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
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?
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.
So when JibJab copyrights the new lyrics, does that mean "This Land" will become Their Song?
(only half-joking)
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
Patriotic songs shouldn't be copyrighten, thats all there is to it.
While some songs may seem more obvious than others, who gets to determine if a song is patriotic?
"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
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....
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Yes, patriotic. Patriotism is loving your country, not your government (per se), and being willing to defend your country from threat of harm. Even... no, especially, if that harm comes from it's government.
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.
If I understand the question properly, then in answer I'd point to places like Homestar Runner, PvP, Penny-Arcade, etc. all of which grew up on free distribution of their art and have become well known both on and off the Internet. If you think they're not cultural icons, I'd offer Homestar Runner's 'Trogdor' character showing up in the Final Episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the infamous Cardboard Tube of Penny Arcade appearing in Legacy of Kain 3.
:)
Or do they not count for some reason?
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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.
Why is it people have trouble with the distinction between what something was intended for, and what it is acutally used for?
Case in point: the pledge of allegience. It was written by a Socialist who worked for a flag-making company in an attempt to sell more flags.
So, is the pledge of allegiance currently used as a socialist tool? No. Is the flag-making lobby responsible for keeping it in our schools? No.
It matters very little what it was written for, it's all about what it is now.
Imagine that huh? The most primitive people around actually give their kids choice of their beliefs.
...and that's all there is to it.
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.
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...
Well, thats only paradoxical if you conflate technological "primitiveness" with moral, spiritual and intellectual "primitiveness".
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Yup. Which is why we usually don't sing all the verses. ...as I was walking
that ribbon of highway
I saw a sign that
said no trespassing
but on the other side
that sign said nothing
that side was made for you and me.
Of course, being farther left on the spectrum that you or I doesn't mean a person isn't patriotic. The notion that "the people who don't agree with us don't really love their country" is, at its root, an anti-democratic notion. Nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
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.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
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.
I'm waiting to see if this comment gets modded "Insightful" or "Funny"...
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
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.
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.
The Amish are actually better educated than 99% of americans. When a family of Amish came over to tear down a barn the kids worked hard all day, were very respectful to everyone and when I introduced my wife to them and they found out that she was from Pakistan they knew where that country was and what language was spoken there. They knew that the dominant religion was Muslem, but that the peoples there were not Arabs. They knew that India bordered Pakistan and the problems the two counties had historically had.
Many adults in the hick area we lived in couldn't remember where she was from after repeatedly being told, they kept on confusing Pakistan and the Philipines and had no clear idea of the difference between the two countries.
Who is more advanced? I'd put my money on the Amish anyday for a political opinion or any question about history or world knowledge.
So he was a socialist trade union organizer american icon.
And what's wrong with writing anti-Bush songs?
no taxation without representation!
Um, the First Amendment is just as much a part of the Constitution as that which is in the original articles. Being an "amendment" doesn't make it any less valid or important; it is just as much a "part of the Constitution" as any of the original articles. Furthermore, actually examining the relevant passages of the U.S. Constitution itself should give us an enlightening view on what trumps what and how the different pieces must work together.
Compare these two. They are both the "highest law of the land" and therefore must work together. The "copyright clause" simply indicates that Congress has the power to create copyright law. Note, however, that it does NOT indicate that Congress MUST create copyright law! The "first amendment" indicates that Congress is flatly PROHIBITED from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Essentially, Section 8 provides Congress with a power, and Amendment I spells out a limitation of that power (but is not a contradictory directive).
Now, let's consider the what combination of those two Constitutional Directives means.
It means that Congress MAY (not MUST) create copyright laws, provided that those laws do not abridge freedom of speech.
Furthermore, it means that if Congress cannot create a copyright law that does not abridge freedom of speech, it cannot create a copyright law at all!
Simple, really. Here's a relatively simple analogy:
I, as a father, have the power to discipline my children by administering punishments. That doesn't mean I am REQUIRED to punish my children. However, should I choose to exercise the power I have to punish, I am prohibited by law to abuse my children. If I cannot find a way to punish my children without abusing them, I am prohibited from punishing them.
Similarly, Congress has the power to create copyright law. That doesn't mean they're REQUIRED to make copyright law. However, should they choose to exercise the power they have to create copyright law, they are prohibited by the Constitution to abridge free speech. If they cannot find a way to create copyright law without abridging free speech, they are prohibited from creating copyright law.
Simple. Effective. Try READING the Constitution in its entirety and understanding how the component parts fit together rather than stopping once you hit the clause you like to support your own world view. Getting hung up on one clause (whether it's Amendment II or Section 8 or anything else) and feeling that "this is the clause which trumps all others" is an unhealthy way to look at the document, and leads only to misunderstanding of its intent.
--AC
And you know what? It isn't at all clear that they're wrong. The Amish seem to do alright for themselves, have very low crime, and (though I don't have any studies handy) are generally more happy with their lives than the rest of us.
But maybe you were just trolling?
Perhaps he meant more knowledgable, since, as we know, the educational system is not there to actually teach anything- it's simply a form of warehousing for surplus adolescents.
Of course, failing to notice the difference would make you almost certainly a proud gaduate of our wonderful american school system, yes?
Yet somehow, people who oppose President Bush and his war in Iraq are labeled as unpatriotic. (Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks, etc) We have things like "The Patriot Act" which have nothing to do with patriotism. While the dictionary definition may be correct, the current administration is changing the meaning of the word.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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
No, they give their kids the appearance of choice of beliefs.
Did no-one see "Amish in the city", when the Amish kid was so afraid of dying away from the community, because then he would "be denied heaven"? It would take an exceptionally free-thinking Amish to break away after experiencing an insular childhood full of mythology.
To be fair, to live a 19th Century lifestyle doesn't require much more education than 8th grade. Think about it...what percentage of our population went to college even in the early 20th Century? My grandfather made quite a good living and he never graduated the 8th grade. I would say everything changed with the technology push surrounding WWII...after that, we became advanced to the point where we simply needed more time to learn everything that's necessary to make one's way in the modern world.
If the most intellectually challenging thing I was ever going to do is raise a barn, I wouldn't require more than an 8th grade education either. On the other hand, I might still be knowledgable in terms of facts about the world, but I certainly wouldn't consider myself as having been exposed to advanced concepts. For instance, the author of the parent post says these Amish kids knew all about Pakistan and India. But what are the chances any of those kids will ever grow to understand the situation well enough to be a diplomat and do something about it? Probably zero.
The Amish way of understanding the world seems to me to be based on the idea that there's value in useless trivia. Knowledge gained for the purpose of serving one's fellow human and bettering everyone's condition requires much more heart and soul than being able to rattle off recent world events.
(Incidentally, where did these Amish kids get their knowledge of current events in India and Pakistan? A newspaper, printed on a printing press? A book, which is another product of modern technology? Or was it all word-of-mouth from outside the community...from people that did get their facts from books, newspapers, TVs, radios, etc?)
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Go man, go! I wish more people realized patriotism wasn't all magnetic ribbons and flag t-shirts. There is no country in the world I'd rather be in than the United States of America, even when I'm not proud of our policies.
My motto is "America: Love it or Change it." Because you goddamn can. Most of the pride I feel in America is due to the fact that we all have the right to argue and fight for whatever we believe in, not in the fact that we're inherently "better" than everybody else. We'll see America's superiority fall in our lifetime, and I'll still be damned proud of it.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
I thought it was lame and was just celebrating the US as The Land of the Morons.
People thinking it was "hilarious" only proves that point.
I've seen quite a few posts from folks with similar opinions. Quite a few people shouting "Look! Look how well cultured and sophisticated I am! I didn't think it was funny! Look at me! Respect me! "
The video was ment to be funny. You can not be considered better than ANYONE else simply because you didn't find the video funny.
This immature "I'm better than you/everyone" attitude you find on slashdot is disgusting.
(goodbye karma!)
Required reading for internet skeptics