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?
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?
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; }
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"
Then you didn't read the story. Congrats.
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...
I am neither a Glee fan or gay. But seriously, someone has real sexual identity issues.
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.
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.
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.
So why'd you click the link?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
Just because it's a joke, doesn't mean it can't be a REALLY BAD one.
...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.
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.
I much prefer the Gilbert and Sullivan version.
Some of us don't even read comic books ... yes, I said it.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
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.
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.
Watch it get DMCA'd by the assholes who used it without permission in the first place.
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.
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 thought weird al yankovic nailed the white person wannabe song White and Nerdy!
Nonexistent mod points to you sir!
You mean this? ;)
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/379702_4641480150047_2035344130_n.jpg
Or even better Amish Paradise
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 :)
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."
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.
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
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
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.
To scream and warble like zoo animals that he's now officially a homophobe.
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.
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 ..... ??
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?
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.
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.
Try Aztec Camera's Jump.
I drank what? -- Socrates
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
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.
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...
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.
Yes - *this* is the part of it all that I think is funny...
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.
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
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"
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
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