Slashdot Mirror
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.
This comics sucks anyways.
Last post!
Be sure to see the Flash Movie, This Land. It's very funny. For example, John Kerry gives George W. Bush a brain.
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.
Well if you are anyone buy an sutpid american you would relaise how dumb this comic really is not one fucking cares.
http://images2.shockwave.com/afassets/flash/this_l and.swf
Again, its not even really about IP rights.
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.
Need we state again that Guthrie himself allowed anyone do do whatever the hell they wanted with his music? It's in the public domain except as seen by some dumbass dubya lover that wants to hide the truth and thinks he can take away your rights in order to hide it.
More political humor: It's tough to be a Republican.
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.
It's political satire - they are not making a parody of the song itself. This use of the song is not protected in courts.
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
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.
Dog for sale: eats anything and is fond of children
More info about this on EFF's site:
p
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001779.ph
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.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
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."
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
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!
Any chance of suing JibJab for fragrant possession of unfunny materials? or something similar
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.
"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.
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.
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'd like to know what Arlo Guthrie, Woody Guthrie's son, would have to say about this case.
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".
I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
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...
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.
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).
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
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.
progrees. In 1192, end, we need you
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.
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).
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.
It is not fair use when you steal an entire song without permission.
Especially when you do it to draw clicks to your corporate website.
These guys are going to get their asses handed to them in court.
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.
Above poster is teh fa990t. Mod accordingly.
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.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
Sorry but humor tends to be an objective thing and I don't think lawyers have any sense of humor =P
"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.
"You can get anything you want at JibJab's Restaurant...."
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.
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
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.
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Repent! You're going to Hell!
Remember what Cheeses told us: "For I am the Brie, the Camembert and the Colby Jack."
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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!
Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
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.
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
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
I hope the EFF takes this opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the copyright law as "amended" by Disney, et. al.
... end of rant ...)
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
Then the mark, 97 lbs soaking wet, hauls out a 20 lb maul and brains the big galoot.
Yeah, that's good.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
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.
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.
Buy Text Processing in Python
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...
"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.
Tune: "This Land Was Made For You And Me"
P ublication date: July 31, 2004, on Slashdot.org
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/.
Slashdot.org is not responsible for the content of this post.
Sources:
John Dowdell's commentary on this issue
Woodie Guthrie Lyrics
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
How ya like dat?
first, flash pollutes our browsers, now our court systems. sigh.
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 .... it didn't say nothin!
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side
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.
Karma, We don't need no stinkin' karma!
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.
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!
In the beginning of the animation is clearly states:
"A PARODY OF WOODY GUTHRIE' "THis Land""
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."
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv
John Kerry is in serious trouble.
WWWD?
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.
Buy Text Processing in Python
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.
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.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
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?
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
At least that's how they sold it.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
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!
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
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