Slashdot Mirror
JibJab Wins - 'This Land' is Public Domain
The Importance of writes "JibJab, creators of the hilarious parody of Woody Guthrie's 'This Land is Your Land' featuring Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry, were first threatened with a lawsuit and then, with the help of EFF, went to court first in a pre-emptive strike. Well, EFF discovered that the song has actually been in the public domain since 1973 because it was first published in a songbook [PDF] in 1945 and the copyright was never renewed. The case has now been settled. Here are some addtional links."
Because of this ruling companies are going to have even more fodder to protect their copyrights well into the future. "Look! People are making asses out of our country's leaders! We cannot have this. These men are upstanding citizens that deserve international respect!"
I thought that no matter what parody was protected regardless of copyright? Isn't that how Weird Al operates? Oh wait, I forgot, the government doesn't work for the people. The government is employed by the corporations. I'll go and take my seat in the corner again.
They got lucky.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Patriotic songs shouldn't be copyrighten, thats all there is to it.
If you don't know what we're talking about here, it's definitely worth going to JibJab.com and clicking on the big link to the flash animation on the home page. It's well worth the long download time. It's very funny and equally attacks both candidates.
Is Howard Dean's Scream public domain?
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Lets hope this case serves as inspiration to others to dig up other gems for the public domain.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
With all this crap going on about companies, like SCO and others, claiming rights to something that they don't have rights to, it should be a criminal offense to threaten someone over violation of or otherwise claiming to have a copyright or patent that you don't actually have rights to.
...someone who doesn't have legal rights to do so has threatened legal action as a form of intimidation? Where? [SCO] have I heard [RIAA/MPAA] of this happening before?
I thought that no matter what parody was protected regardless of copyright? Isn't that how Weird Al operates?
Nope, Al's lawyer ask for permission first.
You can't take the sky from me...
Rather than take up the fight and demand a proper day in court, the only manner in which a precedent can be set and thusly followed hereafter, the EFF decides to take the low road and simply settle out of court thus making the whole case moot and completely lacking in historic substance.
Yes, it's a runon sentence, but this kind of pussyfooting around actually challenging usurpations of our freedoms by the EFF has become their calling card. Hop aboard winning cases, make a lot of noise, settle out of court, then call it a victory. Well boys, it ain't a victory unless there is a ruling and so long as you want to keep the courts out of this type of thing these challenges to our rights will continue unabated.
Weird Al always asks for permission from the original artists before doing a parody of their hit. It's not required, but it's the way he operates.
One thing that's being overlooked is the right to perform/record/re-record a song out of a song book it a very cheap thing to aquire. The copyright owner on the song can't say "no", and the price is spelled out in law. That's what "mechanical royalties" are all about.
What happens to people who paid royalties since then. Can they sue to get their fees back, or are they SOL?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
According to his site, Weird Al always gets permission first, though it's characterised as a notification:
"Q. Does Al get permission to do his parodies?
A. Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties."
But what is the SIGnificance?
So when JibJab copyrights the new lyrics, does that mean "This Land" will become Their Song?
(only half-joking)
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
This song is my song, This song is your song, It belongs to me, As much as Guthrie...
Copywrited...is that write? I can't right for shit.
Nope, Al's lawyer ask for permission first.
Coolio denied his request to parody the song and Al did it anyway.
This net is your net. ... ...
This net was made for you and me.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Parodies make fun of the song, satire uses the song to make fun of something else.
Parodies are protected speech, satire is not, that's why there was a lawsuit.
for providing the same link as in the article summary?
Weird Al claimed that there was a miscommunication and that he thought he got permission.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Why in the days of the internet haven't we seen any serious cultural icons emerge from non-commercial distribution of media?
What would the founding fathers really think of mercantile elites playing this big a role in artistic expression?
...if you replaced the word 'hilarious' with the word 'tired.' I'm all for parady, but this one was pedestrian.
"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." -Woody Guthrie
The lawyers do ask, but they don't have to. It's a matter of courtesy more than anything else.
There's at least one instance, "Amish Paradise", where the original artist (Coolio) denied permission and Weird Al went ahead with it anyway. As it turns out, several Amish communities were also horribly offended by the song, but it's against their beliefs to sue him, so they haven't done anything about it.
Weird Al asks permission out of courtesy, not because the law makes him. I remember watching an interview with him about it.
Does anyone here know law well enough to explain how works of satire are regulated? It seems to me like this would be a fairly good example, though I might be wrong... I've heard of other cases, too, where it seems like the work might be protected (Cthulhu tracts, anybody?) but the author was prevented from keeping their work out because of existing copyrights. In other words, are works of satire protected under the law, and if so, what kind of protection is in place, and what is NOT protected?
might be a little off topic but the famous "I have a Dream" speach is copywrited and when ever someones plays the whole message (or if I recall coretcally more then 3 lines) the family demands money for use of it.... not to over critize but don't you think Dr. King would overturn in his grave if he knew this was happening... I just don't see how something as imporant as that can be considred a quick way to earn some $$$, which is why I also don't think anything patrioic should be abled to be copywrited
Loading Please Wait....
AFAIK Al doesn't need permission but would like it.
No, parody of copyrighted material is protected, and parody of politicians is protected. Inappropriate use of copyrighted material to parody politicians is not necessarily protected.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
But he doesn't have to. Al asks first because he doesn't want to piss everybody off, not because he doesn't want to get sued.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Very little of Weird Al's stuff is parody in the legal sense. To be a protected parody, you must "comment on" the original material, not just use it to comment on something else. The only Weird Al songs I'm aware of that would qualify would be "Still Billy Joel To Me", "Smells Like Nirvana", and "Achy-Breaky Song".
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
WTF- this land (the original song) is not a patriotic song. It was a proto-communist anthem. The lyrics are trying to get people to vote in communistic or socialistic changes into the American system. Makes sense when you think that this written during the dustbowl era, and Woody Guthrie was an active communist.
Numbnuts.
click me
Parody is protected because you are
making fun OF THE SONG.
Satire is NOT protected because you are using
someones song for an alternate purpose.
Why should satire not be protected? Imagine you are the author of a song about how much you love linux. Imagine if Microsoft used your song in a commercial that was bashing linux, and just changed a few words. They are not making fun of the song, they are using the song for their own purposes in violation of your copyright.
For everyone saying "the first amendment"...
Copyright is in the constitution.
The reason why "This land" is not protected is
NOT the first amendment but because the copyright
expired...a strong argument for limited copyrights.
The founders had the right idea...14+14. Personally
I would give authors a break 28+28 like it was before 1976.
Parodies are protected speech, satire is not, that's why there was a lawsuit.
Looks like they were making fun of both (using the original lyrics of the song to make a point).
First, congrats to JibJab and the EFF for winning... however, is this really that big a victory? I mean, while it is great that they weren't steamrollered into giving this up or paying money for something that wasnt even copyrighted in the first place, the fact is, it was already in the public domain.
... wait for it...
I think this would be far more telling if they were victorious over the grounds that it is a political parody using a well known tune and lyrics to make a political satire or point, which is 1st ammendment protected as free speech... however, this was simply someone suing because they thought they owned rights to something that they didnt...
Kind of like land owners squabbling about 5 feet of land that each things he/she owns, before they check teh actual surveys to see who really owns that 5 feet of land...
Second point...
wonder how long it will be before Mr. T. sues them for using the words JibJab? Wasn't it Mr. T who was well known for the phrase "I dont wanna hear no jibbajabba!"
Heh... the first time I heard of this site, the very first thing that popped into my mind was Mr. T saying (wait for it...
Here it comes...
yes, its obligatory...)
This land is your land fool!
this land is my land fool!
dont gimme no jibbajabba!
or i'l breaka your face
I pity the fool who gives me tha jive talk, sucker!
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
While I agree with your argument, I should point out that the Jib Jab piece isn't necessarily parody - it's satire. Satire does not enjoy the same degree of protection as parody.
I think it wasn't parodying the "This Land" song, it was satirizing the political campaign. One could probably make a case for the reverse - but what do you think is more likely?
"I think I'll make fun of Dubya and Kerry. This old song could be useful."
-or-
"I think I'll make fun of this old song. Dubya and Kerry could be useful."
Isn't that how Weird Al operates?
No. Parody and wholesale reproduction are different things.
The lyrics and music of a song are, for some odd reason, considered different works (or seperable parts of the same work...). Weird Al doesn't have clear fair-use right to use someone's unaltered music or lyrics, so he always asks permission.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
That was defined in part of the lawsuit...
If JibJab was a parody poking fun AT THE SONG ITSELF, it would be protected. If it is just USING the song to poke fun at the presidential candidates, then it is not. It is a fine line, but the original lawsuit was based on the idea that they were just using the song.
I would have liked to see this go to court, because I think this is a fine line worth defining... As long as it came down under 'fair use for parody'... And I think it would have, because this WAS a parody of the song, as well as the candidates.
Since it turned out it is in the public domain, the decision isn't necessary.
I thought I was the only one who saw his VH-1 shows.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
All of these things should stay civil law.
I forget what 8 was for.
You can still love your country and question it's direction.
Remember, patriotism does not mean you have to wave a flag.
...who thinks the cartoon really isn't that funny, and what's more, really isn't that balanced/unbiased? The *only* jab on Bush is that he's "dumb", which he effectively defuses with his "and yes I do kick ass" - meanwhile, his character gets to deliver negative and generally fallacious talking point after talking about about John Kerry.
Perpetuating the myth that Kerry is a sophisticated northener whereas Bush is an average joe southerner, for example (they're *both* filthy rich northerners, George W. is the only one of his family to somehow pick up that Texan accent).
Delivering the "flip flops" talking point is also pretty damn ludicrous, as Bush is guilty of at least as bad, if not worse. The majority of the accused "flip flops" are minor changes over the course of a 20 year political career - I don't call that a flip flop, I call that legitimately maturing and changing your mind.
Anyway, yeah. I don't think it's that funny, and I don't think it's that balanced. I don't think the lawsuit against it was legitimate, either, but that's neither here nor there at this point I suppose.
This is not only great news for This Land is Your Land lovers, but for lovers of all of Woody's music, because the same case will apply to any other of Woody's songs that Ludlow failed to renew.
Time to do some research people.
I hate to place a fly in the ointment though, especially in public where Ludlow's lawyers might see it, but the Sonny Bono Copyright Act extended copyright retroactively, including onto those titles that had already fallen into the public domain. This has been a real pain to online publishers of public domain works, many of whom have withdrawn certain titles that were clearly in the public domain when they first posted them.
To my knowledge this portion of the act has never actually been tested in court though, and still hasn't since this issue was resolved by the withdrawl of the complaint. They are free to remake it for some decades.
In this case though we still have Woody's own grant of public rights on first publication. I wonder if that didn't influence Ludlow's action, since going to court over the issue would inevitably bring that up. They may wish to avoid a judicial ruling on that score.
KFG
Now we can use it for the
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This song was made for you and me!
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It's because Al is parodying the _song_, while JibJab is using the song to parody something else. Parody is only protected from the thing you're parodying. There's a reasonable argument that the song is also being parodied, of course, but it's not open and shut. Well, it wasn't until they found out there's no valid copyright.
But the Copyright holder has every right to say that they don't want their song to be used in such a way, and since it's not a parody (not making fun of the song itself) it's not protected as free speech.
Jib jab is safe because the same is public domain, but this ruling doesn't protect everyone, so satire authors have to be care not to abuse other peoples copyrights.
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-2186d872b0-e4943 6870c-aa8ad029da
Gmail for the first person to use it. I guess I'll lose karma for this, but I'm not nerdy enough to care.MY SECRET DIARIES
The article does not say the company claiming copyright has conceded that the work is public domain, only that they're not pursuing the case against JibJab. It doesn't sound like they've really conceded much; they just don't want it in the court record that the song is now public domain. They're robably hoping to get a few more bucks out of it.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
1) It's the client (in this case JibJab) that calls the shots, and it is the attorney's duty to apprise the client of settlement offers. If the client wants to settle, there is nothing EFF can do about it. So if you're going to whine and complain, go to Jibjab, not the EFF.
2) There was no precedent to be set in this case. JibJab and the EFF were relying on well established principles of Fair Use, before they discovered that the property in question was in the Public Domain. If the courts had ruled against them and in favor of Ludlow, THAT would have been a precedent and historical, if such a ruling survived the appeals process.
Once again, shame on the mods for seeing this uneducated, uninformed rant as insightful.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
The candidates made asses out of themselves. Jib Jab just set it to music. ;)
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
yeah, no dancing babies, no cultural symbols indeed.
Case in point, Weird Al. He doesn't have to get permission to make a parody of someone's song.
It would've been dismissed either way regardless of whether or not the song was public domain.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
In normal society, yes, you'd be the only one. But this is slashdot.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
If it was purely for financial gain, I suspect he would have issues with it.
I suspect to a larger degree, not hijacking the message of the good Reverend is far more important to them. At some point, I should think the integrity of its use far outweighs the simple financial values.
Cheers
PS - Copywrite describes file-system perms. CopyOnWrite describes a memory policy for shared memory. Copyright describes the Right To Copy. Your friendly neighborhood grammar monkey. =)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Are you positive about that?
Take Al, for instance... most of his parodies aren't making fun of the original song. The parody of Eminem's "Lose Yourself" is not making fun of the song, but talking about a guy being a couch potato.
That is covered, but under the definition you gave, it would be "satire".
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
that's why Saturday Night Live can get away with everything, or how MIT did Star Wars the musical.
the satire thing puts it in question, but there is also weird rules about political figures. as for Woodie Guthrie himself, if he were alive he might be ok with the spirit of the project if not the project itself. he was a pretty rebellious guy.
There was an extra verse to the song that wasn't often sung because it was considered 'controversial.'
While I was walking that ribbon of Highway
I saw a sign that said "no trespassing"
but on the other side, that sign said nothing.
Well, that side was made for you and me.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I'm sorry, where does it say that you're not a patriot if you're left wing?
It IS a patriotic song, it is NOT a capitalist song.
Capitalism is not the same thing as patriotism, McArthy.
You can't take the sky from me...
I believe that the answer is that they will own the rights to their new lyrics, but not the original words and music. Unless they decide to put the new lyrics into the public domain, which would be a cool thing to do, considering.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
H0ek
Think you're smart? Prove you've got brains!
Can you be accused of coordinating with both sides?
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Arlo Guthrie will be very disappointed.
Parodies are protected speech, satire is not, that's why there was a lawsuit.
I don't know where on God's green earth you got that from, but you couldn't be more wrong. Both parody and satire are protected forms of speech. I don't have the cases in front of me, but the New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Hustler v. Fallwell case, et al, bare this out. In fact, when the satire is aimed at a public official, there is a much higher standard that is used in finding whether or not the work was defamatory in nature ("actual malice").
On a side note, there is a unique case coming up through the Texas courts involving something called "Libel by fiction" (ie - "If what i said is fiction, it's can't be a truth I'm asserted, therefore 'wrong'").
For the non-legal types, here is a good CNN article that pretty much somes it up in plain english. Note that the finding of the lower courts in Texas is not the law is the vast majority of jurisdictions, so let's hope that Texas gets this one right at their Supreme Court level.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
The South Korean Olympic(TM) officials; who actually acquired the estate of Woody Guthrie; after reviewing video has called for all the laughs awarded to JibJab to be given back.
Since it is public domain, anybody have a free interpretation of the song we are legally allowed to download? In mp3 or ogg format? :)
If the copyright holder doesn't licence it (as happens quite often in the world of traditional music), you have to go to the holder and ask for permission. That permission does not have to be granted.
[FUCK BETA]
Too late! Bwahahahaaaaa!
Achtung! Alles Lookenspeepers!
Das Record oder Film ist nicht fuer CopyPasten oder DownloadFileSharePiratDuplizieren. Ist easy schnappen der Monopoly, blowenfusen der Oligopolisten und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Mussen Protectieren das ScroogeMcDuck-Geldgewinn und das Monopoly. Uber Alles!
Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das Generalpublikum. Das Piratbenutzer keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das Blinkenlichten.
Gruss Gott, die RIMPAAaaargh
Why does it have to be either/or?
Does the fact that it satirizes the 2004 election somehow exclude it from parodying the original song?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I'm sure someone has gone through and counted the jibs to jabs ratios, but if all you saw was them praising Bush, rewatch it. and I don't think the "I do kick ass" is meant as praise, I think most Americans that are anti-war wish we had a president that did NOT kick ass.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
True. This was a fluke--he tries to respect the wishes of the original artist, which is why he has never parodied any song by Prince.
"American icon" my *ss. Guthrie was a socialist, and an organizer, and would have been writing anti-Bush songs and new verses for his old ones.
... .... it didn't say nothin!
"Damage the song"? Uh, how many know *all* the verses? Let the "rights owners" eat *THESE* verses:
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side
Now that side was made for you and me!
Chorus
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.
Cho.
mark the red
and had been told as much by his record label. He did not receive a denial and go "ahead with it anyway". Read this and get your facts straight before sounding off.
In fact, I'll make it easy for you; here is the relevant excerpt from the FAQ:
What about Coolio? I heard that he was upset with Al about "Amish Paradise."
That was a very unfortunate case of misunderstanding between Al's people and Coolio's people. Short version of the story: Al recorded "Amish Paradise" after being told by his record label that Coolio had given his permission for the parody. When Al's album came out, Coolio publicly contended that he had never given his blessing, and that he was in fact very offended by the song. To this day we're not exactly sure who got their facts wrong, but Al sincerely apologizes to Coolio for the misunderstanding.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Look, I dislike communism as much as any other guy, but I can't follow you when you infer that a communist can't be a patriot.
Honest, IMHO communists are mistaken and communism has brought more wrong than good to the world. Yet one cannot deny that communists have shown themselves to be fierce patriots throughout history. During WWII, communists have formed the backbones of many resistance groups in most occupied countries (Poland, Russia, Yugoslavia, France...)
My belief is that when the country is really in danger, all patriots are welcome, whatever their religion, skin color or political affiliation. Before that time, there's no way to know who really is a patriot.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
And I don't deny that. But my psychology or perceptual biases aside, I'd say everything I said was true: the only jab at Bush was his stupidity, whereas the jabs at Kerry parroted multiple talking points.
The "I do kick ass" is not necessarily good or bad, and yes anti-war folks will dislike it. But the point is that it's consistent and it refutes some of the criticism Bush receives. If nothing else, he's decisive, and that's what he's running on these days.
Anyway, don't try to psychoanalyze me here over this. I fully acknowledge that nobody can be unbiased. But still, substantively respond to my assertion, as it stands apart from any twisted psychology I have. My point is that there is only one critique of Bush, and it's a very played and fangless critique at this point (e.g. his stupidity), whereas there were many critiques of Kerry, most of them talking points and definitely effective and important ones.
Regardless of the truth or falseness of the accusations on Kerry, my point is that there were more criticisms of Kerry than there were of Bush. Why didn't we hear about Bush flip-flopping? Why didn't we hear about Bush going to war illy prepared?
Hrmmm, maybe it's because the criticisms of Kerry can be talked about humorously (if I may deign to say so, because they are largely manufactured), but the criticisms of Bush are grave and don't exactly fit in that well with a humorous song.
The song itself is all about the value of the country and how it should be shared by all of us.
The version that I (and most of the people that I know) learned in school goes:
That is the version as it was first recorded at guthrie's last commercial session. Interestingly enough there is a missing verse that shows up in a few rare recordings that appear in the Library of Congress. It states:
This shows up in a recording that Woodie made that is now part of the Smithsonian Folkways recordings (see here and Here).
I can't think of a more appropriate response to this than that.
You can see more info:
IMHO whoever claims to "own" this is as sick as the people who claim to "own" the image of Martin Luther King as property. See the commentrary at the internet archive: here.
I'm waiting to see if this comment gets modded "Insightful" or "Funny"...
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
Weird Al always got permission. In a couple of cases the victims weren't happy after the fact, but it didn't matter since he got permission before hand.
Chris Mesterharm
So the wayback machine won't get /dotted.
... " the voice said. I glanced up, and saw Martin Luther King Jr. delivering his most famous speech, given at the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington.
... you must first connect."
The promised land goes condo
March 30, 2001
BY ROGER EBERT
The voice from the television set was measured and familiar, the cadence one that has been engraved on my memory.
"I have a dream
It was a camera angle I hadn't seen before. And, oddly, he wasn't flanked by other civil rights leaders, but was standing all by himself. As his words continued, the camera's point of view circled to look out over his head and down the Mall, which was completely empty.
CGI, I thought. Computer-generated imagery. Then the tag line came on. It was a commercial for Alcatel, a company involved in communications networks and cell phones. An Alcatel newspaper ad with the same image spells out the message: "Before you can inspire
Via Alcatel, of course.
I was filled with anger and sadness.
Not this speech, I thought. Not this moment in American history.
Ads have exploited almost every image worth quoting in our society. United Airlines has made it impossible for anyone to ever again hear Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" without thinking about airplanes. Fred Astaire, the most graceful dancer in movie history, was seen dancing with a Dust-Buster. Such ads are pathetic, yes, but I suppose the copyright owners have a legal right to license them, and if their estates have no regard for the reputation of Gershwin or Astaire, well, that's greed for you.
But surely there are a few moments too sacred, too special, to be bought and sold. I would have thought Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was one of them.
It shines like a beacon in our history. It belongs to all of us. It does not belong to Alcatel, which should not have the temerity and insensitivity to use it in an ad. And in a way, it doesn't belong to the King estate, either. The estate should consider itself the protector of this speech, not its retailer.
Perhaps, I thought, the speech was somehow in the public domain, and Alcatel had ripped it off to sell its networks and cell phones. I called the Martin Luther King Center in Atlanta and spoke with Robert Vickers, its public relations spokesman.
"I am afraid you will have to fax me your questions in writing," he said.
"I have only one question," I said. "Did the King Center license the Alcatel TV commercial?"
"Yes," he said. "It was licensed by the King estate's Intellectual Properties Management."
"Have you had a lot of calls about the ad?" I asked.
"Yes," he said, "comments both ways."
I started to ask how much the speech sold for, but he told me about the fax again. I didn't much feel like sending the fax. I knew the price.
Thirty pieces of silver.
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
The BPI (British Phonographic Industry) are currently lobying to increase the length of music copyright in europe from 50 years to 75 years.
According to the BBC.....
"A campaign is under way to protect music copyrights due to expire on 50-year-old records by Elvis Presley and other rock legends.
The UK music industry has begun the fight over a legal loophole on royalty payments.
Starting on 1 January 2005, copies of songs can be issued in Europe 50 years after their release without the need for payments to copyright owners.
It could affect records by Chuck Berry, James Brown - and by 2013, The Beatles.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) is spearheading the campaign.
Landmark rock 'n' roll recordings such as Presley's That's All Right and Shake, Rattle and Roll by Bill Haley and his Comets come out of copyright in Europe in January.
Prized catalogue
Over the next few years major hits by acts such as Little Richard, Johnny Cash, Bo Diddley and Fats Domino will also come into the public domain.
The Beatles' catalogue would begin to become freely available from 1 January 2013, with their first single Love Me Do. The band's entire repertoire - the most prized catalogue in rock music - would follow over the next eight years.
Recordings by other key British acts such as Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Tommy Steele and Lonnie Donegan are also at the centre of the campaign.
The Beatles
The Beatles' first single comes into the public domain in 2013
Once out of copyright, the BPI fears such potentially lucrative recordings could be exploited without recompense to the performers or the copyright holders.
Unlike Europe, copyright protection exists in the US for 95 years after the recording was made. Australia and Brazil have 70-year terms, and India 60 years. Composers and writers also enjoy 70 years' protection.
Peter Jamieson, the BPI's executive chairman, said less favourable copyright terms could put the UK's record industry at a commercial disadvantage to the US.
He said it was unfair to performers and investors to fail to get a return for a "free-for-all" in Europe - often within the artist's lifetime.
Record labels argue that their ability to invest in new talent often depends on money generated by their back catalogue.
The BPI is leading about 20 recording bodies including the Association of Independent Music (Aim) in lobbying the government over its concerns."
According to me....
Love, Love me do, there's a hole in me shoe, and you ain't nothing but a hound dog, just a crying all the time.
A large number of musical recordings from such people as The Beatles and Elvis Presley have become part of the National, European and World Wide culture. Most everybody in the west knows the songs, young musicians practice them with desires of making it great, and you can hear people singing the songs in pubs, bars, restaurants and homes on any night, up and down the country.
Despite all this I could still be breaking copyright if I had extended my opening sentence. It has come to something when a piece of material more than 50 years old, that everyone can knows and can probably do a simple reproduction of, either by whistling, humming, strumming or singing, can be owned, not by the original artist, but by the music distribution companies.
Don't act like a small child in the playground. Let the music go, let it be free, give it to the people, let them feel the music.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Vote Quimby.
People on radio play it like it is [in the public domain].
As I understand it, people on radio can play just about anything they want without fear of infringing copyright. Playing a recording on FCC-licensed radio is outside the scope of copyright; playing the song that underlies the recording infringes, but U.S. radio stations buy licenses from BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP, the three major performance rights organizations.
I hope that this is a lesson to companies who let themselves be run by their legal departments. Just like you don't let your engineers run your company, it doesn't make sense to let your lawyers run your company. Sadly, while many companies have learned the first lesson, too few have learned the second.
Here is what they can learn from this case: Go to court for a tiny piece and you can wind up losing the whole enchilada.
Oddly enough, most Amish love that song (my GF grew up in an Amish community). They may have theo-political beliefs straight out of the 16th century, engage in the complete subjugation of women and (in the case of the Old Order Amish youth thanks to rumspringa) a startlingly significant contribution to societal meth abuse, but give them points for having some humor.
Parody is protected. However, this is the same thing that happened with Penny Arcade and American Greetings, Inc. (or whoever) a while ago. Penny Arcade parodied the likeness of some character to satirize Todd McFarlane (I think). So it wasn't a parody of said character, but a satire of Todd McFarlane.
Likewise, JibJab used "This Land is Our Land" to satirize President Bush and Senator Kerry. If they had wrote a song that was merely a parody of "This Land is Our Land" then they would have been fine and it would have been protected. However, they used the song for other purposes, not covered under the provisions that protect parody.
Fortunately, the song was in the public domain and hence the restrictions didn't apply.
The battle over this song is just part of the larger war to maintain our Fair Use rights. The outcome of this war, with battlegrounds ranging from JibJab to MP3.com, Linux to Microsoft, could well define the future progress, or lack thereof, of democracy. Every major political movement needs its anthem and I think that "This Land is made for You and Me" would be serve well for the Fair Use Movement.
"...What is good for General Motors is good for America." -Charles Wilson, Secretary of Defense and fmr President of GM
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
Wow, how'd you get to know Al so well? I'd love to hang out and watch interviews with him too! :)
To remove all the clutter and make the permissive nature of this license notice apparent to anybody who reads /.:
I think the first time I saw in-game advertising must have been playing SuperFrog og my beloved Amiga. He ran around drinking Gatorade IIRC.
CD Baby has a guide on how to do a cover song in the US:
: //www.mcps.co.uk/
http://www.cdbaby.net/dd?f=8
It's slightly different here in the UK (and slightly easier as it's a single "clearing-house"), you'll need to get in touch with the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS) and probably the Performing Rights Society:
http://www.prs.co.uk/soundadvice/
http
For specific advice on doing a cover, see the FAQ (question 9) here:
http://www.mcps.co.uk/productlicensing/
Note that when you publicly perform a cover you'll need a Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) and a PRS licence.
If you're an artist/band then I'ld recommend joining/registering with both the MCPS & PRS, it doesn't cost much (if anything) and means that you're work is protected and you'll get paid for things like radio play, so it's well worth it. They also give you a load of advice and are really helpful in general.
If anything, the quality of the "Bush is stupid" point is far lower than the quality of the Kerry critiques. As I said, Bush being stupid is pretty played and fangless at this point. So, bashing it frequently is actually quite ineffective: you end up with an animated Kerry saying the same old thing over and over, whereas the animated Bush is delivering fresh critiques and talking points.
Anyway, you're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying it's "pro Bush" - I'm just saying it doesn't seem to be a paragon of balance, and furthermore it just isn't that funny. The critiques of Bush are almost exclusively "image", whereas the critiques of Kerry are both "image" (pinko commie/liberal weiner/sissy/herman munster/botox) *plus* talking points (waffles/flip-flops/UN pussy/etc.). That's what I think indicates this isn't exactly a balanced little piece of work: that doesn't make it pro-Bush by any stretch of the imagination, it just makes it more anti-Kerry than it is anti-Bush.
As for your Libertarian Party talking points, eh. I don't care. That's your call, I don't need to see their flash ad or visit their website to know their platform as I'm pretty well aware of it. I'm not a huge Kerry fan by any stretch of the imagination (I supported Dean in the primaries). However, as Noam Chomsky put it, the stakes are so high that the slight differences between Kerry and Bush will actually lead to a much higher utility for Kerry than Bush.
Is it a compromise? Yes. Is it "voting for the lesser of two evils"? Yes. But you know what? In a country of 300 million people, that kind of makes sense. We can't always get precisely what we want.
This song is my song, it is not your song...
Try reading a non-US published copy of the lyrics to Bethoven's Hymn of Nations!
Grandparent is saying "This isn't about copyright, but it's an interesting thing that this furore reminds me of..."
anyone else find the video somewhat short of hilarious?
Posters recognized by their sig,
His own wartime journal disputes his first Purple Heart. In it, he specifically states there wasn't any enemy fire. Along with the Cambodia question (which he wouldn't even answer on the Daily Show), Kerry is going down in flames.
...this code is my code. Another humorous parody of the song, related to Linux.
The point is about fair use. It is considered fair use (no permission needed, though mechanical royalties may have to be paid) to parody the original song. It is not considered fair use to use the original song to satirize something *other* than the original song, and therefore permission can legally be denied by the author of the song (or assignees).
For an example of the type of lawsuit that Ludlow music seems to thrive on filing, check this link: http://www.humphreys.co.uk/articles/copyright_1.ht m
"If we cannot be free, then at least we can be cheap" -- Frank Zappa
Straw man - no assertion was made that they were "secretly pushing" anyone.
Just being a little douchey - pretending that being Libertarian somehow makes you "objective."
...I've just written a really lengthy entry in my essay journal going into the whole matter at great length, pulling in quotes and article citations from here and there and discussing the implications.
Okay, so I'm a self-promoter. But hey, I put some good time and effort into writing it, and I'm proud of my work.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Did you even rtfa? Guess not. There was no ruling as far as I can tell. EFF's lawyers did a little digging, came up with some evidence that the song is probably in the public domain, and Ludlow backed down, presumably because they *don't* want a ruling declaring the song in the public domain. Even if JibJab isn't paying them right now, there are plenty of other people licensing the song.
But, because there was no ruling, it's still a bit unclear, as a matter of law, as to whether JibJab's use was protected speach or not.
Rathergood's abnoxious singing rodents in Quizno's commercials.
- gtaluvit (prnc. GOT-tuh-LUV-it)
perhaps the Creative Commons will gain enough momentum to reverse this, but at the rate we're going, there will be precious little in the Public Domain from the period 1930-present...
ps. were Woody alive today, he'd be singing the praises of FOSS!
GPL-this License kills fascists!;>
The term you're thinking of there is nationalism. A patriot is one who works to protect and improve his country, risking or even sacrificing his well being to support it and his fellow citizens. this support can be as obvious as going to war to protect the country from an invader or as difficult to recognize as campaigning politicly for a move towards a more socialist state. a nationalist is someone who expouses and belives the following words "My country right or wrong".
PS you can be patriotic about a country that you weren't born in. some of the most patriotic people I know were originally refugees
I never said it was un or anti patriotic, just not patriotic. The song Hammer Time is not a patriotic song. What I was talking about is that most people think the lyrics have to do with us being patriotic americans, and this is our land to be proud of. And it's not about that at all. And guess what? Communism is a form of political power as well as an economic structure. Just because we separate economics from politics does not mean every government does (well...we don't actual separate it, but we make a distinction of capitalism being separate from democracy. Communism is both a government and an economic structure). Nothing wrong with people believing in communism. Woodie Guthrie, as I said, had a great reason to be - he saw his friends and family starving in the streets.
click me
Or so they (somebody else) thought, anyways ...
more like amish and cocaine...
i *live* in amish country buddy, and not once have i seen amish teenagers in a buggy with their boombox blaring. i see buggies every other day, and you're more likely to see one get hit by a car than a boombox pumping out beats.
they're allowed to go out and experiment - to leave the church for a while (when they're becoming adults... this ensures if they stay with the community that they want to be there) but itd be a little hard for them to jam out to some tunes when they've probably never heard them before because they dont have electricity or telephones and all their neighbors are just like them.
this is lancaster, BTW, not ohio amish.
There's more than that. There's also different "degrees" of Amish.
You're also just a tad douchey for asserting the "afraid" mentality, rather than picking a more sensible and less degrading word.
You might want to see if your cable system carries Fuse, and if they don't you might want to ask them to. They should carry at least one station that shows videos.
How many Menonites does it take to screw in a light bulb?
It does not matter for they will surely burn in Hell.
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
"Or do you _want_ your tax money to be used to hunt down file swappers?"
Tax money's already being used to run the court system. Anyway we can go down the slippry slope argument of "do you want your tax money to be used to...[insert what you don't personally like here]"
Your "ire" would be better spent in preventing our society from getting to the "you're a crimminal" stage, than complaining about things after the fact.
" ...someone who doesn't have legal rights to do so has threatened legal action as a form of intimidation? "
Insightful my ass. "legal rights" are set by the courts. That's one of the reasons people go to court, to determine if there is indeed legal backing. How many "legal rights" has a court overthrown? . Now as far as "intimidation", well doesn't everyone who goes to court feel that they are right, and the other party is wrong? "Oh that other party is trying to do bad things to me."
This should come as good news to the Girl Scouts of America, who in 1996 stopped singing "This Land is Your Land" at campfire events along with all other copyrighted music, at least officially.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
I keep reading this idea, and I can't figure out where it comes from.
Please draw the distinction for me.
Jibjab uses "This Land" to poke fun at George and John.
Weird Al uses "Lola" to poke fun at Yoda (and George Lucas and Mark Hamill)
Weird Al uses "Gangstas Paradise" to poke fun at the Amish.
Weird Al uses "All About the Benjamins" to poke fun at computer geeks.
In most cases, Al doesn't even make a reference to the original song lyrics, although there are some very clever bits when he re-contexts the original lyric and makes them mean something totally different (like in the song about Jerry Springer, he picks up one of the Reel Big Fish lines and makes it work in HIS context, not the original one).
So, Al makes parodies that satire other stuff. While we're on the subject, I'd still love to see a citiation that says "Parodies enjoy a higher degree of first-amendmnet protection than satire". I don't believe such a ruling exists.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
is a good candidate for lobotomy IMHO. I've scraped funnier political parody from the backside of my nutsack.
mark russell, for these fags taking his tired schtick. seriously, "hilarious"? this may be great that they weren't shut up, but this is the furthest thing from comedy i've seen in a while.
There were some other Woody Guthrie songs remade recently too. I think the story is that these were unreleased songs of his that he had not written music to, so Woody's daughter hired Billy Bragg and Wilco to put music to them and sing them.
They are called Mermaid Avenue (samples, review) and Mermaid Avenue Volume II (samples, review)
They are both pretty good cds, especially volume 1.
I wonder what the copyright implications were one these, since they were unreleased. Does anyone know? Also, what was his daughter's opinion about the jibjab song?
" Has any one else noticed that the Ebon Hawk has no bathroom" ... I might have noticed that if the POS copy protection would let me play the fucking game I paid $30 for.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
What's funny is the old staple "My country" is itself a satire of "God Save The Queen."
This land is my land, this land is my land
For Halliburton, Chevron and Ashland
Kill the redwood forests, and pollute the waters
This land should blindly follow me
As I was talking, I felt a yearning
I have to ask, is our children learning?
And thanks to me now, Baghdad is burning
This land should blindly follow me
"This machine kills fascists."
Unknown host pong.
You know, I wouldn't mind hearing an opinion about a hypothetical cyberlaw case, if you just want a real brainbender of a puzzle. Email me if interested.
Got done installing
A proprietary binary
From a pretty jewel case
with holographic finery
As I was working
Blue screens were forming
Got code that's made for you and me?
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
And Weird Al won the ensuing "legal fight", because parody is indeed protected as fair use. The album is still available with "Amish Paradise".
Weird Al doesn't have to ask for permission, but he does, and usually gets it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The fact that the BPI is lobbying for extension of the performer copyright duration is not the sum total of the issue.
There is a difference in duration between performer and composer copyright. This is _not_ the case with the US.
Thus, when people talk about the Beatles catalogue falling into public domain, what they mean is that the recordings they made do. The copyright on the lyrics and music lasts longer, but is liscecable under mechanical terms.
So, if there is no change in the law, come 2013, if you disribute the Beatles playing 'Love me do', then you will still need to pay the songwriter royalties. Thus, the argument the parent poster gives at the end is slightly off base, as it refers to songwriter copyright, not performance.
Quite frankly, I can see no benefit in different durations between performance and songwriting copyrights. Mind you, I'd lean to the lower limit rather than the higher, but the issue of what to set the duration at is a different point to whether there are differential terms for composers and performers.
Would it be 'primitive' to decide to stop watching television because it didn't fit into your idea of "the good life"?
I already quit watching television a long time ago because it no longer agreed (and actually interfered) with what I consider my "good life"... that is, playing Unreal Tournament online for hours and hours and hours with no end.
As one poster has already mentioned, sovmusic.ru has some nice examples, including Paul Robeson (Yes, Mr. "Ol' Man River" himself) doing a rendition of the Soviet National Anthem in English translation.
Because I know some German, I enjoy the East German stuff more, but lately East German nostalgia has become a big business among German "Generation X" types and it's harder to find free songs on the net. If you know German at all, there's an album called "Die Partei Hat Immer Recht" ("The Party is always right") which collects the best of the East German propaganda songs. You can buy it from Amazon.de (the German version of Amazon.com)
This is a good time to thank the EFF folks by making a donation. Yes, I did.
..."your work" even, ack! Just thought I'd pre-empt the grammar Nazis; I'm ashamed I let that one through. And I've just finished "Eats, Shoots & Leaves", oh the shame! ;)
They specifically addressed this in the legal proceedings.
To make a parody of a song is to change the lyrics in such a way as to make fun of the original work.
JibJab was "satire" which is *not* protected Fair Use as it was using an existing work and using it to make fun of the candidates rather than the original work.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
No, but his video for "UHF" parodied the video for "When Doves Cry", among others.
not McFarlane
But, in addition, it was parodying the original TLIOL's political nature.
For the record, Alanis: That is ironic.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Some guy at work showed me the jibjab video. Everyone was laughing outloud and stuff lik they thought it was hilarious or something. I don't know, I thought that it was kind of stupid. The same level of comedy that you see on any brainless half hour tv situation comedy. But I am glad that they won this case!
What is Jib-Jab mocking, Guthrie or the canidates? What is Weird Al mocking, Coolio or the amish? I can't see how the call is made.
Hmmm... who wanted a monopoly on the music again?
I don't recall that our country's leaders have ever needed the people's help to make asses of themselves...
...you can feed'em information, but you can't make'em think
I'm not surprised you like it, if you like Badnarik.
The "This Land is Your Land" parody was clearly Libertarian. The most blatant giveaway was the otherwise inexplicable Indian land rights bit, which had nothing to do with the Bush/Kerry debates, and is one of the more ridiculous planks in the Libertarian platform. Other, more subtle Libertarian bits included:
* The huge crowd of people on each side at the closing (big government, a point that the Libertarians take major issue with)
* The negative demonstration of ICBMs and aggression in Vietnam -- that's all anti-interventionist, a pretty fundamental part of the Libertarian mindset.
May we never see th
WTF- this land (the original song) is not a patriotic song. It was a proto-communist anthem.
Because, as we all know, if you aren't a Republican Bush-supporter, you aren't patriotic. As a matter of fact, you probably hate America.
May we never see th
Actually, Strong Bad is pretty widespread. I don't think that there are many college students that don't know about him. Penny Arcade is, I will grant, more limited, as it's gaming-culture-specific, even if it's well known within that field.
May we never see th
The JibJab piece could have been construed as slander against either person but if you are defined as a "public person" such as movie star, or politician the rules are relaxed and "intent" to harm must be proven. "Intent" is very tough to prove. Truth is always a defense against slander/libel.
There was no copyright issue here at all, thank goodness the courts actually got that right!
IANAL, so I'm not sure i quite understand, but it reads to me that "This Land" IS STILL COPYRIGHTED...or at least you are at risk from being sued if you use it.
...
" Ludlow believes its copyright -- initially filed in 1956 and renewed in 1984 -- remains valid and disputes EFF's claims."
"JibJab dismissed its suit against Ludlow today. As part of the settlement of the case, JibJab will remain free to continue distributing the "This Land" animation without further interference from Ludlow."
So they settled out of court and only agreed not to sue JibJab. Which means if you used the song, they retain the right to sue you...
Even if the work is in the public domain, they would still own the copyright to their performance of the work. But if they were selling the Guthrie performance which is in the public domain, you still couldn't get all of your money back since a physical copy of the work wouldn't be free. Since the song is in the public domain, anyone can sell a copy of it. No court is going to give you a partial refund just because you thought the cd costed more than it should since it was actually in the public domain, unjust enrichment or not.
Fraud would be almost impossible to prove. To get your money back you would have to prove that you were induced into buying the cd only because you thought the song wasn't in the public domain.
Now I can download this song and make copies and trade it and play it on whatever device I want, in the format of my choosing.
Too bad I've been sick of this song since kindergarten.
YAY! =D
Finally some good news in the fight against idiocy and censorship! You can never know how glad I was to read this article today! I am so happy for the JibJab guys! I really thought the lawsuit was ridiculous.
(Please excuse my overuse of exclamation points, but I am really happy about this!)
I read the official reason, but I'm thinking the case had to be thrown out because they realized that it was going to be hard to find anyone, let alone a judge, who could watch the video and not have to be escorted from the room for laughing so hard!
At least America hasn't been ruled or legislated out of having a sense of humor. For today anway...
See, here's what I don't understand:
1. Why is 'All About the Pentiums' parodying 'All Abount the Benjamins', and not satirizing computer users?
2. Why is 'Amish Paradise' parodying 'Gangsta Paradise', and not satirizing the Amish?
3. Why is 'Trigger Happy' parodying a Beatles song, and not satirizing the NRA?
4. Why is 'Jerry Springer' parodying 'One Week', and not satirizing Jerry Springer?
5. Why is 'Beverly Hillbillies' parodying 'Money for Nothing', and not satirizing the Beverly Hillbillies?
6. Why is 'Bedrock Anthem' parodying 'Under the Bridge'/'Give it Away Now', and not satirizing The Flinstones?
Is there a nuance here I'm not grasping?
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
It was a Strawberry Shortcake comic, showing her spanking another character.
It was designed to parody American McGee, creator of the games "Alice" and the forthcoming "Oz", for taking a children's character (I know they have many levels for adults as well, but let's simplify it for this arguement.) and making it into a Mature - level game.
-------------------------------------------------
to the Weird Al song... You'd know!
But we ain't really quaint, so please don't point and stare; we're just technologically impaired.
That is true in one federal court decision that is likely to be overturned if the question is considered at the supreme court. Fair use includes using the work for educational, journalistic, and similar purposes. The parody/satire distinction was created in a federal court decision to clarify that the person using a work "fairly" must have a good reason to be using that particular work and not another work; in other words that the expression must be integrally related to the use of a particular work. It makes more sense that way but even then I would argue it is specious because the first amendment and the fair use clause protect an artist's right to make a point -- not the artist's right to make a point in the most effective or cleverest manner possible. It seems to me ludicrous (and I expect the Supreme Court would agree if they ever hear this question) that an artist's right to make fun of other artists deserves greater protection than an artist's right to make a political point.
Please note that trial court opinions do not establish any legal precedent beyond the case at hand. Trial court decisions are not controlling authority. For an opinion to become law that has to be followed in other courts, the opinion has to be from an appellate court. And many appellate court decisions are "depublished" and are not given any value as precedent.
And it gets more complicated than that. The federal courts in the 9th Circuit don't have to follow appellate decisions of the 7th Circuit. California state courts don't have to follow Florida state court appellate decisions (Thank God). Only the U.S. Supreme Court's opinions are precedent everywhere, and the U.S. Supreme court doesn't have the power to overturn state court decisions that are founded only in state law. For example, the US Supreme Court may not overturn the Massachusetts Supreme Court's opinion that MA law (not federal law) prohibits bans on gay marriage.
So, the EFF wouldn't have established any legal precedent by going to trial, unless the trial court's decision was appealed and EFF won on appeal.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
What about the various people who have previously purchased rights to use the song? If the song's been in the public domain for some 40 years, don't they deserve a refund?
the problem is, for a parody to be protected, it has to parody the -song-, and one of the major things the defense would have had to show is that the flash animation was parodying the song...i don't think it is completely clear that is what was happening...aside from that, it is more making fun of the leaders, which is -not- parody...
google define:parody:
A mocking imitation of the style of a literary work or works which ridicules the stylistic habits of an author or school of writers by exaggerated mimicry. Parody is related to Burlesque in its application of serious styles to ridiculous subjects, to satire in its punishment of eccentricities, and even to criticism in its analysis of style.
Get your facts right.
:)
What about Coolio? I heard that he was upset with Al about "Amish Paradise."
That was a very unfortunate case of misunderstanding between Al's people and Coolio's people. Short version of the story: Al recorded "Amish Paradise" after being told by his record label that Coolio had given his permission for the parody. When Al's album came out, Coolio publicly contended that he had never given his blessing, and that he was in fact very offended by the song. To this day we're not exactly sure who got their facts wrong, but Al sincerely apologizes to Coolio for the misunderstanding.
Have any artists ever turned Al down for a parody?
Even though most recording artists really do have a pretty good sense of humor, on a few very rare occasions Al has been denied permission to do a parody. Actually, the only artist to turn Al down consistently over the years has been the Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. Go figure. I moshed at his show, his band is good
STFU FAG!
Guthrie borrowed the melody from "Little Darling Pal of Mine" for that one. He may have changed it a little, but it's still stealing. "Pretty Boy Floyd" was from a 1920's recording of "Utah Carl", "Jackhammer John" was from "Brown's Ferry Blues", "Grand Coulee Dam" was from "Wabash Cannonball", etc, etc. I'll bet that there's still a copyright on "Little Darling Pal of Mine" or the arrangement (Carter Family) that he cribbed it from.
It became very well-known and used to be on TV all the time because the copyright had been allowed to lapse. Somehow, it's copyright has been unlapsed, and it's locked up again (by Sony IIRC). Could that happen to "This Land is Your Land" too?
Yeah, I'm starting to think that the whole "IP" scam should be done away with. Obviously, "the little guy" is screwed any way you look at it. Why not remove the whole crooked structure? Free software is making it obvious that the underlying assumptions of copyright and patent law are flawed. People will continue to invent and don't mind sharing their inventions. The reward is a body of excellent work that can be used.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
CD Baby has a guide on how to do a cover song in the US
I don't understand this compulsary law - what's the rationale behind forcing an artist to license cover versions of his song.
What if I wrote a song & I don't want anyone to do cover versions? What's so bad about it?
And what's do different about songs? Why doesn't this apply to other stuff? Or does it?
After a lot of egg on their faces, the music industry allowed the Girl Scouts and similar groups to license their songs for a token $1.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's my understanding you can air It's a Wonderful Life all you want, provided you cut out the music scenes, or at least turn off the audio and hope your audience can read lips.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Forgive the "obligitory Simpsons reference" but when they had the "This Log is Your Log" song wouldn't that be exactly the same type of parody?
Did they pay royalties on it? If not, why weren't they sued?
Now that the song has been proven to be in the public domain, what of all the paid royalties that were demanded? Wouldn't that be some sort of "sell you the Brooklyn Bridge" situation? If so, the supposed copyright holder is nothing more than a con artist.
You mean seven words?
This thread made Michael Moore's Must Read page for Wednesday August 25.
Live simply, that others may simply live. -Gandhi
Just like anyone else, if a judge can find a clear and easy reason to make a summary judgement, he/she is going to do exactly that. The reason the case was dismissed on a "technicality" is that it was the most relevant factor. You can't defend the copyright of something you no longer hold the copyright to. Therefore the case has no merit. This is not because of who is doing the defense, it's just a case of establishing if the plaintiff even has a case. Obviously the ruling is that they did not. Nothing beyond that needs to be considered.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
until the early 50's all films were made on Cellulose Nitrate . now cellulose nitrate (or some may recognise it as nitrocellulose ) has a tendency to spontaneously combust at high velocity. this tendency increases as the compound ages.
in short - the film can go boom
the studios are sitting on top of a time bomb, and its ticking
Suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
Exactly, this is Slashdot, which is why we are more likely to pay attention to Weird Al Yankovic (whilst spelling his last name correctly) than a normal person would. Besides, wasn't that VH-1 special on every week for a couple of months?
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
The horror of this is it shows that people think you can only parody one thing at a time, or that you can't combine parody with satire.
This song is very obviously (completely 100% undebateable) a parody of the song. The problem is it's also Satire, and people are fucking whorish enough to say "That's satire! Satire isnt protected! Give me money!"
FUCK EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
i agree you can parody more than one thing at a time...but i am merely saying that the hard part of this case was showing that the flash was actually parodying the -song-, which is what is required under fair use...
and i would say it very much -is- debateable by someone skilled enough to do so...if the work had not been in the public domain already, i think it's thinkable that these guys would have lost the suit to the gutherie people...
and sheesh...fuck me because i disagree? well, sir, you are a chode (can't resist a little return mud-slinging)
Well there was the very good point I heard: The song wasnt chosen because of the way the music sounds, the song was chosen because of what it says, the original words, the original message. It's a parody of the song, and uses satire to acieve that, just as much as it's a satire which uses a parody of the song to achieve that.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I'll agree that the Amish are intelligent and hard workers. I don't agree with their religion but much of their lifestyle I would agree with. I have lived near Amish towns and have been exposed to them in many ways and it's really not true that they are primative. They do things differently but they aren't really backwards.
I especially like their ideas of independance from big government and from big business. I also like the idea of hands on work and hands on education. Certainly freedom from being brainwashed by the media and our own laziness would be a welcome social change. Also I like to live a life as free of mass produced goods as possible. I'm a geek so obviously I like technology but there are very good reasons to keep your life simple when possible.
I'd rather work harder and live simpler than sit on my ass and struggle with the complexity of modern life.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
The government is employed by the corporations.
I think you meant wielded, like a sword is.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Not to go off on (yet another) tangent in this forum, but there are two issues people should understand about this "her religion is Muslem" topic:
1. Transliteration is an inexact science. Granted, "Muslem" is not the usual English spelling of the word, but it is not necessarily wrong. In fact, many people would consider "Moslem" to be the most phonetically accurate spelling. It seems a bit excessive to me to harshly jump on someone for this, especially when the (proudly American) criticizer can't even properly form contractions.
2. Regardless of how you spell the word, "Muslim" is not a religion. The religion is Islam; a Muslim is a member of the religion. As an example: "I am a Christian, my faith is Christianity," and similarly "I am a Muslim, my faith is Islam."
Perhaps if there were a bit more education, patience, and humility on all sides, we would all understand each other a little better (Amish & technophile, Christian & Muslim alike). If tolerance isn't your bag, perhaps you should at least see if ESL classes are available to native English speakers as well.
Even though you're an AC and I'm reading this a day old, I'd still give 'em to ya.
=Shreak
Yikes. The post I made to the parent should have gone here! Drat!
=Shreak
I try, every day, but they keep turning me away. They say I have to wait until November. :-)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
If there are any late moderators reading this thread, bump this guy up a little.
He makes a valid counterpoint to my previous argument. (One which I was completely unaware of).
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This links directly to the shockwave file. No advertisements necessary.
Massachusetts used to have V66, broadcast on UHF channel 66; you didn't even need to have cable. Unfortunately, they folded a long time ago to be replaced by a home shopping channel. :^b
-Rich
EFF hurts us all again
I understand (to some degree, at least) what you're complaining about, and what the EFF did and did NOT achieve... but it's ludicrous to say they they've *hurt* us in their actions.
Um... didn't they take up JibJab's case? I didn't see you offering them a free legal defense. And didn't they, at a minimum, successfully defend JibJab's right to use this particular song? Maybe the battle wasn't decided here, but a skirmish was won. As in all causes working with limited funding and time, the EFF must choose their battles carefully. Perhaps they felt refusing the settlement wouldn't actually help (see other posts about how "precedent" really works), and might actually result in a negative outcome. I don't know the details behind their decision, and I respectfully submit that *you* don't know, either.
Let's at least recognize what they *did* achieve, and be a little smarter when we talk about what this settlement didn't accomplish.