You may well be right. Lot's of cases are settled instead of being tested on their merits, because that's often the cheapest and easiest way to end the matter whether you're right or wrong. That's not a positive indictment of the BB's case, it's a negative indictment of the legal system. I'm sure people like you will gloat about such a settlement but you won't have proven a thing about the the legal issues. The BB's will simply end up looking like hypocritical bullies and GoldieBlox will carry on trying to sell products with a positive message. Hardly a win for anyone concerned.
"What everyone is forgetting is that GoldieBlox didn't create the video as a parody."
Nobody is forgetting that because that's not what has happened here. GoldieBlox's mission statement is "Building games for girls to inspire future engineers". The whole point of their products is to send a positive, empowering message to young girls. They have very deliberately selected a song that originally conveyed a demeaning view of girls and replaced the lyrics with a strong opposite message that directly reflects the company's purpose (and parodies the original). Of course this is being used to advertise products, but both the products and the song are intended to send the same message.
"If I have a car in my driveway and I have not driven it in 10 years, that doesn't mean that you have the right to take my car out of my driveway for your personal use. This is exactly what GoldieBlox has done."
Hmm, I thought people arguing in support of IP had figured out that making terrible analogies with physical objects always makes you look a bit clueless, but maybe not...
I've done that too, but more importantly I've used them to see if a game is worth buying. That's exactly the sort of thing game companies can benefit from (assuming they make good games of course), and Mike mentioned some of them do feel that way.
"Anyhoo, yet again, Mike complains that people can't just take the works of others and do whatever they wish with it."
No, Mike's never said or implied anything like that. Feel free to prove me wrong, but we all know you can't and won't.
"Mike's "support' of copyright means only that those who put the time and money into its production are fully entitled to do so, but not necessarily to get all the rewards from those investments: he wants that spread out among second-hand hacks."
It's like you set out to make yourself look ignorant... You've obviously never watched Let's Play videos and don't really understand what the adults are talking about. These videos are entirely beneficial to the game creators, providing FREE promotion and advertising, and making games more valuable to players. Similarly any music heard in these videos is clearly beneficial to the music's creators, putting their music in front of people who might not otherwise hear it. It's not like you go actively searching for songs by looking through Let's Play videos.
"The fact that GoldieBlox made no effort beyond the lyric changes is going to further the Beastie Boys case that the intent was to capitalize on the primary song - and take market share away from it - rather than do an artistic re-interpretation that would provide reasonable safeguard."
Can you explain how the GoldieBlox song could possibly take market share away from the Beastie Boys original? I genuinely want to hear you explain how this works, because I cannot imagine someone deciding to pay for one over the other. Also explain how BB have not befitted from a huge increase in interest in one of their early works.
"Basically, if they'd used a guitar instead of a little xylophone, it'd be a lot more transformative...also, if they hadn't used the thing almost throughout the commercial, that'd be different."
So playing the same tune on a different instrument is more transformative than writing an entirely new set of lyrics that purposefully flip the original song's message completely around. That's the most insane thing I've ever heard...
"As it stands, any musician who takes the stand is going to have a field day basically shredding the transformative nature of this work."
Any musician who writes lyrics is going to know that writing the lyrics required a lot more talent than simply playing a very simply tune on a different instrument.
"The moment the video became about selling a product and not about making social commentary, fair use went out the window."
When exactly did this stop being a social commentary? The song's message is just as strong and important as it ever was. You have a very blinkered view if you think advertising can't also make social commentary.
"amount of work used ...most of song?= Goldie lose?"
I keep banging on about this, and have yet to hear a good argument from a Goldieblox detractor. How do you claim "most of the song" has been used when nearly every single lyric has been changed, and the song's message has been completely flipped around?
Seriously, is your reply button broken? Or is participating in a threaded conversation too scary?
"Yes, the rights are limited. But that doesn't disprove what I said about the copyright bargain being the rights exchanged for the works. I don't understand your point."
My point was that you raised "the bargain" as if copyright supporters have any moral ground to complain about broken bargains.
"And yet most of the music, movies, books, etc. that people download are the ones where copyright was certainly part of what incentivized the creation and dissemination of those works in the first place."
Please don't confuse the creative processes of authors, filmakers, musicians, etc with the desire of the content industry corporations to make as much money as possible. Copyright provides incentives for the latter, but not the former.
Haven't figured out how you use the reply button yet?
"What I said is the classic presentation of the copyright bargain."
Absolutely wrong. The actual bargain is that copyright grants limited control of a work for a limited period of time and then it forever becomes part of the public domain. All three aspects of that bargain have been mangled beyond recognition by copyright maximalists and supporters, so the bargain is well and truly broken and should be ignored on principle.
"The exclusive rights are the incentive that get people to create original works in the first place."
If you were a creator you'd know this is completely wrong. That's not a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.
"And copyright does so how? By giving authors certain exclusive rights, i.e., rights to exclude others from misappropriating the protected elements of their works."
Just to be crystal clear, you have just stated that giving authors the right to exclude others from misappropriating the protected elements of their works inspires creativity. This is about the most braindead thing I've ever read, and proves beyond doubt that you don't have a creative bone in your body and have never created anything of worth.
"It's not hard. Why pretend like this isn't part of the bargain?"
I suggest you avoid mentioning the "the bargain", since the current state of copyright law has completely broken the bargain copyright holders are supposed to have with the public. You're on the wrong side of that argument.
"Just because "war" on vices can never be fully won doesn't mean that civilized people can just ignore them."
And when your chosen methods for fighting a "war" on vices has the exact opposite effect to what you intended, and the unintended consequences are worse than what you were trying to prevent in the first place, it's time to completely re-evaluate your approach. Should've been done years ago in the War on Drugs and should've been done years ago in the fight against piracy.
"Copyright makes possible the creation of entertainments, which is desirable."
This comment clearly illustrates your complete ignorance of what actually makes people create content. People would continue creating without copyright, as they did for thousands of years before copyright was introduced.
"What's really futile is expecting Techdirt fanboys to stay on topic, STATE a position, and NOT drag in utterly irrelevant VAST controversies, believing in their foolish way that they've made a point."
Like bringing up Google in every topic that has nothing to do with them?
"Since the NSA programs have been shown to have been operational for several years, but now apparently the threat of terrorist attacks is higher than ever...wouldn't that point to the NSA programs being completely ineffective? "
I didn't think of this first time around, but another compelling possibility is that if the threat of terrorist attacks is indeed higher than ever it's because the US has pissed off more people than ever before. Nothing condones terrorism, but lots of things encourage it...
"...to grift on income streams that should go to content creators..."
You know as well any anyone here that most, sometimes all of the money doesn't go to content creators, only the copyright holders.
"Mega-grifter Kim Dotcom got millions by hosting infringed content. That's not even capitalism, that's THEFT."
Still repeating this hogwash like a Hollywood remake? So many people liked MegaUplaod they gave Dotcom's company millions of dollars in return for providing a service they wanted. That's the textbook definition of capitalism, whereas calling it theft requires brain-anurism levels of stupid.