What is wrong with the music industry?

http://kroq.cbslocal.com/2013/12/12/beastie-boys-finally-sue-goldieblox/

That was an awesome commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmeuhPNojTA

I assumed that they'd acquired rights to the song.

Pretty ballsy that they didn't

Adam Yauch put in his will that Beastie Boys songs were NEVER to be used in a commercial. The rest of the band is just honoring his wishes.

It was an awesome commercial, but that is outright intellectual property theft. The Beasties have to set a precedence, if they don't protect their songs, ANY company can use their songs for free without ramification.

^That. I support what they're doing on no other basis than to honor his wishes. PLUS- While I support the Goldieblox thing- I think they missed the image of the song, and I found it rather ironic.

Maroon92 wrote: Adam Yauch put in his will that Beastie Boys songs were NEVER to be used in a commercial. The rest of the band is just honoring his wishes. It was an awesome commercial, but that is outright intellectual property theft. The Beasties have to set a precedence, if they don't protect their songs, ANY company can use their songs for free without ramification.

That is the reasoning I have heard about Adam's wishes. You'll never hear a Beastie Boys song being used to pitch a cruise line or a cheeseburger. The toy company screwed up and should have known that their commercial probably falls outside of the parody definition. I'm pretty sure even Weird Al has to get permission from an artist to do a parody that is sold on his album.

Sexual discrimination is bad, so we're gonna make a toy only for girls.

N Sperlo wrote: Sexual discrimination is bad, so we're gonna make a toy only for girls.

Just like racial discrimination is bad. Just ask the NAACP.

Maroon92 wrote: Adam Yauch put in his will that Beastie Boys songs were NEVER to be used in a commercial. The rest of the band is just honoring his wishes. It was an awesome commercial, but that is outright intellectual property theft. The Beasties have to set a precedence, if they don't protect their songs, ANY company can use their songs for free without ramification.

This. Most people don't understand that artists aren't being dicks when they take action like this. They have to, or else they lose copyright to their own music. Even Metallica, the band everybody loves to hate, weren't being dicks for suing Napster. You may still think they are dicks, but they aren't in that particular case.

They've already made their money on it. It should be free.

Pure greed.

mndsm wrote: While I support the Goldieblox thing- I think they missed the image of the song, and I found it rather ironic.

Taking a sexist song where women are nothing more than berkeley holes and housekeepers and turning it into something to encourage young girls to not be those things.

Not ironic at all. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Zomby Woof wrote: They've already made their money on it. It should be free. Pure greed.

It will be free eventually, approximately 70 years after the last Beastie dies.

"The law automatically protects a work that is created and fixed in a tangible medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978, from the moment of its creation and gives it a term lasting for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years. For a “joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death."

And no, it should not be free. The Beasties made it, it is theirs to do with as they wish.

Zomby Woof wrote: They've already made their money on it. It should be free. Pure greed.

Seriously?

How dare you work to protect your life's work. How dare you try to carryout the wishes of your lifelong friend who died of cancer. How dare you create something that people enjoy and try to make a living off of it! You're so greedy.

What about entrepreneurs that start a business and make several million dollars? Should they start giving away their products for free because they've made "enough" money on it?

Yes, seriously.

People have copied stuff I do and I don't cry about it. I made my money. I'm happy with that.

What about entrepreneurs that start a business and make several million dollars? Should they start giving away their products for free because they've made "enough" money on it?

That's a stupid question.

Wow, this took a rather unexpected turn....

mndsm wrote: Wow, this took a rather unexpected turn....

No it took the exact turn we should have expected around here lately.

Is this like when Chris Christie keeps using Springsteen songs and Bruce says he should stop and Chris just kind of shrugs it off?

slefain wrote:

mndsm wrote: Wow, this took a rather unexpected turn....

No it took the exact turn we should have expected around here lately.

I generally stay out of the threads that turn into E36 M3shows based on title. I got roped into the $Texas one because I was stupid and posted... and this one because I like the Beastie Boys, totally respect Adams no commercial sales bit, and figured most would be on board. I guess I try to avoid the messes.

I'm not complaining that they talked to the GoldieBlox and had them pull the video. Goldie should have talked to them first or if that failed, they should have changed the song a bit more to avoid the copyright issues. Basically if it was a parody then they wouldn't have had as much

And Weird Al gets away with what he does by making fun of the song and he gets by because it is a parody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Weird_Al%22_Yankovic#Reactions_from_original_artists

Also understand that the artists aren't the source of much of this, the labels are as they are protecting their Intellectual Property. Most artists make their money from concerts, not from selling their music through their labels, that's where the labels make their money.

This thread needs the full 30 minutes of Beastie Boys - Fight For Your Right (revisited)

"I think we can agree we're all on the same team here and that is the the no pie, no sledge hammer team..."

Note: less than ideally safe for work or safe for young girls.

turboswede wrote: Most artists make their money from concerts, not from selling their music through their labels, that's where the labels make their money.

So if Charmin sells more toilet paper at Wal Mart than at Target, does that mean that whatever is in the Target should be free? They aren't making most of their money off of it there, so why not?

Protection of artists and intellectual property rights will always be a sticky subject, because at its heart, you're not talking about a tangible product, you're talking abut an idea. When does a song or an image cease being the one you created and become the one I created that way maybe just influenced by yours?

Personally, I tend to side with the creator more often that not, but even having said that I think the true geniuses are the ones that learn how to game the system and use it to their advantage. Was Metallica right to bring suit against Napster? Yeah, probably, but they were dicks about it and it probably ended up hurting them in the long run.

Although he's returned to publishing through major labels, Trent Reznor did some amazing work promoting several of his records through alternative distribution methods, in many cases beating the pirates at their own game. I think there's a lot to be learned from his model.

As for this, Goldiebox appears to have profited massively by coopting someone else's work. Maybe there were better ways to handle it, but, yeah, the Beasties appear to be entirely within their rights here.

jg

Zomby Woof wrote: They've already made their money on it. It should be free. Pure greed.

Let's see you create a real masterpiece, then donate it to the public domain. Let's see you watch it get used to sell toilet paper or, if it's an image, get badly copied and appear all over cheap consumer products. How happy about that are you gonna be? Are you gonna wish you could have somehow been able to defend your creation? You talk a real bitter game about how creators are shiny happy people for enforcing their copyrights, but I somehow don't picture you doing anything different.

Besides, how can it be "pure greed" if they are specifically saying they DON'T want their music used commercially?

My Sweet Lord, He's So Fine.

It works on all levels. I've had my photography stolen off of postcards and used on T-shirts without compensation. When threatened with a cease and desist letter or the option to sign a royalty agreement of 50 cents a shirt, the people basically laughed at me, said they only sell a couple of hundred shirts a year (true), and to go ahead and sue. Obviously I'm not going to hire a lawyer for the meager amounts involved, even though the fines are hefty (and these people couldn't pay any fines that would be assessed), but that's how the system works. No question that I'd win in court. I have had good success in other cases of my work showing up on the internet, though, on forums and such (not here) - when asked, the moderators gladly added a copyright - do not reproduce line, so I'm fine with that. But copyright is important to professionals who create stuff.

Zomby Woof wrote: They've already made their money on it. It should be free. Pure greed.

Seriously? If they were after greed then they would SELL their songs to commercials/advertisers! They are specifically not doing that. Understand?

Zomby Woof wrote: Yes, seriously. People have copied stuff I do and I don't cry about it. I made my money. I'm happy with that.

that's your decision to make for yourself.. some artists make a different choice.

The Beasties were very reasonable here. They asked Goldieblox to stop using their music, even saying that they were sympathetic to Goldieblox's vision. They only sued after Goldieblox sued them first.

MCA's wishes were well known before they became part of his will. In "Putting Shame in Your Game," he says, "I might stick around and I might be a fad, but I won't sell my soul for no TV ad."

I side with the boys on this one.