So now that the producer of the song has proven Mike right and you wrong, as you going to retract your incorrect assertion and apologise for the baseless insults? Or will to keep on digging your deep hole of stupidity?
Yeah, I might've misread that, but I didn't take GoldBlox's comment to imply any claim to authorship of the original song, just that they didn't like the lyrical message. You don't have to 'own' something to have pride in it, or a lack of pride.
"But you do not understand respect for an artist, his/her wishes, or respect for an artist's work."
And you clearly don't understand copyright law and the reasons why it exists. It has nothing to do with respect for an artists wishes and everything to do with encouraging creation of new works (at least that's supposed to be what it's for). Mike's articles on this topic were about the legal issues.
Again with the hate on lyric writers. It's quite extraordinary that people claiming to support musicians would at the same time be so utterly dismissive of the art of writing lyrics. In this case every single word but one was rewritten, but apparently that doesn't count as authorship in your control-freak view of copyright.
Do you have anything to say in support of your dismissive attitude to writing lyrics?
Nice how you fixate on a single word and a simple tune, but completely ignore the 99% lyrical rewrite and the message it contains. Apparently you have no respect for writers and lyricists. Why is that?
That's not a theory, that's the way it's supposed to be. We all realise that it's not though, and that there are some things that are legal that shouldn't be and there are some things that are illegal and shouldn't be. Sometimes this is because societal norms have changed and the laws haven't been updated to match (e.g. anti-homosexuality laws), and sometimes it's because big commercial interests have been prioritised over what's best for society as a whole (e.g. current copyright laws).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get in bed with an egomaniac? Pass.
There are now three different Techdirt articles on the fair use story, and I'm sure you've commented in all of them. Your argument won't be strengthened by cluttering up the comments in an article is about bad TOS clauses.
"This isn't "transformative", it is "slightly modified"."
So changing every single word but one, and making a statement in direct opposition to the original lyrics, is just a "slight modification"? I imagine most song writers and lyricists would be highly insulted by your opinion.
I'm curious about what you think of Weird Al Yankovic's works.
"Does that excuse THE REASON they are commenting on the original source material is so they can sell more items / widgets based on evoking an emotional response in an audience?"
You know that's pretty much how all advertising works right? No, you probably don't...
"You're trying to deny intent in this context..."
Nobody has ever denied or tried to hide that this is an advertisement for a product, and it's disingenuous to claim so. But the product being sold has a message of female empowerment, so it's perfectly logical (in fact it's pretty damn obvious) to advertise the product with a song about female empowerment.
"...which is too bad, because it seems like their behavior indicates they are douchebags who are not abiding by the spirit of the law, and will get taken to task for it."
When you say the "spirit of the law", you don't seem to be referring to the original intent of copyright law, i.e. encouraging the creation of new works. Sounds more like the modern approach of obsessive control and financial greed.
"You simply can't admit that their argument is potentially too weak because you've bought into this stance at all costs..."
Given how important fair use is to keeping copyright (somewhat) under control, many people "bought into this stance" a long time ago and rightly believe in arguing strongly in support of it.
"They embraced the overall motif of the song, and absolutely did not pursue a path of artistic parody in the self-referential style that everybody associates with people like Weird Al."
Mike's right, it's very hard to take you seriously when you say stuff like this. It seems you haven't ever listened to either song.
Perhaps you're just blinded (deafened?) by the music. Google the lyrics to both songs and read them. The only line they share is the title, Girls. Every other line is not only different but convey the exact opposite message, which is the whole point of the new song. It's actually more parodic than Weird Al's songs, which usually don't directly relate the original song's subject matter.
How you can argue that this is not transformative without laughing at yourself is beyond me...
"It seems that their mission statement is in support of making money by selling play set materials."
So you're against anybody making money from developing and selling products that they hope will provide a societal benefit. They should just do it for free right?
This position seems so illogical it seems you're simply sticking to it simply as an excuse to attack Mike personally. Your concern for Adam Yauch's personal feelings do not seem in the slightest bit genuine.
"GoldieBlox is pulling a fast one (with Mike taking the bait completely) trying to state that their goal #1 was art, when it's obviously a commercial enterprise for which the original artists would be provided consideration for the potential damage to a well-known reputation of not allowing songs for commercial use."
How can the Beastie Boys reputation be damaged in any way here? Have they given permission? No. Have the offered a license? No. Their position and reputation are completely intact, and they have suffered no losses at all, financial or otherwise. In fact they're probably made more money from the increased interest in their music.
"I would bet that there are elements of both screw the big guy save the little guy and elements of help the "local" company."
You've flipped cause and effect. The juries aren't sympathetic because the company is local (but not really as you say), the company has set up a local office because they know the juries are historically sympathetic to patent holders.
It seems to me there needs to be a proper investigation into why east Texas patent cases are so must more likely to go in favour of the patent holder that it's worth setting up shell offices locally. I don't know what the cause is but the whole thing seems very unjust, as this case demonstrates.