Well there you have it folks. Even when the PRODUCER OF THE SONG is quoted as saying "rap version of Shout" "it was rooted in the Isley Brother's Shout" "if you listen to it now, you'll see it's really similar"...this AC still maintains that Beastie Boys didn't copy Isley Brothers.
So this AC demonstrates exactly what I predicted. In desiring to be contrary to Mike, he has abandoned logic and reason. In desiring to be contrary to Mike, he says that rock hard evidence that proves him (the AC) wrong doesn't say what it says in plain English.
We've got to come up with a new term. I don't want to simply re-use Checkmate, but there has to be a term for when Mike is not simply right when he corrects an assertion made by a critic, but is so right that the only way to continue saying that he is wrong is to abandon all logic and reason, and thus, credibility or any right to be taken seriously.
So AC, we have a quote by THE PRODUCER OF GIRLS that they did indeed copy Isley Brothers. How are you going to come back from that?
Okay thanks. So basically, the comment I replied to was just full of hot air and is completely meaningless. Which is astonishingly what all the comments that are opposite Mike's viewpoints usually are. I'm not saying that Mike is infallible, but when he runs a popular blog, writes every day for it and the only comments that are critical of what he writes about can be quickly countered...then it does lend that impression. Come on guys! Those of you who don't like Mike. Pick up your game and actually make a half-decent argument for once. I've been a member here for must be two or three years now, and not once have I seen a strong comment that was opposite what Mike says.
Tsk tsk tsk. Reading comprehension isn't your thing is it? Did Karl say that if it's possible to do a mashup, then it means one song was copied? Nope, he didn't. Then again, you are straw-manning. Classic sign of fail on the part of one side of a debate.
There is something that I want to ask, having watched comments like yours. From what I read, you and the people who agree with you (although I suspect it is at most one or two people operating many handles, given the similarity of the writing styles), you seem to have this desperate need to be right in this case. No matter how much evidence my side pulls, you retaliate with ad-homs, and constant assertions that you are correct. Do you have a stake in this game? Otherwise, why this constant passion that I read in your comments, this compelling drive to be shown to be correct against "anti-musician" Mike Masnick?
So...the Beastie Boys can claim authorship of their own song Girls, but not the parody song, as that was done by a different group. Object? What exactly does that mean? They retain the right to say "I don't like that!"? Or does it mean that they maintain control of their works EVEN AFTER THE TRANSFER OF THE SAID RIGHTS (as quoted by you). In fact, if your quote actually is true...then this means that when companies buy copyrights from artists, then they're actually getting nothing at all.
You might want to think your sources through a bit first before quoting them. Try and imagine what other ways they can be interpreted first.
So explain to us how and why creative works and commerce should exist entirely separately, since that's what you're implying - that if you've got a work but there's an element of commercialism, then it's not creative.
" the endorsement of the Beastie Boys is worth a whole lot of money" Tell us where in copyright law it says that the law exists to protect the market value of works, or the endorsement of artists (and this parody video harms that endorsement how exactly?)
I'm sorry, but you fail. Your mistake was in trying to apply logic to a thought/belief that outright rejects it. It's like trying to have matter/anti-matter tough each other without destroying each other. Can't be done.
Aww, how cute of them, to try and block it, to try and pretend that something that goes against their religion doesn't exist. Whereas I've never heard of a case of an atheist group of any kind block access to religious content (more often than not, we're more educated in religion than most so-called practitioners.)
Out of pure boredom, I revisited this page, and to my horror, I came upon your comment. Your comment is so full of wrong and fail, that I just feel compelled to de construct it, line by line.
"If we can get rid of the piracy sites, we will have a valid marketplace and genuine prices for music and advertising."
Even if you somehow nuke all pirate sites out of existence, you then still have a rather important step to do - selling your content, in a way that the customer wants. You don't mention that. You simply assume that if all pirate sites die, you automatically have online stores just popping into existence. Besides, how are pirate sites stopping a valid marketplace? If I want to watch anime, I can either go on Amazon and buy the DVDs, or I can pay Crunchyroll and stream it from there; and this is while pirate sites exist.
"The musicians and businesses will be able to adapt and compete."
They already do. Dan Bull is a famous UK musician who has found a way to adapt to the modern marketplace. He deliberately releases his music for free on Piratebay and Youtube. No, your definition of adapt isn't what's in the dictionary. Your version says otherwise. It's to stay beholden to the record labels. That's the only way the above sentence of yours makes sense, if they don't change their business model in accordance to the modern world.
"MTV didn't pay artists but if you became famous you could sell CDs." You want artists to focus on selling CDs? Already we've seen the release of optical disc players that don't play CDs (the PS4), because they're an out-dated method of storing music.
"The record companies can't do what the pirate sites do because it's illegal ." This sentence is the creme de la creme of your shit turd of a comment. (Forgive the bad language, I've been watching Angry Video Game Nerd all day). No thought at all went into what you wrote, you just spewed it forth in a dire attempt to slay any credibility you had. Well congra-tu-fucking-lations, you've accomplished it. Stand up and take a bow, here's a dunce's hat, you well deserve it. What is it that the pirate sites do that is illegal? They distribute (or help in the distribution) of content they don't own the copyrights to. Now, imagine if a movie studio were to do like Piratebay and distribute their movies via bittorent. IT WOULD BE LEGAL. They own the copyrights. If Disney were to stick Disney movie torrents on Piratebay, there is no way in hell it would be illegal. Copyright means having the right to distribute your works (or more accurately, removing that right from everybody else). There is literally nothing stopping a copyright cartel company (hey alliteration FTW!) from distributing their works via torrents. Nothing. No laws, except for their own constant attacks on the method.
"But I do notice that Google finances many think tanks and lobbyists that promote eliminating copyrights and royalty methods, so I'm not inventing the fact that they are waging war on the creative community." So do your beloved record labels. They finance think tanks and lobbyists, to promote the ever increasing expansion of copyright and royalty methods, so as to wage war on the creative community. So does Disney and all the other major movie studios. Why aren't you calling them out? No, your hypocrisy is as clear as day. You call out Google for doing evil things (which you and I can agree on, when Google is evil, they are evil), but when those on the side of copyright expansion DO THE EXACT SAME THINGS, you don't mention it.
Congratu-fucking-lations, your comment was one of the stupidest, mindless, uninspired pieces of filth that I have had the displeasure in reading in quite a while, and this is from the guy who reads OOTB quite a lot.
Given that the AC didn't mention religion, only "institutions"...is that a Freudian slip there? Are the religious institutions actually at fault? (I'm Irish, and just about a year or two ago, the Catholic Church suffered a huge child sexual abuse scandal, so I know all about it).
I say the signature is a forgery. Back when I was in school, I used to forge my mother's signature in my homework journal all the time, so I had to get pretty good at it. So if I was to forge Lutz's signature, I'd make sure to at least make it resemble his own, which is not what I see above on the Nov 5 document.
Okay, new tactic. What is commerce? Define it. This is the legal world, where definition is king. Given that practically everything is commercialised in one form or another, even a person making a parody and putting it up on Youtube can be said to be commercial in a way (since Youtube is a commercial for profit enterprise, who would run ads on the video). How do you square the property of commercial with the freedom of speech if your claims of commercialism removing fair use status are true?