Jonathan Coulton Offers Some Gleeful Turnabout

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jonathan Coulton Offers Some Gleeful Turnabout

Posted by timothy on Sunday January 27, 2013 @12:05PM from the copyright-and-covers-oh-my dept.

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.'"

157 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So... by Osgeld · 2013-01-27 12:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

What is Sir Mix-a-lot getting out of all of this?
1. Re: So... by wilson_c · 2013-01-27 12:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Publishing rights, which tend to make more money than mechanicals.
2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 12:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  What is Sir Mix-a-lot getting out of all of this?
  He's getting back.
3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 12:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Royalties on every song sold, as Coulton states on his website.
4. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 12:19 · Score: -1
  
  Extreme orgasm.... goo everywhere... pop shot unhindered
5. Re:So... by smittyoneeach · 2013-01-27 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he can finally get that hoopty fixed.
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
6. Re:So... by safrinanoor8 · 2013-01-27 20:19 · Score: 0
  
  Carz by Sir Mix-A-Lot is currently available from iTunes, and will be available shortly on other major online music distributors.... http://x.co/sfEV
7. Re:So... by toddestan · 2013-01-28 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  Naw, Mix got a Benz boy, quit smoking that rock.
Skillful self-promotion by timeOday · 2013-01-27 12:15 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I see more of a marketing ploy than an underdog story in this.
1. Re:Skillful self-promotion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 12:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yeah I agree. Fox totally ripped off that song in the first place because they knew it would churn up a bunch of Internet chatter about Glee. Have the ratings been down or something?
2. Re:Skillful self-promotion by Megane · 2013-01-27 12:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I see more of a yo dawg story than an underdog story in this.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
3. Re:Skillful self-promotion by ais523 · 2013-01-27 12:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  As Capcom showed recently, there are often situations where you have the alternatives of engaging in expensive legal battles, or getting a bunch of free marketing and good publicity out of the situation. The second option is rarely taken, but it's nearly always better, and I applaud people for taking it.
  
  --
  (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
4. Re:Skillful self-promotion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 12:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Then you didn't read the story. Congrats.
5. Re:Skillful self-promotion by DJ+Particle · 2013-01-27 18:02 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You mean this? ;)
  
  https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/379702_4641480150047_2035344130_n.jpg
6. Re:Skillful self-promotion by gsslay · 2013-01-28 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well crafted marketing ploys tend to avoid having companies look like corporate jerks ripping off an individual. If this is a ploy by Fox then they really are clueless.
  There really is such a thing as bad publicity.
7. Re:Skillful self-promotion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Could you provide a link to more information about that please?
8. Re:Skillful self-promotion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  He may be talking about the Street Fighter X Capcom, a free PC game in the style of classic Mega Man games developed independently by a fan. Instead of sending a C&D as is common, Capcom gave official support to the project.
9. Re:Skillful self-promotion by cbhacking · 2013-01-28 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  JoCo generally releases his stuff as Creative Commons (I forget the exact license, but it's listed on his site). It's possible that he wouldn't have had a legal right to sue, depending on exactly what the license requirements were. It's nonetheless a dick move on the part of Glee to rip it off without proper attribution, and I suppose it pushes my estimate of Fox even lower as a company (heh, didn't know that was possible...).
  In any case, you're right. Legal battles are expensive and rarely look good even when completely justified. Free advertising and a funny, feel-good story that people will repeat, on the other hand, is exactly what a self-made artist needs.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
10. Re:Skillful self-promotion by ais523 · 2013-01-28 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  It was discussed on Slashdot at the time, but the editors missed what's going on. This comment is a summary of what happened; you can read the story, and the other comments on it, for more details.
  Short summary: a fan of Capcom games decides to make a crossover, when Capcom find out, they'd be within their rights to sue them, but instead they decided to publish it, giving it away free as an advert for their game franchises.
  
  --
  (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
11. Re:Skillful self-promotion by Seahawker101 · 2013-01-29 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yo dawg, I heard you like covers
  So I made a cover of your cover
  of a cover of my cover
  
  --
  Nothing inspires forgiveness quite like revenge.---Scott Adams
This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 12:17 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Please just let it die.
1. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 12:48 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  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.
2. Re:This story is still boring. by rudy_wayne · 2013-01-27 13:11 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  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.
  Yes, Glee sucks. But that is irrelevant to the story. Jonathan Coulton is a fucking douchebag who needs to shut the fuck up.
  He didn't write the song. He just copied a song somebody else wrote because he a talentless hack who can't create anything worthwhile on his own. And now he's complaining that somebody copied his copying. Boo-fucking-Hoo.
3. Re:This story is still boring. by PopeRatzo · 2013-01-27 13:13 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Concur. Coulton is was one of the last straws for me when it came to "geek" fandom.
  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.
4. Re:This story is still boring. by sjames · 2013-01-27 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  So why'd you click the link?
5. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  more Aaron Swartz!
6. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:21 · Score: -1
  
  how much did fox pay you to write that?
7. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:33 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Yikes, you're a real tool.
8. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
9. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:This story is still boring. by ActionDesignStudios · 2013-01-27 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  I wish I had modpoints for you two.
11. Re:This story is still boring. by Genda · 2013-01-27 13:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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!
12. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:51 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Sorry, all this talk of Aaron and Jonathan is preventing me from getting my much needed updates on BitCoin.
13. Re:This story is still boring. by jcr · 2013-01-27 13:59 · Score: 2
  
  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."
14. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 14:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
15. Re:This story is still boring. by Dieppe · 2013-01-27 14:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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
16. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry, BTC is still bullshit.
17. Re:This story is still boring. by MikeBabcock · 2013-01-27 16:18 · Score: 2
  
  Some of us don't even read comic books ... yes, I said it.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
18. Re:This story is still boring. by gl4ss · 2013-01-27 19:30 · Score: 0
  
  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.
19. Re:This story is still boring. by dgatwood · 2013-01-27 20:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  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:
  
  Universal's allowance of the Coulton variant constitutes tacit acceptance that they don't consider it to be different in character from the original (a.k.a. Fox's bizarro-world interpretation), in which case his arrangement of the song falls into a very special class of arrangement that isn't protected by copyright by virtue of the fact that it was created under compulsory licensing rules rather than under the terms of an actual agreement between the parties involved, or
  Universal's lack of a lawsuit does not constitute tacit acceptance that his arrangement is not in violation of their copyright (but rather, mere unwillingness to bother suing), in which case Coulton owns the copyright for the melody, did not have a legal right to record the combination of that melody with the original lyrics, and is technically in violation of copyright for every copy he has ever sold to date.
  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.
20. Re:This story is still boring. by dgatwood · 2013-01-27 20:53 · Score: 2
  
  Slight correction. He had a compulsory mechanical license, which by definition, does not allow....
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
21. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 22:18 · Score: 0
  
  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.
22. Re:This story is still boring. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  So all of their fourth wall breaking jokes about Rupert owning the network are pure bunk?
23. Re:This story is still boring. by realityimpaired · 2013-01-28 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  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?
24. Re:This story is still boring. by quacking+duck · 2013-01-28 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  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.
25. Re:This story is still boring. by HaZardman27 · 2013-01-28 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  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.
26. Re:This story is still boring. by Darinbob · 2013-01-28 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 12:23 · Score: 0

Neither one is as good as the original: Sir Mix-a-Lot.
1. Re:Both songs suck. by Dahamma · 2013-01-27 12:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Seriously - I just listened to it on Youtube and it's AWFUL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo
  The Glee version is only slightly different but equally putrid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk
  vs. the original version which is absolutely brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo
  Honestly, Jonathan Coulton's version makes it painfully clear he's one of the white people at the beginning of the Sir Mix-a-lot video...
2. Re:Both songs suck. by jamesh · 2013-01-27 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Neither one is as good as the original: Sir Mix-a-Lot.
  I think you'll find that if glee had tried to cover the original, instead of a cover, it would have sucked more.
  Might be a good way to make money - cover a popular song in such a way that it would fit within the capabilities of a bunch of semi-talented highschool kids and then wait for the royalties to roll in. Unless glee steal it instead of buying the rights to it... which they almost certainly will.
3. Re:Both songs suck. by PopeRatzo · 2013-01-27 13:15 · Score: 2
  
  the original version which is absolutely brilliant.
  Absolutely.
  If nothing else, this concocted controversy served to introduce a whole new generation to the joys of what hip-hop sounded like when giants walked the Earth.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
4. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:22 · Score: 0
  
  Oh my god, subjective opinions about music! Who would have thought in this day and age someone might not like a particular song.
5. Re:Both songs suck. by CRC'99 · 2013-01-27 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously - I just listened to it on Youtube and it's AWFUL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo
  The Glee version is only slightly different but equally putrid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk
  vs. the original version which is absolutely brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo
  Honestly, Jonathan Coulton's version makes it painfully clear he's one of the white people at the beginning of the Sir Mix-a-lot video...
  Sadly, I agree. I checked out the links you posted to see what all the hullabaloo was... I got about 45 seconds in and couldn't bear to listen to the 'covers' of it. Its... just painful o_O
  
  --
  Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
6. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  lol, I'm sure you're trolling. But just in case you aren't. Your last sentence is EXACTLY the point of the song.
7. Re:Both songs suck. by Dahamma · 2013-01-27 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, I don't think it was his point. If he was intending 5+ minutes of sarcasm about an early 90's rap song focusing on African American standards of beauty, it's pretty racist... which is NOT a word I'd use to describe Coulton.
  So which is it, racist, or just plain boring? (actually, could be both, but I'd go for the latter).
8. Re:Both songs suck. by Dahamma · 2013-01-27 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  Where did I miss the memo where slashdot no longer allowed opinions?
9. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 14:14 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Fuck all of you, Sir Mix-A-Lot's version is the best. I hate you all!
10. Re:Both songs suck. by mooingyak · 2013-01-27 14:15 · Score: 2
  
  I've heard Coulton's version once. Or at least, about half of it, before I got bored. What I did not doubt was that he knew exactly how he was coming across. I figured it was a joke. Joke's not as funny if you only do half the song though.
  I've always felt the best done cover in the same concept (not the same song) was Dynamite Hack.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
11. Re:Both songs suck. by bcrowell · 2013-01-27 14:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Seriously - I just listened to it on Youtube and it's AWFUL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo
  The Glee version is only slightly different but equally putrid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk
  vs. the original version which is absolutely brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo
  
  The Coulton version is a joke. I think you missed the joke.
  
  --
  Find free books.
12. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect that was precisely what he was trying to do. No need to try to talk trash about the man.
13. Re:Both songs suck. by Dahamma · 2013-01-27 15:02 · Score: 2
  
  Just because it's a joke, doesn't mean it can't be a REALLY BAD one.
14. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  That one I actually like better than the original. I somehow managed to miss the video. I love how the video is positively dripping in irony.
15. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 15:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I much prefer the Gilbert and Sullivan version.
16. Re:Both songs suck. by _xeno_ · 2013-01-27 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I think the Coulton version is really kind of funny.
  I've also never made it more than about 30 seconds or so into it, I dunno. It doesn't take long to get the joke and it's really fucking boring.
  In that sense, maybe Coulton should be glad Glee didn't blame him for the arrangement...
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
17. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 16:37 · Score: -1
  
  White people have been doing melodic covers over risque black music since forever. Coulton isn't inspired, he's just a mimic, and a flounce.
  Evidence attached. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG2EGOB9-lc
  Posting anonymously, because I mainly just read this site, but barely have justification to post anything, so it doesn't warrant account creation something something karma whoring.
18. Re:Both songs suck. by blind+biker · 2013-01-27 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously - I just listened to it on Youtube and it's AWFUL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo [youtube.com]
  The Glee version is only slightly different but equally putrid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk [youtube.com]
  vs. the original version which is absolutely brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo [youtube.com]
  Honestly, Jonathan Coulton's version makes it painfully clear he's one of the white people at the beginning of the Sir Mix-a-lot video...
  
  Which was exactly the point of his little mischievious escapade.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
19. Re:Both songs suck. by sd4f · 2013-01-27 17:54 · Score: 2
  
  I thought weird al yankovic nailed the white person wannabe song White and Nerdy!
20. Re:Both songs suck. by sd4f · 2013-01-27 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  Nonexistent mod points to you sir!
21. Re:Both songs suck. by Dahamma · 2013-01-27 18:03 · Score: 2
  
  Or even better Amish Paradise
22. Re:Both songs suck. by Dahamma · 2013-01-27 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, I haven't seen that White and Nerdy video for a couple years. I think it may be better. Either way Weird Al rules :)
23. Re:Both songs suck. by Kashgarinn · 2013-01-27 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  The joke is that you take a rap song and create a pop song, that doesn't make it OK that it's a crap version.
  If you want an example of great covers which are both jokes and incredibly excellent, just google "Weird Al"
  This story is fun, and his response is excellent, but both the original and and glee version suck because you can hear from be bad composing that he laughed so hard at his own joke that he just made something shit, then asked everyone who listens "hey don't you think this is funny?" Which the proper response is : "Yes, but it kinda sucks as well, no way does it stand up as a real song which is fun to listen to."
24. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 21:00 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of simps won't like this song.
25. Re:Both songs suck. by Phrogman · 2013-01-27 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  While I can't say I liked either the Coulton version OR the Glee version, I also think the original version is crap too, so to each their own.
  I can only think of maybe 1 Hip Hop/Rap song that I actually enjoyed, maybe 2, so its definitely not my thing at all :P
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
26. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  After hearing that, you just want to go and drink some jin and juice to help forget about it.
27. Re:Both songs suck. by gsslay · 2013-01-28 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  you can hear from be bad composing that he laughed so hard at his own joke that he just made something shit, then asked everyone who listens "hey don't you think this is funny?"
  And that is different from Weird Al's entire career because ..... ??
28. Re:Both songs suck. by bradgoodman · 2013-01-28 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  So...
  Coulton's if version is a joke - but is Glee's? If Coulton did it as a joke - and Glee didn't realize it was a joke and said "oh, that's SO COOL - let's do that"! What does that mean?
  I think it probably just means that Glee sucks - which we already knew.
  P.S. I don't know what this topic has gotten so much press - I really think both versions totally suck.
29. Re:Both songs suck. by Gilmoure · 2013-01-28 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Try Aztec Camera's Jump.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
30. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  Not the same AC, but I believe the other AC's point was, if such a memo had actually existed, you clearly did not miss it.
  
  Personally, I think the other AC was stretching it to make that point.
31. Re:Both songs suck. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  Nice debating tactic; either you're right, or Coulton is racist. What a special little flavor of false dilemma.
32. Re:Both songs suck. by Dahamma · 2013-01-28 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes - *this* is the part of it all that I think is funny...
33. Re:Both songs suck. by tehcyder · 2013-01-28 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  I can only think of maybe 1 Hip Hop/Rap song that I actually enjoyed, maybe 2, so its definitely not my thing at all :P
  That's still 2 more than disco.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
34. Re:Both songs suck. by Phrogman · 2013-01-29 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I agree, there is NO good disco - and that includes the modern "dance mix" stuff that is really just disco masquerading as something else :P
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 12:53 · Score: -1

What, nobody ?? First Sponge Bob, and now this !! The sooner this gay-promoting "show" is off the air, the better the world will be !! These shows are made for those in places like Holland, where gay is the norm. It has no place in the red, white and blue America !!
1. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by macbeth66 · 2013-01-27 13:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I am neither a Glee fan or gay. But seriously, someone has real sexual identity issues.
2. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  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!
3. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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!
4. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:34 · Score: -1
  
  What, nobody ?? First Sponge Bob, and now this !! The sooner this gay-promoting "show" is off the air, the better the world will be !! These shows are made for those in places like Holland, where gay is the norm. It has no place in the red, white and blue America !!
  The people most against homosexuals are often the most "in the closet." So hey big boy! If you're ever in my "area" of town, I'd love to slide some glee between your buns! And you can slide a bit of glee in mine too!
5. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  i get the feeling that the person who posted the comment probably doesn't like the idea of mixing colors, either.
6. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 14:31 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  No, he's right. The only viewers the show has are women and gays. The show's main storylines are about, and are unabashedly, pro-gay. Not everyone thinks that's a good thing. For the record, I'm as straight as they come and have no confusion issues at all. I want it out of my face. What you do in the bedroom is your business. When you go promoting it, it becomes my business.
7. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 14:34 · Score: -1
  
  No, I'm not in the closet. I'm straight.
8. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 15:44 · Score: -1
  
  Sure. Mod me down. All of the normal people of the world were supposed to just all of a sudden say, "OH! I was wrong! Dicks DO go in buttholes!" Nope. You are still opposed. And you are a tiny minority. The oft-cited figure is 10%; it's much less than that, but gays do have a greater concentration in the arts, which have a wide reach & artificially inflates their reach. No one is talking about putting you in ovens or gassing you. That went out in 1945. But get out of my face. When you do that, it's my business.
9. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by MonsterTrimble · 2013-01-28 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  You need more modpoints.
  
  --
  I call it 'The Aristocrats'
10. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  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.
11. Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! by tehcyder · 2013-01-28 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  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
mod D#own by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:21 · Score: -1

Ultimately, wE Lead developers are a pathetic
Huh... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Huh... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:53 · Score: -1
  
  Fair point, Jonathan, but we still hate your song.
2. Re:Huh... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 14:52 · Score: -1
  
  No, Slashdot was obfuscating the situation by promoting & defending the gay agenda.
3. Re:Huh... by OverlordQ · 2013-01-27 16:08 · Score: 2
  
  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..
  It wasn't stolen. If you cant call downloading movies and games stealing, you can't call this stealing either. He wasn't deprived of his property. So get your double standards straight.
  
  --
  Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
4. Re:Huh... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  My guess is he's going to get his ass sued for using the Glee trademark and it's not going to be as sweet as everyone thinks it is. He doesn't have the money to go up against the big guns, and I think in the end they'll take the bad publicity and play the sue/counter-sue game rather than be seen to take a bloody nose without response.
5. Re:Huh... by cgimusic · 2013-01-27 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  Whilst it is not stealing it is not the same as non-commercial piracy either. It is a lot worse than that because of the fact that it is plagiarism and because of the fact that it is being used commercially.
6. Re:Huh... by mufflon · 2013-01-27 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's definitely stealing - though not as in theft (i.e. larsony). It's completely inane to make this yet another slashdot anti-RIAA-related topic when the initial topic carries none of those attributes.
7. Re:Huh... by 1u3hr · 2013-01-27 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell is wrong with you people. Whether or not you like the style of his song is completely fucking irrelevant.
  What's completely fucking irrelevant is this story about a song on "Glee" being featured on Slashdot. Is this TMZ or Variety?
8. Re:Huh... by gsslay · 2013-01-28 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely. It's depressing that so many people believe that a 'good' song is some kind of absolute measure you can base a legal or moral decision on. A 'good' song is just a personal opinion of no value to anyone but the holder.
9. Re:Huh... by quacking+duck · 2013-01-28 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell is wrong with you people. Whether or not you like the style of his song is completely fucking irrelevant.
  What's completely fucking irrelevant is this story about a song on "Glee" being featured on Slashdot. Is this TMZ or Variety?
  I don't watch or follow Glee in the slightest, so I must have completely missed the memo advising that the production of Glee is totally free of any intellectual property rights and associated issues.
  I also outgrew Mickey Mouse when I was 9, so I'm sure I missed a similar memo about how Disney's effect on copyrights is irrelevant.
10. Re:Huh... by 1u3hr · 2013-01-28 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  so I must have completely missed the memo advising that the production of Glee is totally free of any intellectual property rights and associated issues.
  I must have missed the memo that anything that someone can imagine is linked to copyright in some way is on topic here. Even though it isn't even mentioned in TFA. Any random article about show biz is on topic then.
11. Re:Huh... by quacking+duck · 2013-01-28 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  When copyright and IP issues in showbiz become headline and gossip fodder on TMZ or Variety, then you can complain that it's become something that "normal" people care about and can dismiss it as dreck. Until then, yes, any article pertaining to the sordid state of IP laws and how the industry (especially Hollywood showbiz) abuses it, can be considered a proper topic for Slashdot to cover.
12. Re:Huh... by 1u3hr · 2013-01-28 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  any article pertaining to the sordid state of IP laws
  Which TFA is not, it isn't even mentioned.
13. Re:Huh... by quacking+duck · 2013-01-28 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I see where your confusion stems from. This was a direct follow-up to the Slashdot story just 3 days ago. In *that* linked article, the IP issues and ethics are pretty clearly spelled out.
  What Coulton did definitely deserved a follow-up, but as editor, timothy was negligent for not linking to the original story to make the association clear.
14. Re:Huh... by tehcyder · 2013-01-28 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Say some crackpot racist bigot got his crappy song copied by a big corporation, the words changed and they made a million dollars out of it, would I feel any sympathy for the crackpot racist bigot?
  Nope.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
15. Re:Huh... by tehcyder · 2013-01-28 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Whilst it is not stealing it is not the same as non-commercial piracy either. It is a lot worse than that because of the fact that it is plagiarism and because of the fact that it is being used commercially.
  You're missing the point: why is plagiarism so much worse than straight copying? At least with plagiarism there is some original work going on. And what difference does it make whether copying is for personal or commercial use? You're still using material without permission.
  It is illogical to oppose copyright, then moan when people copy things in ways that do not benefit the original artist.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
16. Re:Huh... by DirtyLiar · 2013-01-31 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  why is plagiarism so much worse than straight copying?
  I think he is saying that making a profit off of stolen IP is more wrong than simply stealing IP, or stealing IP and sharing it, or receiving stolen IP.
  That was the line I wouldn't cross when I was in high-school, buying or selling pirated IP. That absolutely IS taking food out of the programmers mouth. While sharing programs for free, at least in my situation, wasn't, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway since I was poor. And if I found it useful and worth the price of admission, I eventually paid.
  
  It is illogical to oppose copyright, then moan when people copy things in ways that do not benefit the original artist.
  Not really. You can feel that current copyright law is broken, and no longer serves to incentivize original artists, but rather serves to simply enrichen big corporations and their stockholders.
  How does lifetime protection encourage more production?
  How does lifetime + 75 years of protection years encourage more production?
  How does lifetime + 75 years + an additional 150 years of protection encourage more production?
  It does not. They do not.
  Neither the copyright nor the patent was invented to guarantee unending income. Especially for corporations and estates.
  They were created to protect creations for a short period of time, so that the originator could reap the rewards of his work, incentivizing both him and others to create, THEN to open the creation for use / modification by the world. Creating incentive for others to create more and possibly even greater uses of the technology / art, and legitimate derivative works. Benefiting society as a whole.
  One major reason for this is because the originator is usually blinded to the potential of his/her own creation by his/her original vision of it, and cannot possibly foresee all possible uses for it. The inventor of the Xeroxing process never made, or even designed any copiers because he couldn't see ANY demand for it outside the Publishing Industry, which already had a superior technology for re-creating text, called the printing-press. He just couldn't see any demand coming from non-publishing businesses, small offices, or even individual users. But now most people can't imagine working, learning, or living without the capacity to copy, scan or print high quality images and documents.
  Business interests have been lobbying to increase both copy and patent time periods, the penalties for breaking them, and to deny ownership of those patents and copyrights to those persons who actually created the IP, for hundreds of years. And every day they get closer to fulfilling their dream of absolute ownership of the rights, processes and results of all creativity, without having to reimburse the actual creators with even a fraction of the profits they make off of them.
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
He's funny and shows grace. by bcrowell · 2013-01-27 13:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:He's funny and shows grace. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 17:04 · Score: 0
  
  "Songs that I wrote are licensed Creative Commons by-nc (covers and other stuff I don't own are not)."
  Covers are not CC.
2. Re:He's funny and shows grace. by B1oodAnge1 · 2013-01-27 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  Code Monkey is not a cover.
  
  --
  RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
3. Re:He's funny and shows grace. by bcrowell · 2013-01-28 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Code Monkey is not a cover.
  The youtube link is to a video that someone else made using the Coulton song. They were able to do that because Coulton put the song under a CC license.
  
  --
  Find free books.
GNAA Statement of Support for Efforts to Compromis by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 13:57 · Score: -1

Sunday, January 27, 2013
GNAA Statement of Support for Efforts to Compromise Google
Gary Niger, Esq. - New York, NY
GNAA is proud to support the successful completion of several recent attacks on google.com . As a result of the attacks, fully 59 pages on the google.com domain were taken over. GNAA requests that, in future, once taken over, these sites are used to distribute GNAA propaganda malware. The Google after-action report is included below as an attachment.
About Google:
Popular search service for individuals of unascertained sexual preference.
About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.
Are you GAY?
Are you a NIGGER?
Are you a GAY NIGGER?
If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~128mb) using BitTorrent.
Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website.
Third, you need to join the official GNAA IRC channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.eu, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to provide a link to your slashdot first post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.
If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA IRC channel, you may be on the wrong IRC network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.eu as our official server.
If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.
Press contact: Gary Niger gary_niger@gnaa.eu
GNAA Corporate Headquarters
143 Rolloffle Avenue
Tarzana, California 91356
All other inquiries:
GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.eu
GNAA World Headquarters
60-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2
Copyright © 2002-2012 Gay Nigger Association of America
http://google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=google.com

Safe Browsing
Diagnostic page for google.com
What is the current listing status for google.com?
This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 28 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 667115 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 59 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2013-01-27, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2013-01-27.
Malicious software includes 158 trojan(s), 8 scripting exploit(s), 8 virus. Successful infection resulted in an average of 4 new process(es) on the target machine.
Malicious software is hosted on 49 domain(s), including adsbyisocket.com/, imaginginsider.com/, dgsdfhsdfh.osa.pl/.
"Without looking churlish"? by L.+J.+Beauregard · 2013-01-27 14:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
This might be interesting... by dwex · 2013-01-27 14:57 · Score: 0

if the cover version didn't suck big butts...
Over 50 comments and nobody has said it... by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-01-27 15:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

...so I have to say it.
DMCA takedown notices from Fox for this version AND Jonathan Coulton's first version in 3...2...1...
1. Re:Over 50 comments and nobody has said it... by gknoy · 2013-01-27 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be more interested in what would happen to Fox's channel if Coulton were to have issued takedown requests on _theirs_.
2. Re:Over 50 comments and nobody has said it... by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-27 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  Someone at youtube looks at the notice, laughs, and throws it in the bin.
  This does mean youtube becomes potentially liable, but for someone like Fox - a very popular and successful corporate giant, willing to supply the best lawyers money can buy to defend against any legal action - that is a justified risk.
3. Re:Over 50 comments and nobody has said it... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  No, that response would mean that YouTube suddenly becomes liable for *any and all* copyrighted materials hosted on it's network. The safe-harbor protections are very specific about that. You either act on *all* properly formed notices, or you lose the safe harbor.
Am I missing something? by millst · 2013-01-27 15:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 15:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You are missing a few things.
  First, Coulton didn't just cover it. He modified it greatly so that the end result, while still obviously a version of the original song, was nonetheless a new work in its own right.
  Second, Glee is a TV show, and TV shows must license the synchronization rights to use a song. Period.
  Third, in addition to not licensing the song, the show didn't even bother to credit him. That's just plain old douchebaggery.
2. Re:Am I missing something? by BanHammor · 2013-01-27 15:56 · Score: 2
  
  Not quite: people say they actually ripped his melody off. Directly. Using waveform reduction.
  That may give him legal ground.
  
  Also, with that kind of logic you can try and cover Rising Sun by the Animals using their arrangement, or a lot of things by Zeppelin (yes, even Stairway), because the original authors are long dead and gone.
3. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  Also, with that kind of logic you can try and cover Rising Sun by the Animals using their arrangement, or a lot of things by Zeppelin (yes, even Stairway), because the original authors are long dead and gone.
  Stairway to Heaven was written by Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, both of whom are somewhat alive.
4. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  First, the cover is not a new work in its own right. That's part of the problem--Coulton has no legal recourse because of the license he used to create the cover in the first place.
  Second, who says Fox didn't license the rights to the song?
  Third, yes, except for the "not licensing" part, for which you have no evidence.
5. Re:Am I missing something? by gl4ss · 2013-01-27 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  fox most probably did license the song. they might have not licensed using jc's recording of it though.
  but the actual problem is that they couldn't really license the song from jc anyways.. despite it being a total rape of the original it's not an original song because that's how he labeled it himself, as just a cover. (I'm guessing this is actually because if he had just took the lyrics.. then there wouldn't have been a compulsory license, so he claims he covered the song when in fact he just took the lyrics).
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
6. Re:Am I missing something? by mufflon · 2013-01-27 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  If they were to take the song note by note and making a new ensamble then yes, you're correct - but he has definitive non-negotiable copyright claim on his own recording of the cower - which they allegedly used.
7. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 23:26 · Score: 0
  
  As we are discussing a Coulton article, it's more appropriate to use the phrase "still alive".
8. Re:Am I missing something? by Rogerborg · 2013-01-28 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Coulton says that he licensed rights to perform and distribute the original. Presumably Fox did that too.
  Coulton then produced a distinctively transformed version, creating new rights in his composition.
  Fox then used Coulton's distinctive composition (possibly even a straight rip-n-play) without licensing, permission, thanks or acknowledgement, except a surly "Damn hippy should be grateful for the publicity, not that we meant to give him any".
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
9. Re:Am I missing something? by Darinbob · 2013-01-28 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  An interesting commentary about arrangements. I thought you could own the arrangement if not the words but apparently not.
This is a triumph... by TheSwift · 2013-01-27 15:25 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm making a note here - huge success.

--
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
1. Re:This is a triumph... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 20:10 · Score: 0
  
  It's not January 2011, that doesn't work anymore.
2. Re:This is a triumph... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  I'm guessing you don't know that Jonathan Coulton wrote "Still Alive". Thus, it works.
I would have posted earlier.... by PuckSR · 2013-01-27 15:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:I would have posted earlier.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 19:47 · Score: 0
  
  PC Netflix will do 1080p regardless of whether you have an HDCP setup, which makes that more entertaining.
Sad thing is by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 15:39 · Score: 0

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
1. Re:Sad thing is by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  Glee is trademarked, and he used the trademark in the new title. He's cruisin' for a bruisin'. He should have titled it gleeful or something similar.
spent my $0.99 by spleendamage · 2013-01-27 16:33 · Score: 1

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.
No vampires = not gay. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 16:48 · Score: 0

Didn't you get the memo?
Now... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 16:48 · Score: 1

Watch it get DMCA'd by the assholes who used it without permission in the first place.
Fox is self-censoring news about this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 17:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

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/
I'm making a note here by Cyfun · 2013-01-27 18:52 · Score: 0

To quote another song Glee will probably soon be doing:
THIS WAS A TRIUMPH!

--
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
1. Re:I'm making a note here by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-27 19:55 · Score: 0
  
  He doesn't need to. He wrote it. It's the moment of publicity that turned him from obscure bedroom-musician to internet celebrity.
Not for major studio content by YesIAmAScript · 2013-01-27 21:12 · Score: 3, Informative

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
1. Re:Not for major studio content by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  lol... and they wonder why people prefer to use the "Swedish Netflix".
  1) Go to TPB
  2) Download .mkv in HD of what you want
  3) Watch it wherever you want, however you want.
  HDCP wut?
2. Re:Not for major studio content by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  I'm genuinely curious as to why the US doesn't invade Sweden, or if that would be too difficult, just nuke it.
3. Re:Not for major studio content by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  So just use VGA, then. VGA supports way higher resolution than 1080p.
Just lost his case by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 00:14 · Score: 0

He just tacitly admitted that Glee didn't use his material without permission.
1. Re:Just lost his case by gl4ss · 2013-01-28 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  He just tacitly admitted that Glee didn't use his material without permission.
  he would need to prove that they used his recording and not a studio quality remake(Ducks and all) of it.
  if he tried to fight that he has the right for the arrangement, the he could be sued by sir.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
More correction by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 00:55 · Score: 0

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?
1. Re:More correction by dgatwood · 2013-01-28 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  By compulsory license, I mean that he used a special class of copyright license that by law is limited to near-exact copies of the original. Therefore, either his work was different enough to be a derivative work, in which case his compulsory license doesn't cover it (and thus, he has been selling unlicensed works of copyright infringement), or it isn't, in which case because of the law governing compulsory licensing, his arrangement is not protected by copyright.
  Fox paid Universal (Sir Mix-A-Lot's publisher) or a PRO that represents them. They did not pay Coulton and claim that their license to the original also grants them access to his arrangement because his derivative work was prepared using a compulsory license and therefore his arrangement is not protected by copyright.
  In order for Fox to be on the wrong side of the law (because he should have copyright on his original melody), it would be necessary to also show that Coulton was also on the wrong side of the law when he created his version of the song (because his license did not cover the act of creating anything that would qualify as a derivative work under Title 17), which would then open him up to a lawsuit from Universal.
  And it is unclear how the courts would rule. They could easily side with Fox, asserting that his choice to use a compulsory license represents an implied waiver of copyright protection. Or they could side with Coulton, asserting that his choice to use a compulsory license was clearly intended (by Coulton) to be a license to the lyrics alone, in which case his use of the lyrics was an inappropriate use of the compulsory license, and pretty much everybody involved is infringing.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I'm waiting for Huffington Post and Salon by gelfling · 2013-01-28 00:55 · Score: 1

To scream and warble like zoo animals that he's now officially a homophobe.
Why just one song? by slashmydots · 2013-01-28 02:31 · Score: 1

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.
Perfect response for being accused of piracy... by emag · 2013-01-28 04:55 · Score: 1

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