadillac car-land;
From the plush apartments
To the Hollywood starland,
This land is not for you and me.

If this is our land,
You'd never know it,
So take your bullshit
And kindly stow it,
Let's get together
And overthrow it,
Then this land will be for you and me.

Re:Well

[bishop666]

Political satire in free societies has been protected since Roman times. As to the song being satire and not a parody I tend to disagree. The main purpose is to make fun of the cannidates but a secondary effort is to make fun of a corny song. It would in a sense fall under both. It will in effect be up to a judge. I think there would be more issues if they were selling the video. Weird Al has made a career off similar work. I'm sure he'll be watching closely. I do agree with the other poster that I'd feel a little differently if Woody Guffery, deceased, or his family were offended. My guess is Arlo Guthrie has watch it a few dozen times and is a big fan. Love to see him come out in support.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

An obvious follow up song for JibJab if they lose:

This song is our song.
It is not your song.
You may not use it
to joke at our friends.

This song is our song.
No longer Woody's.
Cuz he is dead and
We bought his body.

Etcetea. This is public domain forever as far as I'm concerned because I too am a socialist.

Re:Well

[FireAtWill]

Perhaps they know that a ruling would go against them. So, rather than quietly killing the work, they go on the offensive to make sure that there's a lawsuit that will be reported on. Using a few lawyers to get a few million click-thrus may not be such a bad deal.

Re:Well

[FlopEJoe]

"A parody mocks the artist or composer. A satire mocks someone else using the work created by the artist or composer."

But... what is Jib-Jab mocking, Guthrie or the canidates? What is Weird Al mocking, Coolio or the amish? Is he mocking American Pie or Star Wars?

"JibJab is probably going to be ruled satire since it does not comment directly on Woody Guthrie or his works"

Is Jib-Jab and Weird Al really different? WAY's American Pie had little to do with the song and mostly mocked Star Wars. At least Jib-Jab points to various states and monuments of the country making it a double mock of the song and the canidates.

Skimming Seuss v. Penguin, I'd agree Jib-Jab will probably lose. I just don't see how the Weird one gets away with it. His lyrics usually mock somewhat generic, non-topical things like surgeons, and eating but American Pie/Star Wars was about a current topic.

Re:Well

[Fancia]

Weird Al gets permission from artists before making his parodies.

Re:Well

[MojoRilla]

Quoting from the case, the Supreme Court said:

For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works. . . . If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger.

I think that JibJab's work, while also satirizing the candidates, also comments on "This Land is Your Land".

Re:Well

[Jeremy Erwin]

I'm not sure that JibJab's case is that weak-- the accompanying video does mock some of the original lyrics.

Guthrie's first verse

This land is your land, this land is my land.
From California to the New York Island
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream Water
This land was made for you and me.

The court in Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. (109 F.3d 1394). used the following reasoning to deterine that The Cat NOT in the Hat! was not parody

These stanzas and the illustrations simply retell the Simpson tale. Although The Cat NOT in the Hat! does broadly mimic Dr. Seuss' characteristic style, it does not hold his style up to ridicule. The stanzas have "no critical bearing on the substance or style of" The Cat in the Hat. Katz and Wrinn merely use the Cat's stove-pipe hat, the narrator ("Dr. Juice), and the title (The Cat NOT in the Hat! ) "to get attention" or maybe even "to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh." Acuff-Rose, 114 S. Ct. at 1172. While Simpson is depicted 13 times in the Cat's distinctively scrunched and somewhat shabby red and white stove-pipe hat, the substance and content of The Cat in the Hat is not conjured up by the focus on the Brown-Goldman murders or the O.J. Simpson trial. Because there is no effort to create a transformative work with "new expression, meaning, or message," the infringing work's commercial use further cuts against the fair use defense.

Despite the fourth ("Private property") and the sixth ("Relief Office") verses, which are less frequently reprinted in "patriotic" songbooks. the popular conception of "This land" is that it promotes national solidarity. Jubjub has penned one set of verses for Bush, and one set for Kerry. The theme of solidarity becomes one of divisiveness.

Nevertheless, this transformation is not quite novel-- Cappy Israel wrote:

This land is your land, but it once was my land
Before we sold you Manhatten Island
You pushed my people to the reservation
This land was stole by you from me.

Nor is Jubjub's cynicism novel.

As I went walking the oil filled coastline
Along the beaches fishes were choking
The smog kept on rolling. the populations growing
This land was made for you and me.
--Country Joe McDonald

In fact, there are a host of verses, written by dozens of folk singers, for a variety of political and artistic purposes. In 1971, Pete Seeger wrote of this phenomenon

The publishers of this song, who have the difficult job of collecting royalties for its use and seeing that it is not misused are probably wincing by now. I am certainly not making their job any easier. Let me say simply that all of the verses printed in this article are copyrighted by the same company that copyrighted the original song. And I suggest that if you make more changed yourself, you should send them into the company so at least they'll have a complete list of all the good new verses. Here's their address...

Re:Well

[blackest_k]

woody guthre didnt write the music for his song he wrote the lyrics, the tune came from an earlier 1930's source.

sure the lyrical content is similar, but being similar isn't copyrightable is it?

for informed comment try the reference below

http://www.ampcast.com/LST-66334-mus-128-5266744 -0 -0-0-DLZTADLGXDLSADLRE/The_Plagiarism_Skit.m3u

Re:Well

[Jeremy Erwin]

The copyright on "This land" says "Words and Music (c) Woody Guthrie (1940), TRO (c) 1956 (renewed), 1958 (renewed) & 1970 Ludlow Music Inc.

By the way, most of the royalties go to a charity, the Committee to Combat Huntington's Disease.

Re:Well

[lucason]

Though I understand your objections, I would like to point out that satire through song is pretty much run of the mill. I don't see Offspring sueing Wierd Al for "Pretty fly (For a Rabbi)" Or any other of the many Wierd Al songs that are not parody according to you affore mentioned defenition. If only parody is protected and satire is not, I guess that in itself is a problem.

Re:Well

[Salgak1]

On the OTHER hand, it is ALSO **political** speech, which gets the highest protection by the courts. Hopefully, that will mean something as well. . . .

Re:Well

[ColaMan]

as mentioned somewhere above - weird al gets permission from the copyright holders before doing a "remake" of the song.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad the charity's about to get schooled and lose a bunch in legal fees.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but if we put it on freenet nobody would see it. Firstly because nobody uses freenet and secondly because even the few that do use freenet can rarely get the pages they want. Freenet is a great idea and a stepping stone on the way to something very cool, but it's not there yet.

Re:Well

[geminidomino]

He only does that as a courtesy though. A very nice guy, he is.

Re:Well

[jrockway]

I like that. What I don't understand is how that's "legal" and not the jibjab parody.

Both "steal" the original song, right?

God I hate the fucking music industry. People try to enjoy themselves and they just have to sue them. It must be hard being a record exec... they probably can't sleep at night knowing that someone somewhere is enjoying the music. *sigh*

Re:Well

[ThisIsFred]

Hmmm. Checking copyright law... Nope... Don't see any only-one-parody-per-item limit.

Re:Well

[Veridium]

they probably can't sleep at night knowing that someone somewhere is enjoying the music. *sigh*

Too funny. I share your frustration.

Re:Well

[BlakeLupa]

This is all a cleaver plan by Fox News, to get JibJab sued. Fox News played the song on nation television knowing someone would sue over it. (This being America and all.) In the mean time fox is preparing its own law suit because if you play the JibJab version backwards it says "Fair and Balanced" coverage.

P.S. Old G.W. has me worried we are going to invade Iran next. I say we pass a constitution amendment forbidding G.W. from invade anymore countries until he can say nuclear. Who's with me?

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as much oil in Iran, unfortunately.

Re:Well

[dave1g]

I would think (hope) that a little more leway would be given since the content of the speech, while funny, is also political. Political speech is one of the most protected forms in the country.

It's not a parody

[Billobob]

It's political satire - they are not making a parody of the song itself. This use of the song is not protected in courts.

Re:It's not a parody

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the Courts decide it is protected because of the POLITICAL nature of the work. That's what the first ammendment is really protecting.

Re:It's not a parody

[Billobob]

So anything of a political nature is protected under the first amendment and is special? Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. There shouldn't be any difference between making a political statement and, say, a statement about how much you hate cheese.

Re:It's not a parody

[Anonymous Coward]

You are permitted to produce satire as a form of political comment, and this is protected by the first ammendment, provided you do it in your own words, or the use of the words of others is sufficient small to be fair use. The wholesale use of copyrighted music as a medium by which the satire is communicated is not protected by the 1st Ammendment.

Re:It's not a parody

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Would you care to quote from the First Amendment the passages that make this distinction?

Re:It's not a parody

[Anonymous Coward]

Read through decisions of the Supreme Court. Political speech > regular speech > commercial speech > pornography > obscenity.

Re:It's not a parody

[cynic10508]

There shouldn't be any difference between making a political statement and, say, a statement about how much you hate cheese.

Damn Colby Jack... I just hate it so much!!

(Editor's note: this is just the obvious joke and not intended to be trolling or flamebaiting.)

Re:It's not a parody

[geekoid]

wierd Al's songs our conmsidered Parody, but he makes fun of the Amish, Food, Star Wars, etc . . .

Re:It's not a parody

[Tassach]

It's political satire - they are not making a parody of the song itself

I don't know what planet you are living on. Parody and satire are not mutually exclusive. You can have satire which is not parody (EG any Dennis Miller routine) and you can have parody which is not satirical (EG any Wierd Al song). Or, as in this case, you can have something which is BOTH an amusing parody of a song AND a satirization of political candidates.

Re:It's not a parody

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

I would be scared to meet the person who considers "Damn Colby Jack... I just hate it so much!!" to be a troll.

Re:It's not a parody

[cynic10508]

I would be scared to meet the person who considers "Damn Colby Jack... I just hate it so much!!" to be a troll.

Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me anymore.

Re:It's not a parody

[AndroidCat]

Heck, the original was pretty darned political. In fact, it was on a blacklist for a long time because Woody Guthrie was *gasp* a leftie! The Canadianized version grew quite popular before the original was allowed much airplay. I think one verse of the original says it best about this nonsense:

As I went walking, I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.

Re:It's not a parody

[zangdesign]

There shouldn't be any difference between making a political statement and, say, a statement about how much you hate cheese.

Not necessarily true. In no country in the world that I am aware of, are dairy farmers going to kick in your door and Abu Ghraib you and your family for saying you don't like cheddar.

On the other hand, repression or restriction of political speech in some form or fashion is a fairly common occurrence, even in this country (the USA).

The idea behind the law is that political speech is far more incendiary than making a statement about cheese preference and thus deserves the higher protection. In an ideal world, a person would be able to state his or her political opinions with no more repercussion than a flaming row, but sadly, this is not the case, even here.

---

If the Wisconsin dairy farmers were suddenly to gain an upper hand on the political system and force everyone to bow to their cheesy will, then you might have an argument.

Re:It's not a parody

[NaugaHunter]

and you can have parody which is not satirical (EG any Wierd Al song).

I would like to point out that Weird Al pretty much does all three. Song's like Eat It and Yoda quite clearly are parodies, since his lyrics are completely unrelated to the originals. Some of his original songs, like Germs and Dare to be Stupid, satirize a particular musical style. However, songs like Achy Breaky Song and Smells Like Nirvana both satirize the very songs they are parodying.

Of course, discussing satire vs. parody in regards to Weird Al would get a good deal more complicated when you bring in his videos. Suddenly you have a video of a parody that satirizes the original song's video. Pretty much ends discussion of Weird Al as a one way artist.

(My favorite Weird Al song that blurs the line is Theme from Rocky XIII. Set to Eye of the Tiger it insinuates that Rocky is retired and running a deli. Brilliant!)

Re:Its not about IP

[ChipMonk]

If it were "all Bush's fault" as you claim, then the FCC would be going after JibJab, not Guthrie's estate. And three men in black suits would be on your doorstep right now.

Good thing for you I don't have any mod points at the moment, or you'd be a Troll immediately.

Re:Its not about IP

[cynic10508]

Its really about dubya trying to hide anything that shows what a dumbass he is. It's repression of free speech under the guise of an IP squabble.

As a Republican, I'm afraid I missed the Right Wing Conspiracy meeting on this one.

These guys were on Leno this week

[chcorey]

The brothers Gregg and Evan Spiridellis appeared on Jay Leno earlier this week talking about their website and how popular it has become over the past months.

I give these guys Kudos for having the balls to try to make a living off of making these online cartoons.

In the interview, they said that they make money off of donations and they joked that they'd just have enough money from this "Your land is my land" cartoon to pay one month's rent and maybe a few meals.

I hope they are allowed to continue what they are doing but unfortunately, i'm not familiar with american copyright laws.

Re:These guys were on Leno this week

[name773]

but unfortunately, i'm not familiar with american copyright laws.

unfortunately??

Re:These guys were on Leno this week

[Entropius]

I'm an American, and I'm not familiar with them either. Any time we think we have them figured out, Congress changes them. "Fifty years! No, no, seventy!"

Re:These guys were on Leno this week

[cynic10508]

I hope they are allowed to continue what they are doing but unfortunately, i'm not familiar with american copyright laws.

Don't worry. You're not alone. Most Americans aren't familiar with copyright laws. There's some good discussion is threads above this on the legal precedents on satire vs. parody. That's what it will most likely come down to.

Re:These guys were on Leno this week

[thogard]

Most Americans are clueless about real copyright law. How ever the law is there for a very specific purpose and most reasonable people understand that modern copyright law has very little to do with advancement of useful arts.

If I was on the a jury for this, I would be telling the others that the parody issue is moot because this song is in the public domain because there is almost no connection between its creator and work.

The copyright isn't even valid.

[laing]

More info about this on EFF's site:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001779.php

Re:The copyright isn't even valid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Link (AC for obvious reasons)

Re:The copyright isn't even valid.

[devilspgd]

Dang. That should pretty much end this lawsuit shouldn't it? Since when can A sue B for violating C's copyright?

Re:The copyright isn't even valid.

[stubear]

When C sells their rights to A (it is legally considered property after all). Any more stupid, yet easy to answer, questions?

Re:The copyright isn't even valid.

[devilspgd]

Did "A" (in this case) buy the rights?

Re:The copyright isn't even valid.

[Tokerat]

Then it would be A's copyright in dispute after all, which makes your answer a stupid answer.

Besides, that didn't happen in this case. Any more Karma whoring/trolling to be done today?

Permission to use already given ?

[dackroyd]

From wikipedia Woody Guthrie has already given his permission.

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."

There is something wrong where the author of a work doesn't give a damn about people using his material but his descendants get to control it for almost a century after his death.

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This song is my song, it is not your song
I got a shotgun, and you don't got one
This song is Private Property

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[gabbarbhai]

To be the devil's advocate, it doesn't say anything about modifying it. That said, I completely support jibjab in this matter. Some people need to grow up. Seriously..

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[kfg]

A good many of Woody's songs were modifications of other songs. It's called "The Folk Process."

Roll on Columbia and Ramblin' Round were both to the tune of Goodnight Irene by Huddie Ledbetter (that's Leadbelly to you and me).

Woody was not a particular fan of the idea of "Intellectual Property" and violated it regularly and without compunction. All he really cared about was some sort of credit for what he himself had written. Folk music is the original "Open Source."

This Land is Your Land he clearly intended by his own words to dedicate to the public domain.

KFG

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[Saeger]

Some people don't want to grow up; they want to grow their bank accounts.

--

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[jc42]

We should probably also note the nice irony that the original version of "This Land is Your Land" was a strongly anti-private-property song, and we now have people trying to block a parody that Woodie Guthrie would have loved by claiming that the song is their own private property.

Of course, several of Woodie's original verses are very rarely heard these days, as people try hard to pervert it into a feel-good patriotic dittie. This is aided by the propensity of most people to learn only the first and sometimes second verses of songs.

Now we will segue into another long thread on the meaning of the term "irony" ...

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[daniel23]

> A good many of Woody's songs were modifications of other songs. It's called "The Folk Process."

Or even "the cultural process" since this is the way human cultural works and develops: taking existing material and repeat it, modify it and adapt it to the current situation while still keeping the basic form.

Making this illegal is absurd.

I think this story may be used as a kind of lackmus test for the current state of IP laws. Given the the known and aften cited intend of the creator, the length of time since it was published and all, I'd say the current state is perverted.

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be the devil's advocate, it doesn't say anything about modifying it.

Unless the original was yodelled, it fucking well does.

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[Hognoxious]

Now we will segue into another long thread on the meaning of the term "irony" ...

I am eternally grateful that you didn't spell 'segue' as in overpriced electric scooter thing.

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[AndroidCat]

but his descendants get to control it for almost a century after his death.

Do these people have anything to do with his descendants (Aldo Guthrie, others?), or did they just manage to gain control of the rights during money problems in Woody Guthrie's lifetime?

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[devilspgd]

The author could have released it into the public domain if he/she wanted to make their intentions clear.

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[Stephen Samuel]

My version of "this land" went from "bona Vista to Vancouver Island, and "From the Arctic Circle to the Great Lake Waters".

When I first heard the Americanized version, I though it was a pale imitation of the Canadian version.

Hopefully these people aren't going to turn around and sue all of Canada next.

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we will segue into another long thread on the meaning of the term "irony" ...

Oh, well if you insist ...

No, that only happens when people misuse the word.

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[base3]

Hey, I screw it up once and nobody forgets :).

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[shadowbearer]

Indeed, and wouldn't it be the Ultimate In Irony if the end result of this whole fracas was that the copyrights held by Richmond Organization were declared null? :) (Is it possible for a court to do so in this case?)

Well put, friend!

SB, a Guthrie fan

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[robertjw]

You didn't post a link to the original lyrics, so here's one

My favorite - in reference to this whole copyright BS is this:

Was a high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property,
But on the back side it didn't say nothing --
[God blessed America for me.]

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[Kenardy]

Maybe we should get in the habit of memorizing the final verses:

"In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me."
Woody Guthrie "This land is your land"

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[gordo3000]

ok, out of ignorance, please inform me how this can happen.

Mr. Guthrie is dead. He has been dead now for something like 37 years. When he was alive he said it would only be protected for 28 years. Now how is it that this stuff can get so out of hand it's life was extended. Actually, 28 years seems kinda long, I would think something like 10 would be more than enough, though I would think that anyone who ever makes any modifications should give credit to the original author, even if the stuff isn't under copyright(but it seems people do, though the only stuff I know of in the public domain anymore is stuff like Beethoven).

when did hte law change and when does this stuff come into the public domain??? I know I could look it up, but you know, I'm sure its long after I'll care anymore.

Re:Permission to use already given ?

[Anonymous Coward]

when did hte law change and when does this stuff come into the public domain??? I know I could look it up, but you know, I'm sure its long after I'll care anymore.

Every 20 years, congress has added 20 years onto the length of copyrights. The latest was titled something like, "The Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act of SomeYearOrOther". (He was dead, don't blame him.) You can also look up Eldred, so see how weak the First Amendment has become.

I figure I'll have to live another 35 years before I can see a copyright expire. Some information revolution.

Annoying!

[aka-ed]

A "registration-required" link.

Posted on Sat, Jul. 31, 2004
JibJab defends use of 'This Land'
Bloomberg News

""This Land" was made for you and me, JibJab Media says in a lawsuit seeking the right to use the Woody Guthrie song This Land Is Your Land in an online parody of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry.

JibJab, which creates cartoons and children's books, wants a court order saying the song's inclusion in an animated video that shows Bush and Kerry slinging insults is a fair use under copyright law. The song's copyright owner, Ludlow Music, has threatened to sue JibJab if the song isn't pulled from its Web site, JibJab claims.

In the two-minute video, Bush's cartoon character declares that his Democratic opponent has "more waffles than a House of Pancakes," and Kerry counters that Bush "is a right-wing nut job." The video has been aired on shows including ABC World News Tonight, The Today Show and Larry King Live.

Kathryn Ostien, director of copyright, licensing and royalties for New York-based Ludlow Music, didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

JibJab, which is run by brothers Gregg and Evan Spiridellis, says in its suit, filed Thursday in San Francisco federal court, that the video is a parody and doesn't infringe on Ludlow Music's copyrights."

Re:Annoying!

[chachob]

Or you can use bugmenot on the site: username: calendar@yahoo.com password: dateme don't ask, i didn't make it :P

Re:Annoying!

[devilspgd]

Sure, until some assmonkey changes the password.

Re:Annoying!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you use mailinator to create them. And if mailinator's banned (yes, some sites do stoop this low), then there are myriad domains whose MX points to mailinator, and *@{domain}.com will go to *@mailinator.com.

~~~

Another case against copyright extension

[iamdrscience]

I think this case is a prime example of how copyright terms have grown out of control. Woody Guthrie wrote the song almost 3/4 of a century ago and has been dead for over 35 years. The fact that this song is still covered by a copyright is absolutely ridiculous. And the kicker is, it's owned by a company that has nothing to do with Woody Guthrie or any of his descendants!

Re:Its not about IP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to say "Rah rah, Bush Sucks," here, but it's not like the Republicans hold some sort of monopoly on bad IP law. Who was president when the DMCA went through? How about the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" that protected artists by giving the Disney Corporation intellectual control over Steamboat Willy until we're all dead and buried?
This is not about politics. Someone wants to settle for half of some web site's T-Shirt sales and make a quick buck, because it's cheaper to hire a lawyer than it is to generate a Woody Guthrie Revivalist Movement.

Re:Its not about IP

[TykeClone]

The Right Wing Conspiracy meetings are on Thursday nights at 7pm

JibJab site comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Any chance of suing JibJab for fragrant possession of unfunny materials? or something similar

Re:JibJab site comment

[ScrewMaster]

Fragrant possession? Are you saying they stink? Or what?

Re:Its not about IP

[srNeu]

The parent post is definately trolling.

I thought the cartoon was funny and equally made light of both candidates.

But the parent is right about one thing: It's not about IP [it's really about money!]

Ummm...

[_defiant_]

I thought political humor was supposed to be funny. Your link is just a rabid attack that although it has a few logical points mostly misrepresents the issues (when it isn't launching on an ad hominem attack that is).

The parent post is only tangentially on topic in the sense that it's about politics. This Land was funny because it poked at both candidates; the parent's link is just spiteful.

Re:Ummm...

[dukeisgod]

Remember the law of double standards. A "rabid attack" on your beliefs is funny as hell to the other guy.

Re:Ummm...

[_defiant_]

Although I'm more centrist than anything else, I understand your point. But I still don't see how the (now) grandparent comment is on topic for this /. discussion.

Re:Ummm...

[cynic10508]

I thought political humor was supposed to be funny. Your link is just a rabid attack that although it has a few logical points mostly misrepresents the issues (when it isn't launching on an ad hominem attack that is).

The parent post is only tangentially on topic in the sense that it's about politics. This Land was funny because it poked at both candidates; the parent's link is just spiteful.

Thank you. I'm glad some other sane people agree with my assessment. Although apparently calling it "propaganda" is inflamatory language...

Re:Ummm...

[Hatta]

I thought political humor was supposed to be funny.

Ever see Mark Russel? Enough said.

Re:Ummm...

[dukeisgod]

Agreed. I should have mod'd it off topic instead of adding my 2 cents regarding it.

Re:Its not about IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I won't make it home in time for WWE Smackdown on UPN. Good thing I can afford a TiVo.

Re:Its not about IP

[cynic10508]

The Right Wing Conspiracy meetings are on Thursday nights at 7pm

Thanks. My Chauvanist White Males mailing with the times and dates must've been misplaced somewhere.

Re:Its not about IP

[general_re]

Its really about dubya trying to hide anything that shows what a dumbass he is.

In other words, it's GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."

Clear enough for me.

The value of a good sense of humor

[Anonymous Coward]

I think one of the most scarry thing in this world is people taking things to serious.
You must be able to make fun of, parody, joke with anything, especially the things that are very well known, like a president, etc.

Religion is one of the things we people should start to take a little LESS serious!

Don't make fun of Emacs, you will get a ^F^a^t^w^a and it will killall -9.

Re:The value of a good sense of humor

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is one of the things we people should start to take a little LESS serious!

Sorry, but no. It's easy to have a good laugh when hearing about someone's invisible friend. The laughter turns hollow when you find out that what you thought were decent people are advocating killing others on the basis of what their invisible friends think about one another. Religion is very very serious.

My mother sees the whole Israel vs Arabs conflict in this light. "Well God promised them that land". It's scary.

Re:The value of a good sense of humor

[Hognoxious]

My mother sees the whole Israel vs Arabs conflict in this light. "Well God promised them that land". It's scary.

Well she's right. Now you could argue that it depends which them you mean. Alternatively, you could argue that it doesn't - he promised it to both of them. Or both of the 'them's. Or something like that.

Re:The value of a good sense of humor

[Hognoxious]

think one of the most scarry thing in this world

Is a picture dictionary?

is people taking things to serious

Quite. Serious is already a very crowded place, though compared to extremes it's relatively spacious.

Re:The value of a good sense of humor

[devilspgd]

It's easy to have a good laugh when hearing about someone's invisible friend

Yes, yes it is.

...what you thought were decent people are advocating killing others...

Perhaps it's more a testimony to your poor ability to judge character -- That doesn't sound like the definition of "decent people" that I use.

on the basis of what their invisible friends think about one another.

That's sociopathy (and possibly schizophrenia if you hear the voices)

Why is it the voices always tell people to kill? Why don't the voices ever tell you to make delicious cookies or to volunteer your time to a good cause?

Religion is very very serious.

All the more reason to laugh. Until religion gets a sense of humour, we're all doomed.

My mother sees the whole Israel vs Arabs conflict in this light. "Well God promised them that land". It's scary

It's people like your mother that make me wonder if freedom of speech is really worth it -- Now if she could produce a notarized record of said promise (or even a contract signed by an arms length witness) that would be different, but unfortunately god never consults legal council when making land deals.

Re:The value of a good sense of humor

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother sees the whole Israel vs Arabs conflict in this light. "Well God promised them that land". It's scary.

Ye-ess... but you can't call all religion bad just because your mother lacks the capacity for critical thought.

I suggest you try quoting her beloved scriptures to her. Something like "The LORD giveth and the LORD taketh away: blessed be the name of the LORD". As in, even if her God does exist and did promise Moses that his descendants would live in Israel, maybe the possibility also exists that at some point in the first millenium AD he changed his mind?

Re:The value of a good sense of humor

[Ohreally_factor]

THE BIBLE ISN'T NOTARIZED?

No, it must be. It says so in the Bible. Accountants 17:25, I believe.

Re:Its not about IP

[spellraiser]

Excuse me, but you forgot to include where the meetings are held.

Let me guess - you could tell me, but then you'd have to kill me, right?

Never mind ...

Review: Definition of Parody & Link song lyric

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as Michael Jackson's Beat It is to Weird Al's Eat It, the music is not changing but the words are. Yes, Al got permission but he was not required to. If you look up the legal definition of what a parody is you'll find: According to law.com parody is "the humorous use of an existing song, play, or writing which changes the words to give farcical and ironic meaning." Given that JibJab's lyrics (Read them for yourself) did not use the song in it's original state, and unless the definition of a parody has changed, Jibjab should be in the clear.

I'm curious

[iamdrscience]

I'd like to know what Arlo Guthrie, Woody Guthrie's son, would have to say about this case.

Re:I'm curious

[dsanfte]

It shouldn't fucking matter what he has to say about it. He didn't write it. He didn't all but put it into the public domain (in writing!). He wasn't the one who lifted it from the Carter folk song.

Decendents contribute nothing, inheritance should be taxed and copyrights should be non-transferrable, and expire on death.

Re:I'm curious

[Ohreally_factor]

No, you're wrong. Perhaps you're right about non-transfer of copyright. I don't know, that's a whole 'nother topic.

But a descendant can provide insight into the intentions and wishes of the creator who has passed.

Re:I'm curious

[jc42]

Well, I'm curious about whether Arlo will chime in with a satirical parody of the song.

This song is our song,
It is not your song.
You did not write it,
and we can sing it.

My daddy wrote it,
He gave it to us all to sing.
This song was made for you and me.

... or something like that ...

Re:I'm curious

[Hognoxious]

Well, I'm curious about whether Arlo will chime in with a satirical parody of the song.

I was wondering if someone will do a cartoon about the lawsuit. And then get sued. Ands then counter-sue. And then someone else does a cartoon about that lawsuit. And they get sued...

Re:I'm curious

[devilspgd]

Copyrights non-transferable? That will pretty much kill off the modern economic world as we know it.

Selling the copyright to your work is essentially what keeps programmers, authors, artists, and anyone involved in any form of creation creativity employed.

I've never grasped why inheritance should be taxed though, can you fill me in on the logic there? Why should I be punished by the gov't for dying?

Re:I'm curious

[dsanfte]

Why should your descendants be rewarded for making zero contributions to society? That's why. Each man should have to work for what he owns, not get it handed to him on a silver platter upon birth.

Re:I'm curious

[Prof. Pi]

I'd like to know what Arlo Guthrie, Woody Guthrie's son, would have to say about this case.

But it would take him 15 minutes to sing it to you.

Re:I'm curious

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I be punished by the gov't for dying?

For people like you, they should actively promote it, 'tardmeister.

Still, at least you didn't bring up the "it's already been taxed once" crap.

Re:I'm curious

[jc42]

Yeah, this could be a real money maker for the lawyers.

Even if the JibJab guys win, I wonder what percent of the settlement will end up in their pockets ...

Re:I'm curious

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting as AC because this is WAY off-topic. Don't want to bother the usual readers with this info. (A bit shocking the parent got modded up, too, given the nearly off-topic nature and the fact that it's more inciteful than insightful.)

Copyrights non-transferable? That will pretty much kill off the modern economic world as we know it.

A bit of an exaggeration there. The modern economy would have to adapt, but it would hardly be killed off. Long-term exclusive licenses could replace copyright transfers pretty easily. There's some subtlety there, but it wouldn't be the end of the world as we know it.

I'm a small business owner and I make reasonable money using my intellectual property without having to transfer my copyrights to anyone else. I am proof it is possible to be a creative soul surviving without transferring copyrights to someone else.

That said, barring copyright transfers is not the right answer to the problem. Reasonable limits on copyrights (and other forms of intellectual property) is the answer. Of course, what is "reasonable" is a topic of endless discussion...

I've never grasped why inheritance should be taxed though, can you fill me in on the logic there?

Because it accepts and deals with the economic reality that money attracts more money. It's a way of redistributing wealth to the goverment. Inheritances past a certain point are actually harmful to the economy, because it measn that a person receives money he or she did not "earn". This means the person inheriting the money has less motivation to contribute to the economy in a meaningful manner. In other words, the tax gives that person more motivation to invest the money into the economy in order to accumulate more money that was "lost" to taxation as well as giving the government more capital to fund important things like police, fire departments, etc.

That's the general theory behind taxing inheritance. It's not a penalty on the person dying so much as a motivator for the person suriving to keep the money active in the economy.

Re:I'm curious

[BCW2]

On that theory you just made paupers that we never heard of out of Bush and Kerry both. Thank you!

Re:I'm curious

[dsanfte]

My pleasure, the two-party system has the USA by the balls anyway.

Re:I'm curious

[Alsee]

Yeah, this could be a real money maker for the lawyers.
Even if the JibJab guys win, I wonder what percent of the settlement will end up in their pockets

First of all their laywers are the EFF.

Secondly if they win they get $0, they are not suing for money. They are suing for a declaratory judgement of non-infringment.

Third I don't think the EFF would accept a settlement at all, they want a court win and they want court precedent. When you've got a sympathetic defendant you use the opportunity to set prescedent and establish people's rights. That's why the EFF didn't push the 2600 DMCA case to the Supreme Court (unsympathetic defendant) and why the RIAA fought like hell to BLOCK courts from hearing the Felton DMCA case (very sympathetic defendant and quite likely to have gotten the DMCA stuck down as unconstitutional).

Fourth, while either or both sides may call a settlement a "victory" you don't actually win in court AND get a settlement. You win or settle or lose.

-

Re:I'm curious

[overunderunderdone]

The jibjab masacree"

Re:I'm curious

[BCW2]

Actually it's the businesses that contribute to both sides, so the winner owes them.

Re:I'm curious

[mitchellsoft]

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. My money is taxed when I make it, rather heavily I might add. If my sons want to dance naked around a fire as they burn what I've left them, then why the hell is it anyone's business? I distributed wealth to the government when I earned the money. An inheritance tax is absolutely a tax on dying.

Re:I'm curious

[jc42]

You apparently didn't even read the message that I was responding to. It wasn't about the EFF; it was about the next lawsuits we'll read about:

I was wondering if someone will do a cartoon about the lawsuit. And then get sued. Ands then counter-sue. And then someone else does a cartoon about that lawsuit. And they get sued...

Not at all unlikely. And one effect of this sort of thing is to put money into the lawyers' pockets.

I'd agree that the EFF are the good guys here.

What I really want to know is when the JibJab guys will put the rest of their oevre online. I saw a few of their other efforts before their server was flooded, and they have a lot of funny stuff. I hope this really helps their reputation and they can profit from it. Of course, for parodists and satirists, this sort of publicity is often the best thing that can happen to them.

A small bit is in fact parody

[dapyx]

The only part that is a parody is the Indian that said "This was my land" and then the symbols of consumerism (ads) arise and they all say "But now it's our land".

Re:A small bit is in fact parody

[devilspgd]

"And Dick Cheney too" is the second most clear case of parody.

The song as a whole though, is opposite the meaning of the original song, and much qualify as parody anyway.

I wonder if this will weaken their case

[Jim McCoy]

One of the claims that can be made regarding a parody or satire is that it is for non-commercial purposes. Having these two guys shilling their site on Leno and talking about how this animation has increased their commercial prospects is not really the sort of statements that a lawyer would advise them to make...

Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case

[chcorey]

Your post brings up an interesting question. Is setting up a site so that people can donate to your cause make it a commerical purpose?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when a presidential candidate is campaigning and receives a donation, nobody considers that as a commercial purpose. But is it any different when it comes to a parody or a satire?

Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because the candidates are running for office (political) and these people are trying to run a business (commercial). It doesn't matter what your business model is (i.e. sun's distribution of Java is commercial even though they don't sell it), if your in it primarily for money, it is commercial.

The grandparent poster was saying that these quotes make it seem less like it was free speech and more like it was paying the rent (since they said it was paying the rent, I think their in trouble on this one).

Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case

[MourningBlade]

It would be commercial if there was an exchange of goods for money. There isn't. They give away the goods for free, some people just happen to donate.

Consider the flowers that the Hari Krishnas used to give people. Many people donated money to their organization, but were they giving the Hari Krishnas money with the expectation of getting a flower?

After all, they already got the flower.

Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case

[Grax]

I wonder if the same strategy will work for prostitution.

Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post brings up an interesting question. Is setting up a site so that people can donate to your cause make it a commerical purpose?
----

IANAL, but yes. They read "commercial" very broadly. If you can get money because of it, it's commercial.

Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if the donation is a ring and most of your paycheck.

Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case

[Alsee]

One of the claims that can be made regarding a parody or satire is that it is for non-commercial purposes.

Yes, it is a claim you can make that claim in some cases, but there is absolutely no requirement of such. While non-commercial certainly weighs in favor of fair use, commercialism certainly does not preclude fair use. The perfect example would be the Pretty Woman case - the parody version of Pretty Woma was absolutely done and sold for profit and still qualified as fair use.

-

Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case

[MourningBlade]

I wonder if the same strategy will work for prostitution.

Funny you should mention it.

There have been several cases where ticket scalpers have circumvented the law by doing things like selling $100 hot chocolate...with tickets to the event included for free.

Gifts back and forth don't usually work because the litmus test is "are you expecting to exchange your work for money in this transaction."

Prostitutes will rarely give away their product for free in the hopes that someone, sometime might donate to keep their services going, or in appreciation.

We usually refer to those as "floozies," not prostitutes.

In the science world, it is common to give an honorarium to a guest speaker. He speaks for free, in the interest of science, but you may choose to express your gratitude in the form of money. Not all places do this, and many scientists don't let the honorarium influence their decision. Tax-wise, I believe the honorarium falls under the "gift" category, but I'm not sure.

Anyways, if you want to have sex with a prostitute legally, just bring along a camera.

Re:I wonder if this will weaken their case

[s.fontinalis]

An astute observer of the current American Political environment would notice that a majority of the transactions are commercial - or at least meant for commercial gain. GM doesn't donate money "because he's a nice guy", they donate money to have the tax code revamped.

Barbie in a Blender Day

[chatooya]

From FreeCulture.org, the student movement for free software, free speech, and free culture, comes: National Barbie in a Blender Day.

It's a celebration of victory in a similar free speech / fair use case that finished recently. Mattel had sued a photographer for taking photographs of Barbie in a blender and other appliances. The ACLU took on his case and he not only won, but Mattel had to pay his $1.8 million in legal fees.

The Barbie in a Blender gallery is pretty great.

I hope they win

[The Tyro]

but it's for purely selfish reasons... I want them to keep making those little cartoons. I've gotten some real gut-busting laughs out of those guys. I watched the latest one over and over... Also, if you can find it, watch the old hip-hop one they did with Bush, Clinton, Gore, etc (I think it was called "Capitol Ill") that one was also an unqualified riot (Sorry... I googled, but couldn't find a link)

It'd be a shame to have those guys muzzled; particularly when they do such nice work (there are a lot of terrible flash cartoons out there).

Re:I hope they win

[phats garage]

Woody Guthry used to include a copyright notice on songbooks he would mail to his fans:

• This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.

  (from www.woodyguthrie.com)

I like to think that he'd approve of jibjabs outstanding version of one of his songs ;-)

Re:I hope they win

[srleffler]

Does anybody know if This Land was ever published with that notice? IANAL, but a smart attorney would probably argue that that notice constitutes a non-exclusive license to use the song.

Re:I hope they win

[sysjkb]

Eugene Volokh, a law professor, has been blogged quite a bit about Jibjab lately. He wrote about the question of whether that implied license protects JibJab here. Surprisingly enough, he suggests that the answer is "no".

To quote in part:

To the best of my knowledge, though -- and I'm not an expert on the old pre-1976-Act rules related to renewals -- any such license would have disappeared with the end of the original 28-year-term of protection. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, copyrights endured only for 28 years, but the author or his heirs could renew them after the end of the original term; the new term would also last for 28 years, though that has been extended several times by Congress to the point that pre-1976 copyrights last for 95 years from publication. And the new term would be a fresh, clean copyright, free of any licenses or transfers that the author originally did as to the original term. (The whole point of the renewal was to give the author of a work that had proven its long-term value a chance to recapture some of the value, even if he sold his rights for cheap when he first wrote it, before the value of the work was clear.)

This Land Is Your Land was written and, I infer, published in 1940; presumably the copyright was renewed in 1968 by Guthrie's heirs (Guthrie died in 1967); and this renewed copyright would, I think, not be governed by any licenses that Guthrie had originally granted (though perhaps if the heirs also republished Guthrie's notation, that might be seen as a new license).

Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey Boulier

Re:I hope they win

[double_plus_ungod]

I think you might appreciate this... Blackfire is a band who did a pretty good version of "Mean Things Happening in This World," written by Woody Guthrie. You can hear an MP3 of it on their website. www.blackfire.net

Re:I hope they win

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice sound! bookmarked.

Re:I hope they win

[osgeek]

But by saying that he doesn't care if people ignore the copyright, isn't that changing the contract that he has with people who use the song. Kind of like the way that the GPL changes copyright by spelling out a different agreement.

If the US Govt changes copyright law again, does that mean that the GPL has to follow suit?

Re:I hope they win

[srleffler]

But by saying that he doesn't care if people ignore the copyright, isn't that changing the contract that he has with people who use the song

No, because if he is correct anyone who understood copyright law at that time would understand that their rights under that "contract" would end when the first 28 year copyright term was up.

Kind of like the way that the GPL changes copyright by spelling out a different agreement.

The GPL does no such thing. It's just a license agreement. The authors of the GPL'ed software have full copyright ownership of it. They are free to issue licenses to anyone they please. The fact that they choose to license full use of the software to anyone who wants it, for no fee, doesn't change the nature of the relationship. The software is copyrighted just like any other copyrighted work. This is actually an important feature of the GPL, because it's hard to hold someone liable for breaking the terms of an open license agreement, since you would have to prove that they had agreed to it to make it hold up in court. However, if someone is using GPL'ed software without having "agreed" to the license, they are in violation of the copyright on that software since they are using it without a license. Someone using GPL'ed software in a way that violates the GPL is automatically either violating a licence that they "agreed" to, or violating the copyright on the work.

At least, that's the theory. I don't think it's ever been fully tested in court.

Re:Its not about IP

[cynic10508]

The parent post is definately trolling.

Here, here.

I thought the cartoon was funny and equally made light of both candidates.

Glad somebody else realized that. It was pretty one-to-one. Although I realized that everything said about Bush has been said in the past four years while the Kerry stuff seems to be fairly new. I guess the only one-sided part is where Howard Dean goes insane on stage.

But the parent is right about one thing: It's not about IP [it's really about money!]

Very true. So is it a vast, right-wing conspiracy plotting to keep quiet opinions about their candidate that've already been voiced for years, or is it greed of an IP-owning company? I think Occam's Razor points to the latter.

Keep it quiet

[Anonymous Coward]

Seth Finkelstein has posted the court info on his website.

Don't let Michael hear about it. We don't want any more censorship stories for Slashdot to cover up.

Re:Keep it quiet

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let Michael hear about it.

Good thinking but we know he doesn't read Slashdot stories anyway.

Re:Keep it quiet

[Anonymous Coward]

Demi demi, mezzo mezzo, and other expressions alng the lines of arf arf.

It's not redundant if you haven't seen it.

[Futurepower(R)]

It's not redundant if you haven't seen it. The Slashdot story makes no reference to the humor. Just because you have seen the movie, don't think that everyone has.

So, here is the link again. Be sure to see the Flash Movie, This Land. It's very funny.

Re:Its not about IP

[Duhavid]

It is *all* about politics, it is just not as partizan as some make out. :-)

Ha.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a Bushite, you should know about "misrepresentation" of the facts; your guy did that to the whole nation to convince them that we needed to go to war with Iraq. And now our country's army is going down the piss-hole because of the guy in charge of our country.

Please, gain some common sense and perspective. What's the natural response to lack of rationality? More irrational discourse. So, if you want it to stop, offer some rational discourse on the subject rather than bashing the opposition by calling names. (and yes, I say this because I read your site).

Re:Ha.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a Bushite, you should know about "misrepresentation" of the facts; your guy did that to the whole nation to convince them that we needed to go to war with Iraq.

You know, before you use that line again, I suggest you read the Prewar Intelligence Assesment or at least the conclusions. That way, if you have intellectual honesty, you'll not waste bandwidth with it ever again.

Now mods, mod both of us into oblivion.

Re:Its not about IP

[Tassach]

As a Republican, I'm afraid I missed the Right Wing Conspiracy meeting on this one

Silly peasant. Just being a registered supporter of the Republican party isn't going to get you invited to the V.R.W.C. meetings. Admission to the REAL Republican party requires at least one (and preferably more) of the following criteria:

1. A net worth well in excess of $100,000,000. Bonus points if got your money from Daddy instead of earning it yourself, and even more if your daddy got it from HIS daddy.
2. Your daddy (and, preferably, his daddy) held held a high political office. Elected office helps, but a high-level appointed position (cabinet-level, head of a major agency, or major embassadorship) is almost as good.
3. Be the CEO or on the Board of Directors of a billion-dollar corporation. Earning that position by personal merit and hard work is marginally acceptable, but not nearly as good as having gotten it through nepotism.
4. Daddy bought you a diploma from an Ivy League school. Any peasant with a brain can EARN one, so that's nothing special. Only the RIGHT kind of people have the money and political connections to actually BUY one. (Note that this generally requires requires a bribe^H^H^H^H^H donation at the name-a-building-after-granddad level)
5. Membership in the Skull and Bones fraternity. Of course, admission to this select group is generally granted based on having met most or all of the preceding criteria.

Sing it to the tune of 'This Land is Your Land'

[The Lurker King]

This song is my song, and it's not your song
I did not write it, but now I own it
You can not sing it, I wont allow it
This song can only be sung by me.

You can not change it, I wont allow it
Unless you pay me a million dollars
My greedy lawyers will sue your ass now
This song can only be sung by me

Too bad Woody Guthrie isn't among the living
His views on copyright were more forgiving
He would allow it and probably sing along
Copyright law protects all parodies.

Re:Its not about IP

[Ohreally_factor]

Ha ha, look who thinks he's a Republican! Well, so long as he votes Republican, let him have his illusions.

Re:Its not about IP

[Ohreally_factor]

I bet you didn't like X-files, either. =P

Hmmmmm, and why would that be? Because of the Republican chip implanted at the base of your spine?

Dunh-dunh-DUNH!!!!

Re:Its not about IP

[Minna Kirai]

it's not like the Republicans hold some sort of monopoly on bad IP law.

True, IP is one of the many positions where the two parties are indistinguishable.

How about the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" that protected artists by giving

Sonny Bono was a Republican. The act was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress.

Not just a parody of Bush and Kerry

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a parody of the election cycle itself, and of america as a whole. If you pay attention to the whole animation this becomes clear (exhibit A, the Native American scene).

This is in the original nature of Guthrie's song (His song was poking at America as it was then, and in many ways, still is...)

BTW parody does not mean that you are making fun of the song itself.

Re:Its not about IP

[Anonymous Coward]

So the same requirements as membership to the real Democratic party. Gotcha.

Faggot

[Anonymous Coward]

Above poster is teh fa990t. Mod accordingly.

Off-topic

[foidulus]

but in the same vein. If I had any artistic talent, I would set up a Alient vs. Predator website, "Election 2004, Bush vs. Kerry, regardless of who wins, we lose"-stolen from the Alien vs. Predator tv commercial.

Because in the past

[rsilvergun]

woman didn't work much, and if the artist died, you wanted to make sure his family had support. ~1 Generation makes since (i.e. give time enough for the wife to die and the kids to grow up). Anything more is excessive, but so what. The current state of c/p law is meant to create a sort of Guild system ala the old European printer's guilds. And it's doing a damn fine job thank you very much.

Not Original lyrics or performance

[myc_holmes]

Funny - I don't remember ol' Woody singing the words "U.N. Pussy" or "Right-wing Nut Job" in any of his performances, nor does it appear to be in the copyrighted text of the lyrics.

So the copyright violation is what, exactly?

This is clearly a parody of a song used in satire.

I hope they can get punitive damages in their preemptive suit.

Re:Not Original lyrics or performance

[Planesdragon]

So the copyright violation is what, exactly?

Use of the musical score.

Weird Al, who either pioneered the "song pardoy" or at least defined it for the modern era, was careful to get permission for the music or lyircs he used for his parodies.

Parody v. Satire

[commodoresloat]

A couple things are important here. First, the Dr. Seuss case is not a Supreme Court case. I think it is possible that any precedent from that case would be overturned at the Supreme Court but that really depends on what arguments the justices want to listen to. Nevertheless, it is the common law now, at least in the 9th.

Second, the federal court made it clear in that case that "parody" and "satire" were not two discrete categories that did not overlap. Someone else quoted the decision itself -- the essence is that it is possible to make fun of the work as well as make fun of something outside the work (in this case, the election). In the jib jab case I think it's obvious the artist is doing both. Also, the very rationale for the distinction -- that the artist must actually have some reason to use this particular work to make his or her point rather than just picking it at random -- is clearly met in the jibjab case. The artist is making a comment about what is said in the lyrics when he or she changes them. I think bloggers have turned this into a more ironclad distinction than the decision merits.

Also, a lot of slashdotters and apparently bloggers seem to think that the reason for the distinction is to protect an artist's right to make fun of another artist's work. It is not. The reason is to protect an artist's right to make a point. Insofar as the work in question is an essential part of that point, it is protected speech.

Look at the 2LiveCrew case (which is Supreme Court precedent) -- the band didn't make a song making fun of Roy Orbison; they made a song making fun of a pretty woman. To make this point it was essential to use the lyrics of the song. Where Orbison had created a certain notion of the pretty woman, the 2livecrew created a different notion, and the contrast between the new song and the old song was very much part of their point. One can easily say the same about this land is your land.

Finally I would add that I think this whole distinction is specious. The First Amendment does not protect your right to make a point in the most effective way possible; it protects your right to make a point. In this particular case the point being made is core political speech, which would give it even more protection. There is a first amendment defense in copyright cases quite apart from the definition of fair use and I think this would be a strong use of one.

Re:Parody v. Satire

[nudicle]

I agree that the issue is more subtle than it's being treated by blogs, but I think your capsule summary of Campbell v. Acuff Rose, stating "the band didn't make a song making fun of Roy Orbison; they made a song making fun of a pretty woman," is an overstatement. Quoting from the Supreme's decision :

For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works. See, e.g., Fisher v. Dees, supra, at 437; MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F.2d 180, 185 (CA2 1981). If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger ... The threshold question when fair use is raised in defense of parody is whether a parodic character may reasonably be perceived. ...

While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew's song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. 2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. The later words can be taken as a comment on the naivete of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement that it signifies. It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a [ CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1994) , ,14] claim to fair use protection as transformative works.

That said, it looks like before the EFF realized that the underlying song was itself a copy, it was relying on a multi-level parody defense like you articulate. I'd really like to quote it here but the EFF's web server seems to be borked. It's either here or easily findable from there, I forget offhand.

A First Amendment defense is compelling. I wouldn't be surprised though if the EFF could win on just the four factors of section 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

But IANAL.

Re:Parody v. Satire

[Coral Snake USA]

I thank another case of importance here, (And in fact one that may have overturned the "Suess Estate v. Penguin Books" case) was the case of an African American Woman who wrote a novel called The Wind Done Gone that was essentially a SATIRE of Marret Mitchel's book Gone With the Wind. This woman's book used the charicters from Gone With the Wind to tell the story of such Gone with the Wind events as slavery, the burning of Atlanta, Sherman's subsequent "march to the sea" and emancipation from the point of the female slave charicter rather than the female slave owner charicter as Mitchel had done. I believe that she won her suit against Margret Mitchel's estate for the right to use Mitchel's charicters in this book which was obviously a SATIRE built around Mitchel's charicters and NOT around Mitchel herself.

Re:Review: Definition of Parody & Link song ly

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but humor tends to be an objective thing and I don't think lawyers have any sense of humor =P

One more issue

[commodoresloat]

The following is a quote from the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case (again, Supreme Court precedent):

"A parody that more loosely targets an original than the parody presented here may still be sufficiently aimed at an original work to come within our analysis of parody. if a parody whose wide dissemination in the market runs the risk of serving as a substitute for the original..., it is more incumbent on one claiming fair use to the original. By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation of the earlier work, the new work's minimal distribution in the market, the extent to which it borrows from the original, or other factors, taking parodic aim at an original is a less critical factor in the analysis, and looser forms of parody may be found to be fair use..."

In other words, the Supreme Court does not at all indicate that just because "parody" is protected, somehow "satire" is not. In the above, the issue is the risk of market substitution -- if people start watching jib jab instead of listening to Guthrie, they might have a case. Frankly, I think this really renders the federal decision in the Seuss case especially problematic.

Bottom line: the purpose of letting copyright holder's sue when others use their works is to protect the copyright holder's right to reap the fruits of their labor. It is not to give the copyright holder veto power over messages they don't like.

Re:One more issue

[shadowbearer]

Mod parent into the stratosphere.

Very well put, especially your final point, which I think is really the reason why this whole snafu started in the first place:

It is not to give the copyright holder veto power over messages they don't like.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think the motive of the Richmond Organization here is pretty clear, and it sure as h*** isn't about copyright enforcement. (It's either that or their lawyers haven't done their homework.)

SB

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can get anything you want at JibJab's Restaurant...."

Re:Its not about IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much, yes. That's why any American with half a brain will be making a protest vote this fall. Let's face it - the major parties are as bad as each other, and therefore our votes are meaningless anyway...

Re:Its not about IP

[CrowScape]

No, any American with half a brain will be voting for the person they think will be best for the country. And they won't just be doing it this fall, they'll be doing it every election.

Declaring third-party votes "protest" votes is almost self-defeating. It has the conotation of being temporary. One group is always going to protesting something each election. That's okay though, as next election that group will come back to the fold while another group takes their place. Votes have to be much deeper than just protests against the current parties in power for them to have real impact.

JibJab Will Lose

[Anonymous Coward]

The trend in copyright law is that the parody must comment in some way on the original. This view is supported by the Supreme Court in Campbell v Acuff-Rose which supports the traditional definition of parody as a literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.

The justification underlying this rule is simple in light of the fundamental tenets of copyright law. Parody was traditionally granted fair use protection because it is highly likely that no author would grant permission or a license to another if the author knew that the work in question was going to be used to ridicule the author's creation. The fair use defense was set up to allow the use of an author's work to effect criticism, parody, ridicule, etc. because this is such an important and fundamental means of protected speech in our society.

Parody that does not poke fun at the original, but rather uses the original work to comment on something else, should not be granted the same protection. The same pressing needs to encroach on the original simply do not weigh in favor of a fair use defense. When the copyrighted song is not at least in prt an object of the parody, there is no real need to conjure it up in the new work.

Parody must do more than merely achieve comic effect but must instead make some critical comment about the original work - otherwise the parodist should be required to obtain persmission from the copyright owner to use the work.

Re:JibJab Will Lose

[rudy_wayne]

Technically, you are absolutely right. Jib Jab isn't parodying the song "This Land is Your Land", they're using the melody from that song to make political commentary that is unrelated to the original song.

However, this only serves to point out a serious flaw in the copyright laws. Litigious bastards with no sense of humor (ie. the family of Woody Guthry) can stop someone from having a little harmless fun.

Re:JibJab Will Lose

[bishop666]

Woody Guthrie's family doesn't own the rights and I have serious doubts that Arlo Guthrie, his son, would object. He is a known polictical activist and would appreciate the humor. Most artists aren't allowed to own their own work. Music corporations own virtually all popular music. Only a tiny handful of top artist have amintained any ownership and most of those formed their own labels. Don't blame a politically liberal family like the Guthries. They are the good guys.

hmmmm

[KMart03]

IMHO if they dont want us downloading movies then maybe they should quit charging 9 dollars to see one and another 7 on concessions. just my .02

Re:Its not about IP

[Tassach]

So the same requirements as membership to the real Democratic party

Nah, the Democrats will take people with a lower net worth, and aren't as biased against people who earned their money/position as opposed to inheriting it. In any case, the Democrats aren't the ones who are really in control of things. Even when the Dems have a majority in Congress and/or have thier puppet in the White house, it's painfully obvious who's REALLY running the show.

Pete Seeger

[VValdo]

Pete Seeger of "The Weavers" (friend to Woodie Guthrie and fellow folk musician) talks about the Folk Process here.

There's another discussion here:

Pete Seeger, at the time, was referring to Woody Guthrie's habit of using the tunes of spirituals as the framework for his own writing, as well as the "folk process" of borrowing and modifying melodies or words as songs got passed from one person to another. (There are certain traditional songs which exist in literally dozens of distinct variations. Pete Seeger himself is notorious for making slight changes to the words of other songwriters; you can often tell when someone has learned a song from a Pete Seeger recording instead of the original songwriter....)

More here.

I also read an interview a few days ago with Pete Seeger in some weekly magazine, and in the article there was an interesting description of how "This Land Is Your Land" was written. Apparently it was written over a few years, and the line "this land was made for you and me" was changed from something else, although I can't remember what the original line was (something less universal). Anyone involved in this lawsuit might want to consult Seeger.

W

This is a side-bit, but I recommend y'all check out this 1955 transcript of an interview/interrogation between Pete Seeger and the House Unamerican Activities Committee.

Re:Pete Seeger

[Jeremy Erwin]

I also read an interview a few days ago with Pete Seeger in some weekly magazine, and in the article there was an interesting description of how "This Land Is Your Land" was written. Apparently it was written over a few years, and the line "this land was made for you and me" was changed from something else, although I can't remember what the original line was (something less universal).


"God blessed America for me".

Re:Pete Seeger

[VValdo]

Wow, thanks!

W

Blessed are the Cheese Eaters

[Ohreally_factor]

Repent! You're going to Hell!

Remember what Cheeses told us: "For I am the Brie, the Camembert and the Colby Jack."

You miss the point

[Yo_mama]

Putting it up on Freenet does NOT solve the problem the same way shooting a malnourished kid doesn't solve starvation. You don't solve the underlying issue.

The point is, we shouldn't *HAVE* to use freenet!

Popular Opinion

[pipingguy]

Anyone that goes after JibJab is going to run into the great big wall of popular opinion from both sides. Their creative work is pretty inoffensive and non-partisan. Anyone attacking them will be pilloried.

whatever

[asscroft]

We used to sing this song with jacked up lyrics back in grade school. The copyright owners can kiss my ass, I'm gonna sing this "illicit version" from now on, until I die, just cause they pissed me off with this lawsuit threat.

This land is my land,
It isn't your land,
I've got a shotgun
And you don't got one.
If you don't get off,
I'll blow your head off.
This land is private proper-teeee.

Or maybe this.

This song is our song,
It isn't your song,
It wasn't intended
to have an owner
I don't care if you own it
That doesn't mean you control it
this song was made for you and me

Hope EFF challenges constitutionality

[swhalen]

I hope the EFF takes this opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the copyright law as "amended" by Disney, et. al.

All the constitution says about what we call copyright and patents is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Seems to me that "limited Times" has been greatly exceeded and thus the current law is unconstitutional because "To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts" has effectively become to "promote the profits of large corporate copyright holders forever", which is certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind.

It also seems the current asymmetry of the law between what constitutes "limited Times" for a patent vs. a copyright make one or the other invalid. Either patents should last 100+ years or copyrights should go back to a term closer to patents (about one human "generation" (roughly 20 years) which seems more like the balance the founding fathers sought to strike between freedom to build on others works, and allowing the author/inventor to make a living and thus encourage people to write and invent).

It would be nice if the courts would quit reading their own precedents for a while and go back and read the straightforward language of the constitution. I don't think any of the judges or lawmakers that have created the current IP mess are in the same league as our founding fathers who worked hard to strike a balance that made sense and worked well for over 150 years. (... sorry ... end of rant ...)

Re:Hope EFF challenges constitutionality

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the Supreme Court already ruled that the latest expansion of copyright periods is constitutional, since the legislation does specify a hard limit.

However, I wonder what would happen if the statutes were challenged not on the unlimited expansion of the time limit, but on the grounds that only "Authors and Inventors", not "Authors and their heirs and assigns" are to be granted exclusive rights.

Re:Hope EFF challenges constitutionality

[rekt]

Sadly, this idea was already presented in Eldred v. Ashcroft, but the Supreme Court seems to have decided that interminable copyright extensions are OK as long as they are done piecemeal.

Your analysis is on target, but you probably don't have the clout that Disney ("We Must Always Own the Mouse!") and the other major publishers have to push their vision of copyright.

Re:Hope EFF challenges constitutionality

[swhalen]

Sadly, this idea was already presented in Eldred v. Ashcroft, but the Supreme Court seems to have decided that interminable copyright extensions are OK as long as they are done piecemeal.

I'm hoping that this might be a better test case than Eldred, but I suspect you're right and the supremes will ignore common sense once again....

Re:Hope EFF challenges constitutionality

[gordo3000]

really, what I wonder is how can someone with no relation to the author hold the copyright. That seems to be a violation of what copyright is about because niether the inventor or author can profit from it now. I think copyrights have gotten so far out of hand, its impossible for an author or inventor to be the only one secured to make money on an invention/writing. I mean if this stuff lasts after you die, I don't think we are limiting this to the author and that just seems ridiculous. I don't think the founding fathers thought things like copyrights would last so long people would actually sell them. I think the founding fathers thought this stuff would run out when the stuff loses a lot of its initial profit potential.

oh well, just my two cents, obviously wrong because our genius lawmakers haven't seen this yet.....

Re:Hope EFF challenges constitutionality

[yeremein]

I agree with you 100%.

Big media companies are always moaning about thieves and freeloaders, when they themselves are guilty of the same thing.

Thieves, because they are stealing our culture from us by bribing Congress to ensure nothing ever again enters the public domain.

Freeloaders, because they are making money off works that were done decades ago by people who have long since been dead.

Copyrighted works should not be passed down from generation to generation like real estate. It's tantamount to a hereditary aristocracy, which is about as un-American idea as you can come up with.

Re:Its not about IP

[Tassach]

any American with half a brain will be voting for the person they think will be best for the country

OK, that accounts for about 5% of the electorate. Most will unthinkingly vote a straight party ticket. The gullible will vote for whoever their church or union endorses. And the shallow will vote for whoever they think is better-looking or who appeals to their pet prejudice.

I'd vote Libertarian if they wern't a pack of slavering nutjobs. I'm not in favor of theocracy, so the "Constitution" party is out. Socialism and big-nanny government aren't my cup of (organic herbal) tea either, so the Greens aren't getting my vote.

Forget picking the one who will be best for the country; I'll vote for the one who stands the best chance of keeping the one who's WORST for the country out of office. Personally I find Kerry only slightly less loathesome the The Shrub. But, since he's the only one running who has a chance of keeping King George out of office, I'm going to vote for him.

The only serious candidate this time around who didn't make my skin crawl was Gen. Wesley Clark. Of course he's too honest and has too much personal integrety to be allowed to be President. I used to think that Powell had integrety, before he sold out to the Skull & Bones junta. McCain still has a (very small) shred of integrety and concience left, and despite some occasional lapses is mostly a strict constructionist. Lieberman, while I don't agree with his politics, has more conviction and ethics than the rest of the Senate put together (which isn't really saying much). Any one of these guys would be a better president then either The Shrub or Kerry. Unfortunately, anyone with honesty, integrity, and a real concience is effectively unelectable as President.

This is what I like to see

[Esion Modnar]

A bruiser with a lantern jaw rolls up on an easy mark in a dark alley. The bruiser makes ominous threats while cracking his knuckles, shifting his meaty shoulders.

Then the mark, 97 lbs soaking wet, hauls out a 20 lb maul and brains the big galoot.

Yeah, that's good.

Re:This is what I like to see

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy was making an analogy to the situation described. You know, somebody threatens to sue you, and you turn around and actually do it! Bam!

Some of you people have absolutely no perception. But I guess that goes well with your lack of grammar and spelling. (Can you even locate Florida on a map?)

Fucking ignorant Wal-mart sales associates aspiring for all those oh-so desirable Dell tech support positions taken by some Apu in India...

Re:Its not about IP

[TummyX]

But, since he's the only one running who has a chance of keeping King George out of office, I'm going to vote for him.


What a stupid statement. If Bush was anything like a king he wouldn't be able to be voted out right?

Damn Websense

[kinema]

I always liked JibJab. Their ficks are a great way to waste some time here working graveyard. Unfortunatly the company I work for recently invested in a highly anoying filtering proxy called Websense. The damn thing filters everything.

Re:Damn Websense

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.megaproxy.com/ is your friend. SSL encrypted proxy that allows you get past that pesky company proxy.

And yes it works perfectly fine with Firefox.

As long as the company's proxy isn't blocking access to Megaproxy's private site, you can surf the 'net without the company knowing what you are surfing.

Private property

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

The Richmond Organization wants to assert its restrictive copyright ownership in a song with the lyrics:

Was a high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property,
But on the back side it didn't say nothing --
[God blessed America for me.]

Woody wrote a lot of variations on the lyrics. But this verse is probably my favorite one.

And they say irony is dead... Or maybe TRO just wants parody to be.

FWIW, I'm quite certain my neighbor (well, part-of-the-world neighbor) Arlo Guthrie would have nothing to do with this copyright tomfoolery. Of course, it's not Woody heirs that own his songs, but some tenth generation corporate buyer of collections of songs from the 1930s.... who cares about the songs as much as traders in pork bellies do about pigs.

Re:Its not about IP

[Tassach]

What a stupid statement. If Bush was anything like a king he wouldn't be able to be voted out right?

Call me cynical, but at this point I think the only reason we're having elections at all is that the polls are close enough that Bush's handlers think they can pull the same shenannigans they did in 2000 to ensure his victory. If the polls start show that he's got a serious chance of losing, I have a strong suspicion that there will be a convienient "terrorist" attack giving him an excuse to postpone the election indefinately.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But I wouldn't put it past the Skull & Bones junta to try for a repeat of 1933 if they thought they could pull it off. The situation, and the personalities involved, are far too similar for any degree of comfort. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Depends on what's parodied

[EmagGeek]

I think they would be safe if they were making a parody of the song itself - but they are using the song to parody something unrelated - so I think they will not have protection under the parody statute...

but then again, IANAL...

Re:Depends on what's parodied

[nsayer]

I believe you are incorrect. The original song is being parodied as well as Bush and Kerry. They are contrasting the song's appeal to national unity with the divisive nature of modern politics.

That we both can seriously claim to have opinions on both sides of this issue is precisely why it's going to have to wind up being decided in Federal court. But I can see that neither side here has a slam-dunk case. If anything, JibJab has a slight edge, in my view, simply because the rightsholder here may not want to have any sort of precedent set if they lose.

Re:Depends on what's parodied

[EmagGeek]

You have a good point. It is a big gray area because what will have to be determined in court is whether people viewing the parody interpret it as a parody of the song or of the election. In any case, it should be interesting.

Or course It makes fun of the song

[Anonymous Coward]

"The video will probably not be considered a parody because it does not make fun of the song itself,"

How can you watch/listen to the video and not see that he's making fun of both political parties as well as making fun of the "this land..." song?

Honestly, I think you're missing half the point of this parody.

Re:Its not about IP

[shadowbearer]

I'd vote Libertarian if they wern't a pack of slavering nutjobs.

Ah, but - remember that Libertarian != libertarian != libertarian(singular) :) Not all of us agree with the "party" - as if the Libertarian "party" were truly representative of all views libertarian; they are just the radical wing, so to speak.

The only serious candidate this time around who didn't make my skin crawl was Gen. Wesley Clark. Of course he's too honest and has too much personal integrety to be allowed to be President. I used to think that Powell had integrety

Agreed about both. Shame about Powell, I used to have a lot of respect for him - nowadays he's mostly a parrot. Given a choice, I'll write-in Clark, and to hell with anyone who thinks that's taking away votes for either Bush or Kerry - I am NOT going to vote for either of them.

Sigh.
SB

"This Song We Sing For You and Me"

[davidwr]

Tune: "This Land Was Made For You And Me"
Tune (c) 1940, Woodie Guthrie
As of 2004, the rights to Guthrie's tune are administered by The Richmond Organization, located in New York, NY.

The following is a parody of the dispute between The Richmond Organization and Evan and Gregg Spiridellis of Jibjab.com surrounding JibJab's 2004 hit "This Land," which parodies the US Presidential Race between Republican candidate George W. Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry and which uses Guthrie's tune "This Land Is Made For You and Me."

"This Song We Sing For You and Me"
Lyrics by David W. Richardson

Chorus:
This song is your song, this song is my song,
From A. P. Carter, to his "Little Darling,"
From the Babtist Hymnal, to the "Lovin' Brother,"
This song we sing for you and me.

A man named Guthrie, he had a vision.
He wrote a folk song, and shared it with us.
He sang a tune that was familiar, thinking
"This song I sing for you and me."
(Chorus)

Two men named Evan and Gregg Spiridellis
Sat down to write a song about Bush and Kerry.
They borrowed music, from Woodie thinking
"This song, he sang for you and me."
(Chorus)

"Stop!" said the Richmond Organization.
They own the rights to Guthrie's music.
Evan and Gregg, they called it humor, saying
"This song, we sing for you and me."
(Chorus)

The two famous brothers, they filed a lawsuit
To preserve our rights to use Guthrie's work.
The judge will say that it is okay, saying
"This song, you sing for you and me."
(Chorus)

But it may happen that they lose and then their song will die....
Since this can happen, I put pen to paper
And write these lyrics, daring them to sue me, for
"This song, I write for you and me."
(Chorus)

These lyrics are copyright (c) 2004 David Richardson (davidwr.geo -at- yahoo.com), posted to Slashdot.org under the Creative Common License Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0, as found on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/.
P ublication date: July 31, 2004, on Slashdot.org
Slashdot.org is not responsible for the content of this post.

Sources:
John Dowdell's commentary on this issue
Woodie Guthrie Lyrics

Re:Its not about IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Wesley Clark... ah yes, he was the guy who got his intelligence information from talk shows and cocktail parties. So, you would vote for the one candidate that would clearly be a step backwards in that area?

Re:Its not about IP

[Coral Snake USA]

Actually I don't think this has a thing to do with Dubya, This clip DOES NOT TAKE SIDES and makes Bush and Kerry look equally idiotic.

Re:Its not about IP

[Tassach]

Ah, but - remember that Libertarian != libertarian != libertarian(singular) :) Not all of us agree with the "party" - as if the Libertarian "party" were truly representative of all views libertarian; they are just the radical wing, so to speak.

I'm well aware of the distinction between the various flavors of libertarian. I consider myself to be, in the strictest sense, libertarian. (My personal definition of "libertarian" being "the philosophy wherein individual liberty is held to be paramount, and the political system wherein conduct which shall be prohibited by the state is that which infringes on the rights of others" )

However, I'm somewhat reluctant to call myself libertarian, lest I be lumped together with the Ayn Rand / John Birch whackadoos. The Libertarian Party is so far out of touch with reality that they've tainted the word "libertarian" and made it useless for all practical purposes. My take on the Libertarian Party is that it has as much in common with real libertarianism as the Constitution Party has in common with real strict constructionism (IE, none at all). [Sorry, ChristTrekker; I've got to call them as I see them]

Shame about Powell, I used to have a lot of respect for him - nowadays he's mostly a parrot. Given a choice, I'll write-in Clark, and to hell with anyone who thinks that's taking away votes for either Bush or Kerry - I am NOT going to vote for either of them.

I may do a write-in for Clark too, depending on what the polls look like on election day. Considering that my home state (Maryland) is basically controlled by the Democratic machine, so it's likely that Kerry will win here by a wide margin. If it looks like a Kerry landslide is emminent, I'll vote for Clark. But, if it looks like it will be close, I'll have to vote for Kerry because I'll be damned before I let Bush take the state.

My impression is that Kerry, flaming dickhead that he is, won't ass-rape the Constitution quite as hard as Shrub will if he stays in power. A Kerry presidency's capacity for evil will be limited because he'll have to spend a lot of his time and effort fighting off continuous attacks and persecution from the Republicans. Assuming there actually is an election, and Kerry wins it, and is allowed to take office, I doubt that they'll even bother waiting for the inauguration before appointing the next special prosecutor. If you thought the Republicans went after Clinton with both barrels, just wait till you see the hell they unleash on Kerry.

No matter who wins the election in November (or whenever it actually happens), we all know who the losers are going to be: the American people and the Constitution. We're fucked either way, but at least Kerry uses lube whereas Shrub wears a sandpaper condom.

Re:Its not about IP

[shadowbearer]

Which is why I made the distinction. I'm libertarian, but I don't consider myself part of the "mainstream" lib party (lol!) - nor any of the offshoots. To me, being libertarian is exercising my right to choose who I vote for, and not following party lines whatsoever, but rather voting based on how I feel about each candidate.

Perhaps I would better describe my leanings as "anti-partisan". I don't really know, and I don't really care. :) Labels are for lemmings. Don't necessarily consider Rand/Birch/etc wackos, either - they have some really strange views, but often some good points. Ashcroft, on the other hand ;)

If I write-in Clark, it won't have anything to do with polls - rather it'll have to do with his conduct in the campaign, and what he says, how he says it, and how much I think he believes in it.

I don't play voting games based on polls or likelihoods. I vote according to who I think could do the job, and my belief wrt to such, and I stick with it, until they prove otherwise. Political and Partisan games are for pussies who don't know what integrity is. (sorry, but that's the way I see it)

Yeah, I know, it's a vanishing demographic :D

I have to agree about the assraping Bush vs. Kerry wrt to constitution etc - but there are other kinds of assraping. WRT to Kerry, it's not so much that he's a dickhead, than it is that he comes across to me as being an incompetent dickhead. Bush and his cronies certainly aren't incompetent - they accomplish things - even if I think their agenda is terrifying, at least they do what they say they are going to. Can't say that I think Kerry understands what commitment is - and can't agree with the neocons, either.

No matter who wins the election in November (or whenever it actually happens), we all know who the losers are going to be: the American people and the Constitution

Yeah, but it's been like that for a long time. They wanted sheep, they produced a lot of compliant sheep. It's unlikely that any of them will live long enough to see the real consequences of their actions. It's the system that's borked; but at this point, it's not likely that anyone living will live long enough to see it fixed. If such is possible.

They wanted sheep, they got sheep. Let's see how long they can support the sheep, and how long it is before Those Who Are Serious do something about it.

There's honestly little difference between what's happening now and the events that destroyed most political systems which let the greedy and the radical idiots run rampant. The main difference now is that there is a much more effective media, which is, basically, adding to the confusion among the sheep.

Not sure that Shrub, Ashcroft and the ilk would agree to using condoms of *any* kind, lol!

Meh. Half the country is catatonic, the other half is busy flaming each other, and meanwhile there's some shards leftover who are just doing what we can to keep things going. It would not surprise me in the least if we experience an insurrection in this country in the next generation. T'would be the end of the US as an effective political entity, yet I'm not sure that such has not already happened.

Thanks for the conversation.

Cheers,
SB

Censorship

[macdaddy357]

Ludlow Music trying to muzzle JibJab is the clearest example in recent memory of copyright as censorship.

Locking up ideas as property, whether works of art or in any other form, is ultimately no different than suppressing them. If JibJab doesn't have the right to keep this video on their servers, then they don't have freedom of speech, and guess what? Neither do we.

The purpose of copyright was to prevent plagarists from passing off other people's work as their own for profit, not to censor similar expressions of ideas. It seems to me that a plagarist trying to pass off other people's works as their own (i.e. Woody Guthrie's) for profit is a perfect description of Ludlow Music.

I propose that those wishing to possess "intellectual property" should keep their thoughts in their head.

flash flood

[TheLittleJetson]

first, flash pollutes our browsers, now our court systems. sigh.

Re:Public property

[Shivantrill]

Actually...

According to the official Arlo Guthrie website arlo.net, the lyric you cite was more like:

As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

Immediately following that verse, they have

In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.

Woody Guthrie was a folk singer, a man for his time. Arlo picked up the call to become a folk singer for his time

Now... 3 generations later, Woody is again a man for our time.

All Americans .... I mean ALL Americans have sung at least the first two verses of that song. It is intended to be for the people. It was written about them and for them.
If anyone "owns" that song, it is the American people. We all own it since it is one of our folk songs which has become part of the fabric of our society and culture.

They sang it at the Democratic Convention for God's sake. Did the DNC pay to have that children's choir sing it?

Woody doesn't care... I doubt Arlo cares...
Copyright laws are unreasonable and out of control. Besides, he signed 'em away over 60 years ago... They need to wake up and get over themselves.

political speech

[cuteintern]

Just like the Dallas Morning News said: "As obvious political satire, it's surely protected free speech."

from USA Today: "It says something, even if it's just that the candidates are one-dimensional and shallow."

As political commentary (however silly and funny) it would be entitled to more protection under the first amendment than something used for commercial purposes.

Re:Its not about IP

[Tassach]

I don't play voting games based on polls or likelihoods. I vote according to who I think could do the job, and my belief wrt to such, and I stick with it, until they prove otherwise. Political and Partisan games are for pussies who don't know what integrity is. (sorry, but that's the way I see it)

Under normal circumstances, I'd be totally in agrement with you. However, I have a deep-seated fear (premonition?) that given another four years with control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate to cement their control, the Straussian neo-con movement (cabal?) will have effectively dismantled the Constitution. I know I'm invoking Godwin's Law here, but it's starting to look like Gleichschaltung 2, the sequel. Like it or not, the rise of the Nazi party is the textbook example of how to turn a Constitutional Republic into a dictatorship. While Shrub probably hasn't read that book (unless there's a comic book version of it), you can be sure that Chaney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the top neo-cons have.

There are just too many parallels for comfort. 9/11 is turning out to have been less of a Pearl Harbor and more of a Reichstag Fire. The USA-PATRIOT act and other legislature passed in the wake of 9/11 directly parallels the Riechstag Fire Decree. While USA-PATRIOT is not quite as blatant, the similarities are frightening: dubious constitutionality, suspension of civil liberties & due process, and the consolidation of executive power in a single charismatic individual. The scapegoating of a minority religious group and the persecution/demonization of homosexuals also directly parallels Nazi political tactics. The way the neo-con leadership uses the Religious Right to shore up it's popular support is eerily reminescent of the way the Nazi heirarchy used the SA (Side note: Right wing Christians should look up what happened to the SA after Hitler no longer needed them). The manipulation of public opinion to start a war of aggression/conquest is another frightening similarity: Austria + Poland = Afghanistan + Iraq. The list goes on.

Anyway, the best way I can see to throw a monkey wrench into the neo-cons plans and keep them from grabbing more power is to put a Democrat in the White House. Of course, Kerry (like Bush and most of his cronies) is a member of Skull and Bones, so voting for him is probably pointless anyway . Come to think of it, Kerry might actually avoid the persecution Clinton endured, becuase he's an insider while Clinton was not.

Permission already given? - It's in the lyrics

[Anonymous Coward]

The original song had many lyrics, most not well known. Woody was not big on personal property, as you can tell in this part of the song:

As I went walking, I saw a sign there
On the sign it said NO TRESPASSING
But on the other side it didn't say nothing
That side was made for you and me!

Uh, it is a parody of the song

[crimoid]

In the beginning of the animation is clearly states:

"A PARODY OF WOODY GUTHRIE' "THis Land""

Re:Its not about IP

[shadowbearer]

They already have.

The dismantlement of the Constitution has been going on for decades. It's only recently that's it become blatant - mostly from a lack of any form of serious opposition (fighting them on their own ground - not even the Republican party members who oppose it seem willing to do so.)

(my personal opinion is that Godwin's "law" has a caveat; if the person posting can relate it realistically to current events, said "law" is null and void. But then I was on usenet long before all that bullshit came to be. ;)

It's not really a dictatorship we're becoming - it's a quasi-empire. The main difference there is how we deal with foreign powers; and the only reason I say "quasi" is because we can't seem to make up our mind just *what* we are doing; which mainly seems to be flailing around with no clear direction. Seems there is little reading of history there - not that it's surprising.

Parallels to Nazi tactics, in a political sense, go all the way back to McCarthy, the UnAmerican tribunals, etc. Power Hunger in all it's forms has always been around. It's ironic to see how it seems to get treated only when it becomes a election issue (this year is the worst I've seen by far.)

Personally I think the best thing that could happen right now would be a Bush reelection, followed by the GAO and SCOTUS getting some judicial balls and slapping his advisors upside the head. Kerry and his cronies are not going to accomplish jackdoodle, even assuming they could figure out how to wield the power they would hold. Not that they would care, anyway - or even realize what the hell is going on.

I'm not going to hold my breath. America has become a chaotic system, in that it doesn't matter what pressures are brought to bear, there is no one influence that can make a difference in how things work here anymore.

Oh, sure, there are initiatives which get implemented - but their real results mostly have little to do with the initial ideals that implemented them.

Meanwhile, as always, everyone on the pointy end has to deal with the results. As is often happens in history, it's the revolt of the pointy end that decides the end results. What scares me is the chaos that can and will result from that, and all these bloody fools who think that they can direct the course of this country right now. Wisdom and intelligence has not been a requirement for election in this country since the founders; if even then. One could put it better by saying that humans who are willing to let themselves be led by others deserve what they get.

It's out of *anyone's* hands at this point - and the greedheads and powerseekers set the stage (of both parties). At this point it's a self-sustaining reaction that nobody - absolutely NOBODY - can control.

Maybe in a couple of generations somebody might figure out how to sort out this mess. Until then, the US is essentially an Empire without portfolio. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was a military coup down the road. It'd be historically classic. But then again, we're breaking new ground here.

Entropy always wins.

I don't want to talk about this anymore tonite. Sorry.

SB

Re:Its not about IP

[Tassach]

Kerry and his cronies are not going to accomplish jackdoodle, even assuming they could figure out how to wield the power they would hold

Which is exactly why I'd prefer to see them in power rather than the Bushmen. Given a choice between efficient evil and incompetant evil, I'll chose incompetant evil. Hopefully, they'll be too busy dealing with infighting, backstabbing, and their own ineffectiveness to really give the public the royal assfucking they'd like to deliver. As Mark Twain once said, "I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat." That about sums it up.

I don't want to talk about this anymore tonite. Sorry.

No prob. Thanks for an interesting conversation.

Woody took the melody from the Carter Family

[crem_d_genes]

From this link:

"Turns out Woody Guthrie lifted the melody of "This Land is Your Land" essentially note-for-note from "When the World's on Fire," a song recorded by country/bluegrass legends, The Carter Family, ten years before Guthrie wrote his classic song. Here's a short snippet (380k mp3) of the song (the song can be found on the box set, The Carter Family: 1927-34). You don't need to be a musicologist to hear what we're talking about.

Now we've got nothing against Woody's borrowing. In fact, it's a part of the "folk process" that Woody himself championed. I can't imagine that The Carter Family minded.

But in the letter threatening copyright litigation over JibJab's animated political parody, "This Land," Ludlow's lawyer goes out of his way to attack JibJab for copying "the entire melody, harmony, rhythm and structure of the [sic] Mr. Guthrie's song."

Er, sorry there Ludlow, but actually, the entire melody, harmony, rhythm, and structure of "This Land is Your Land" doesn't belong to you. And I'd like to think Mr. Guthrie would never have claimed credit for them, if he were still alive to ask."

Re:Its not about IP

[TummyX]

You need to get professional help.


But I wouldn't put it past the Skull & Bones junta to try for a repeat of 1933


Doh, Kerry was part of s&b too,

Most of his are both

[SmallFurryCreature]

Like a surgeon is a parody of like a virgin, in that he makes fun of madonna by doing the grinding on a operation table like she did on the gondala. BUT it is also a satire of the medical proffesion. Not a very hard and biting one but satire nonetheless.

The starwars song make fun of starwars but far less of the original song. of course humor is really hard to classify as it is to depended on taste. You could even question if the most recent starwars song is a parody or satire at all. It seems closer to a tribute. Meaning he just used the original work to create a new work without any attempt at parody or satire.

Re:Its not about IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Even when the Dems have a majority in Congress and/or have thier puppet in the White house, it's painfully obvious who's REALLY running the show.

Yeah, it's those damned Jews running the show.

BT

Re:Its not about IP

[Ohreally_factor]

It was Will Rodgers who said that.

John Kerry is a complete flip flop on Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

John Kerry has completely mislead voters regarding Iraq. Watch the video for proof.

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

John Kerry is in serious trouble.

One Question for Ludlow...

[Anonymous Coward]

WWWD?

Re:Its not about IP

[gCGBD]

I am actually running for office as a third party candidate. I can tell you that there are a scary awful lot of people here in the midwest that honestly don't believe in democracy nor much of the constitution.

The Royalists, Fascists, Right of the Rich to Rule, and theocracy advocates are not a wacko fringe, but bordering on mainstream.

Freedom has been sold out, and belief in the freedoms our country was founded on just doesn't exist any more.

My campaign has gotten me out there talking to people about politics every day, and every day I get more and more discouraged.

Some of the comments I've picked up:

"I think we really only need one party in government. Opposing views and debate are destroying our ability to have an effective government"

"No, I don't think you should be on the ballot because I am loyal to my party."

"Don't you think we have to sacrifice our rights and freedoms in order to catch terrorists?"

"They should ban all religions except and force people to follow the BIBLE. If they don't like it, call it tough love. People who don't interpret the BIBLE our way are simply wrong."

"Better our troops are getting blown up in Iraq than those crazies come over here and blow us up here."

"The rich have earned their wealth, the powerful know what they are doing. We have to trust them when they tell us what is good for us."

"If poor people have lousy school systems it is their own fault. There is nothing stopping them from sending their kids to private schools, or building quality public schools in their neighborhood."

"If people are poor, it is their own fault, they are lazy and stupid. It serves them right."

(on healthcare) "I don't want the government to give me anything. I don't think it should be giving anything to anyone else either - they'll never appreciate it."

"Don't you think that the right to vote should be restricted only to people who have money and education?" [poor people will make stupid choices and try to take our money]

Re:Its not about IP

[shadowbearer]

I see your point, but appearing weak and floundering to the rest of the world isn't going to do this country any favors, either :)

So basically we're pretty well fucked.

Ditto...damn, my head hurts this morning. I know better than to spend 7 straight hours in front of a monitor. :)

Cheers,
SB

Re:Its not about IP

[Tassach]

You need to get professional help.

And you need to read history.

As I said, I REALLY hope I'm wrong about this. But there are too many similarities between current events in the USA and historical events in Germany to not remain vigilient.

While Kerry is indeed a Bonesman, he's not part of the Straussian neo-conservitive faction.

Re:Its not about IP

[TummyX]

So your point is that Bush should be re-elected so that he can continue his war on the new nazism/fascism (radical-islam)?

Sounds like we agree

Re:Public property

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

The lyric with "No Trespassin'" is certainly a variation that Woody sang at times, as have other people. But the version that has the sign saying "Private Property" was also sung by Woody. There's a photostat of that verse in Woody's handwriting floating around the 'net in various places. And the "Private Property" line was the one recorded by Alan Lomax for Folkway Records/Smithsonian Museum.

I personally like the "Private Property" lyric better... it puts Woody's anti-capitalism in clearer relief.

FWIW, the "God made America for me" line was an earlier refrain than "This land was made for you and me"... as far as that goes, I don't like the "God made" thing as much. Folk songs are fluid, and variations are how they evolve.

Another Parody

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember hearing this way back in elementary school (I grew up in Texas):

This land is my land,
It isn't your land.
I have a shotgun
And you don't have one.
If you don't get off,
I'll blow your head off.
This land is private property.

Re:Another Parody

[catscan2000]

Darn; I didn't mean to post as AC. Oh, well..

But Gutherie's license is very, very different!

[DrMorpheus]

He specifically releases it into the public domain!

Once a work has been released into the public domain it cannot be retroactively removed from there, the Bono Copyright Act notwithstanding.

And that is because of one simple Constitutional provision, that no one can be alienated from their property without fair compensation. This applies to the public as well as to individuals and the Bono Act does not provide compensation to the public for works that have been removed from the public domain .

That makes the law unConstitutional, period.

Tell Oprah that

[DrMorpheus]

In no country in the world that I am aware of, are dairy farmers going to kick in your door and Abu Ghraib you and your family for saying you don't like cheddar.

But the Texas Cattle Association will sue your ass and IIRC it is indeed illegal to say bad things about the beef industry in Texas even today.

Had Oprah lose then I'm sure the Texas Rangers would have "Abu Ghraib" her and thrown her into prison.

Scary country we've been living in lately, wouldn't you say?

The Senator from Disney and...

[DrMorpheus]

The Senator from Right-wing Hollywood (funny how nobody remembers THOSE Hollywood "elites") teamed up to keep Micky Mouse from starring in pornos.

At least that's how they sold it.

How 'bout a little creative thinking?

[DrMorpheus]

Copyrights non-transferable? That will pretty much kill off the modern economic world as we know it. Selling the copyright to your work is essentially what keeps programmers, authors, artists, and anyone involved in any form of creation creativity employed.

Authors, artists, etc., could just as easily sell first use rights. Or distribution rights or anything other than exclusive and absolute control over their works like they presently do. And they'd be less likely to be screwed over like so many black musicians were in the 1950s.

I've never grasped why inheritance should be taxed though, can you fill me in on the logic there?

Because, as Thomas Jefferson so wisely put it, the dead have no rights.

Why should I be punished by the gov't for dying?

Why should you care? Geez, your dead brainiac!

Arlo's comments on NPR

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=38104 07

(I tried to create an account so I could log in, but got an error message)

~Wyldflower