Slashdot Mirror
Jonathan Coulton Offers Some Gleeful Turnabout
The TV show Glee may have borrowed Jonathan Coulton's arrangement of "Baby Got Back" without asking him first, but he's got a response of the kind that it'd be hard for the show's makers to criticize without looking churlish. Borrowing it back, and using it to raise money for charity. As CNET puts it, "Coulton has foxily tossed up on iTunes his own version of the song and titled it 'Baby Got Back (In the Style of Glee).' He terms it 'my cover of Glee's cover of my cover.'"
What is Sir Mix-a-lot getting out of all of this?
I see more of a marketing ploy than an underdog story in this.
Neither one is as good as the original: Sir Mix-a-Lot.
Concur. Coulton is was one of the last straws for me when it came to "geek" fandom.
His works are not clever, they're not funny, and they're not interesting. I never realised just how similarly all geeks thought until I noticed how similar and shallow their cultural tastes are.
HURRR PORTAL DOING APERTURE SCIENCE IMAGINE IF MACHINES WERE EMO etc. Shut up. Just shut the fuck up.
I am neither a Glee fan or gay. But seriously, someone has real sexual identity issues.
So, you're saying you bought into every artifact of geek fandom until Jonathan fucking Coulton? He's the one who was "one of the last straws"? You were just cool with it all until "Code Monkey"?
You may be in a category of lame all your own.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So why'd you click the link?
more Aaron Swartz!
It has no place in the red, white and blue America
Quick, grab you some big gubbamint and force them to get rid of it!
It has no place in the red, white and blue America !!
I mixed together the red, white and blue once. It came out a *fabulous* shade of lilac!
Yikes, you're a real tool.
You, uh, have no idea what you're saying, do you?
The melody is original to Coulton. The words are not. There's more to music than words, genius.
But, of course, all that is beside the point. Artists do covers all the time...that doesn't mean they don't write original material as well. Are you 12? You sound 12.
Not even going into this particular story or his musical ability, I do have issues with you saying he can't create anything on his own - Back Got Back is one of his few covers, and he did it during his Thing a Week project...I don't fault him for wanting to do a cover during a project of releasing a new song every week, and at least he changed the melody and rhythm and what not.
i get the feeling that the person who posted the comment probably doesn't like the idea of mixing colors, either.
What the hell is wrong with you people. Whether or not you like the style of his song is completely fucking irrelevant.
Here is a classic, indisputable, pristine example of the 'big guy' completely steam rolling over the 'little guy'. Any revenge he can extract is a cause that you all would be championing if it was a indie linux dev who had some GPL code stolen or some such.
Stop obfuscating the situation with your shitty opinion on if the song was 'good' or not.
I wish I had modpoints for you two.
No, that's just letting the likes of Rupert and his ilk bleed society for their own fun and profit with impunity. Someone has to stand up and yank these big dogs back on their leash. So Jonnie C., hats off, publicly humiliating them (if that's even possible), painting them as ass-hats not by name calling but by framing their actions, stealing their thunder and their profit, doing the good thing and the right thing at the same time and making them the butt of their own ass-holiness... I'm inspired and moved by the class and the cleverness. Don't get mad, get even, and still take the high ground while doing it, bravo, well played sir!
Sorry, all this talk of Aaron and Jonathan is preventing me from getting my much needed updates on BitCoin.
Years ago, I thought Code Monkey was funny and sly, and although I'm not that into pop music, it had a good beat and was fun. It's under a CC license, which makes it possible for other people to do versions of it like this.
The original Sir Mix-a-lot version of Baby Got Back has some interesting things to say about race and body image, and the video was funny in spots, but I thought Coulton's version was a hilariously silly juxtoposition of style with substance. Coulton goes up another notch in my estimation.
Fox rips him off without credit and produces a Glee skit that's funny ... for exactly the same reasons Coulton's song was funny. That's pathetic.
And then Coulton comes back with this very graceful response. Game, set, and match to Coulton.
Find free books.
I never realised just how similarly all geeks thought until I noticed how similar and shallow their cultural tastes are.
Why are you assuming that "all geeks" are Coulton fans, or have even heard of him?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The melody is original to Coulton. The words are not
Actually, some of the words were original to Coulton too, Glee used his version of the lyrics as well.
Since when do plutocrats care about looking churlish?
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
I have to call foul here. First of all, Jonathon Coulton previously had permission to perform the "Baby Got Back" song. Second, if a melody is important to the creation of what could be considered a "unique work", the original rap song had no discernible melody, except for a bass track that you could probably reproduce with your mouth no matter how unmusical you are. Jonathon Coulton created a unique melody to "Baby Got Back" and he changed one line to say "Johnny C's in trouble," referring to himself of course.
Now anyone creating a cover of "Baby Got Back"---and make no mistake Glee and Fox have hordes of talented musicians to choose from. See how "Piano Guy" just pops up out of nowhere? --- could create a new version with a unique melody that is different and distinct from Jonathan Coulton's version. Are you familiar with the "Jeopardy" Theme Song? Ever hear it used in a cartoon, but it's not the original tune. Notes go down, instead of up, and it's only vaguely familiar? Fox, in this case, used EXACTLY the same melody as JoCo, down to the note.
Lastly, JoCo's version has a different tempo than "Baby Got Back". There's a reason it's over 5 minutes long, when the original song is like 3 minutes something. The Glee version, while they could have sped up the tempo, or slowed down the tempo, is exactly the same.
Now I won't go into possible "duck" samples, or questioning the exact same use of the banjo, but Glee's version of "Baby Got Back" isn't a cover of the original Sir Mix-a-Lot's version, it's practically a note-for-note copy of JoCo's cover: same melody, same tempo, same words that JoCo changed referencing himself, and using exactly the same instruments and general feel of the song.
Fox has some giant balls on this one. I don't know why they bothered to change the vocals at all, personally, if they're going to steal the entire song in the first place.
-D
if the cover version didn't suck big butts...
...so I have to say it.
DMCA takedown notices from Fox for this version AND Jonathan Coulton's first version in 3...2...1...
Am I missing something. Jonathan Coulton didn't write the song either. Its a COVER of someone elses song. Perhaps I am missing something Nobody has to ask anybody for permission to do a cover of a song. You just record it and release it and then pay the royalties after the fact. Glee is not liable to pay Jonathan Coultan anything because he did not write the song. Even if he had written it, they don't have to ask his permission to cover it. As far as I know, re-arrangement is not recognised under copyright law and its only the original writers who will get any royalties. Its like copying someone else's painting, then complaining when someone takes a copy of your copy. It seems Jonathan Coulton is an idiot.
Don't worry, BTC is still bullshit.
I'm making a note here - huge success.
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
But I spent the weekend trying to figure out why my Xbox suddenly quit communicating with my TV. Turns out that Microsoft pushed a new version of HDCP(a cracked encryption methodology) to encode NETFLIX in some weird attempt to protect all media all the time. Of course, this entire action makes no sense at all. It doesn't protect content from being pirated, and it doesn't make anyone's life any easier(mine, Microsoft's, or Netflix's). It was simply some idiots idea. That idiot worked for a major movie company. He required it in the contract with Netflix/Microsoft. They obliged because it was a minor issue.
Why do I mention that on a comment about Jonathan Coulton getting ripped off by Glee? Media companies are giant corporations who see the law as something to be abused only to protect themselves. It doesn't have to make sense or even be consistent. If the situation was reversed, he would be sued. In this situation, he has no recourse. It will never make sense if you try to think about it from the perspective of a rational and reasonable individual.
This will, unfortunately, always be the way of things. Unless lawmakers suddenly have some reason to drastically restructure the legal system to protect sanity, reason, and the individual over the monetary interests of their most important supporters we will never have a 'fair' system. Considering that no state in the history of the world has been able to avoid the egalitarianism and quid pro quo nature of Mandarin-type social levels, I doubt we will be able to achieve such a drastic technocratic change any time soon.
Fox will now undoubtedly get pissed off that he did a cover of glee that the writers of glee stole from him and sue lol... gotta love america
Some of us don't even read comic books ... yes, I said it.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Not a fan of this song in particular, but I like a lot of Coulton's other stuff. I'm glad (but not surprised) that he's found a clever, creative way to increase his profile and bring some attention to the kind of double standard the big entertainment companies employ daily... screwing artists and consumers both with impunity.
Didn't you get the memo?
Watch it get DMCA'd by the assholes who used it without permission in the first place.
An article from Fox was showing up in Google News, but no longer exists on the Fox website?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://fox8.com/2013/01/26/singer-glee-ripped-off-my-cover-song/
To quote another song Glee will probably soon be doing:
THIS WAS A TRIUMPH!
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
yes, jc made a new melody when on a song binge for a gimmick x songs in x amount of time. problem is the melody is boring as hell and nobody would actually give a rats ass about the song if it wasn't baby got back.
anyhow, he should've just come up with more of his own words and claim it as parody. but nobody would give a shit about it then.
furthermore this article could've already been part of the last jc article, it was already in the comments for it.
in the meantime.. weird al rocks, baby got jack. and he's got geek creds jc couldn't dream of.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Apparently he didn't actually have permission. He had a mechanical license, which by definition, does not allow the creation of works that differ melodically from the original. So there are two ways the courts could interpret this:
In the first interpretation, he has no case. In the second interpretation (which IMO is more likely), he could ostensibly get money out of Fox, but only at the risk of getting then sued by Universal for his prior releases as revenge for having deprived them of royalties from Fox. Sadly, it's probably a no-win.
The best he could hope for is to get an activist judge and go for a Lanham Act case against Fox, but it would be unlikely to hold up on appeal, if Dastar v. Fox is any indication of the court's current leanings.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Slight correction. He had a compulsory mechanical license, which by definition, does not allow....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
To stream major studio content over digital output (DVI/HDMI) requires HDCP. If you don't have it, it'll drop to non-HD. If you have VGA, it'll do it even though VGA doesn't do HDCP. If you have a laptop and the video is on the internal display (not being output on a connector at all) it'll do it even if you don't have HDCP.
Weird? Yes. But the major studios require this. On all platforms with all services. It happens on Blu-ray. It happens on Netflix. It happens on PC. It happens on Xbox 360. It happens on Apple TV.
TV content (which comprises a large amount of Netflix' streaming library) doesn't require this, as it doesn't come from movie studios. The studios knew people would not like this, and would seek out any platform it isn't true on. So that's why they require it on all content.
If you have digital output without HDCP and try to play content that requires HDCP, it cannot output it at higher than 540p. I think it just goes right down to 480P.
I just double checked this with my Mac using Netflix and it will not stream Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in HD whether I have HDCP. Netflix says "available in HD on your TV". Non-studio content, like Portlandia for example (a TV show) says "Available in HD" and it streams in HD whether I have HDCP or not.
So it looks like for PC/Mac, Netflix doesn't do HD at all for major studio content, regardless of VGA, HDMI and HDCP. That content is only "Available in HD on your TV", not your computer.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Fox Entertainment and Fox News are not the same thing mate. Rupert bought the ability to use Fox's name for his network but the two have little to nothing else in common. Let's put it this way. Think of what the Simpsons would be like if Rupert really ran all of Fox.
He just tacitly admitted that Glee didn't use his material without permission.
So all of their fourth wall breaking jokes about Rupert owning the network are pure bunk?
By compulsory license, you mean he had to PAY to license the work to create his derivative.
compulsory means the owner (mix-a-lot) can't refuse to license.
Now, query: did FOX pay either Jon or Sir Mix-a-lot (actually, would need BOTH) anything?
To scream and warble like zoo animals that he's now officially a homophobe.
nobody would actually give a rats ass about the song if it wasn't baby got back
That was kind of the point of the song... I guess you could call it a form of musical irony: lyrics like that do not normally belong in a folk song. I could see my roommate playing it for her (slightly out of it) mother, and the mother thoroughly enjoying the song without actually listening to the lyrics. And I can further imagine the look of horror on her face as she realizes what the song is actually about.
The song is a joke. Its purpose is to make you laugh. And while it could be done with other similarly disparate songs (say Copkilla set to a Simon & Garfunkel style melody), the effect would be essentially the same, and Coulton chose to use Baby Got Back. I've no idea why JC chose that song, but it could have something to do with the fact that Baby Got Back was, itself, a big joke, albeit an unfortunate one that ended a promising performing career. In the end, does it really matter?
I would have released an entire Glee season cover album without authorization. Just one song is ignorable and everyone can sweep this under the rug. Pull off a whole album and they'd be forced to respond, which would make asses out of themselves.
Fox has some giant balls on this one. I don't know why they bothered to change the vocals at all, personally, if they're going to steal the entire song in the first place.
Fox doesn't have balls, giant or otherwise. They have a metric whackload of money. Granted that's often mistaken for balls, but take the money away and they're more cowardly than the average joe.
Coulton is the one with balls in this story.
You need more modpoints.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Right from TFA:
Indeed, he says he was told he "should be happy for the exposure."
I guess everyone now has the perfect response, provided by the studios themselves...
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
You're probably telling yourself "balls didn't touch, no homo" to get over your issues.
(For everybody else who's still got an ounce of humor left, watch American Dad episode "Lincoln Lover". Hilarious parody)
Sincerely, your friendly neighborhood gay man.
Nope. According to Wikipedia, 20th Century Fox and Fox Entertainment Group are both owned by News Corporation, so GP is just a typical AC moron.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
"no one would give a shit bout it then." What do you mean? No one is giving a shit about it now, JC has no legal problems with his version of the song whatsoever, no one is upset about him doing a cover. He doesn't need to make it a parody because there's no controversy about it. The controversy is Glee's version which is a straight up copy of the cover.
For the record, I'm as straight as they come and have no confusion issues at all.
Yeah, absolutely. You're straight as they come. You're so straight you won't even touch your own cock when you go pee pee in case you get a hard on, so you have to get a buddy to do it for you. Oh, wait...
I want it out of my face.
LOL. I bet you don't really.
What you do in the bedroom is your business. When you go promoting it, it becomes my business.
Yup, Glee is full of hardcore gay sex. I can't believe our kids are exposed to that filth.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it