German Government Hires DC Law Firm To Threaten Its Own Parliament With Criminal Prosecution For Talking To Snowden
Congress Continues To Pretend That SOPA Actually Is The Law

Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls

Surprises

from the fair-use-gets-pricey dept

Mon, May 12th 2014 09:03am -

It appears that the “settlement” between the Beastie Boys and Goldieblox was somewhat more significant than people imagined. Goldieblox will be contributing 1% of its revenue to a charity chosen by the Beastie Boys until it’s paid up $1 million. Fair use ain’t cheap, apparently.

Back in March, we noted briefly that the Beastie Boys and Goldieblox had settled their big legal dispute, over Goldieblox doing a commercial that included a parody of the Beastie Boys’ song “Girls.” We still strongly believe that this was a clear cut case of fair use, but the whole case got more emotionally complicated by the Beastie Boys general prohibition on the use of its songs in advertising, including Adam Yauch putting in his will that his music can not be used in ads. Legally, that statement has no bearing on the fair use analysis, but to many people, to ignore those wishes still felt pretty damn icky. Goldieblox appeared to fairly quickly realize that they were losing the war of public perception and capitulated.

However, the terms of the “settlement” were kept secret — until now. And that’s only because in a different legal fight between the Beastie Boys and Monster Energy Drink involving a Monster Energy Drink event where DJs played tribute to the Beastie Boys the day after Yauch passed away. The specifics of that case really aren’t that important, but a recent filing in that lawsuit, concerning a “reasonable” licensing amount, also happens to reveal the settlement terms of the Goldieblox settlement (via Eriq Gardner):

The GoldieBlox Settlement granted GoldieBlox a retroactive license to use the musical composition of “Girls” between November 18, 2013 and November 28, 2013…. In exchange, GoldieBlox agreed to make annual payments of 1% of its gross revenue, until the total payments reached $1 million, to a charitable organization chosen by the Beastie Boys and approved by GoldieBlox which supports “science, technology, engineering and/or mathematics education for girls.” … The parties also agreed to make certain, specifically worded public statements… and to keep the settlement confidential, with certain exceptions, including its use in litigation.

While $1 million donated to a charity that focuses on “science, technology, engineering and/or mathematics education for girls” is certainly a good thing, and settling this fight amicably is a good resolution, it’s still somewhat disappointing. Again, the original usage was almost certainly fair use, and I always worry when people diminish fair use, or assume that there can be no fair use in commercial cases. That’s simply untrue, and agreeing to pay $1 million, even to charity, for a clear fair use, which was online for just 10 days, did nothing to harm the original song (and, in fact, brought a lot more attention to some important ideas), seems like an unfortunate result.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: goldieblox

143 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Goldieblox Agreed To Pay Charity $1 Million For Using Beastie Boys' Girls”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
143 Comments
Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

There are a number of factors in determining fair use – the fact that this was commercial is important, but no less important than the fact that it was a parody.

There were a number of good write-ups about it at the time (a google search will bring you to them) and I agree that it was probably fair use.

I also believe that Goldiblox shouldn’t have used it anyway.

jackn says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

There were a number of good write-ups about it at the time (a google search will bring you to them) and I agree that it was probably fair use.

If you search your own mind and intellect, you may find yourself realizing, “Hey wait, this isn’t fair use. Those guys on the internet are just biased because of there desire for NO copyright.” If there is not copyright, all uses are fair. I think you are in this camp if you think this is fair use. e.g. you are stuck in a cognitive disorder if you think this is fair use and you support copyright in any fashion.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

if you think this is fair use and you support copyright in any fashion.

Fair use has been part of copyright law back when it was still common law. Arguing against fair use is arguing against copyright.

And, yes, I also believe it was fair use. Goldieblox re-recorded the whole thing, and created different lyrics, in what was obviously a parody.

Ironically, the only thing that the Beasties could have sued over was the composition… and that was “stolen” from the Isley Brothers’ “Shout.” (Rick Rubin, the producer of that song, has outright stated as much.)

Pseudonym (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I agree broadly with Michael’s take on the whole thing, and I am no fan of the Beastie Boys, but I have to disagree with you. If they weren’t important, people wouldn’t be using their music as cultural references.

Nor do they don’t come off as bullies. They come off as honouring the memory of a nice dead guy.

Goldieblox were (IMO) legally in the right, but they lost the PR battle.

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Ironically, the only thing that the Beasties could have sued over was the composition… and that was “stolen” from the Isley Brothers’ “Shout.” (Rick Rubin, the producer of that song, has outright stated as much.)

Care to comment on that, or are you too busy ignoring the reality-based community?

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

aww bob never change…
Reading is a useful skill and I have hope someday you might learn to do it and figure out that comprehension thing too.

“even if they are found to be in the right”
If would be the word you skimmed over in your frothing rage.

Commercial venture doesn’t negate the concept of fair use, despite your desire to have that be true. Had this case actually managed to move forward maybe then you could bitch about how the court ruled wrong, but we never made it that far. There is a case that can be made for both sides of the issue, not just the one you imagine, and a court ruling would have helped settle that issue.

In the future, before hitting reply, how about you actually read what you are replying at least 3 times so you catch all of the words. I understand that a long word like if can be hard for you to parse.

jackn says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

. In the settlement agreement, GoldieBlox agreed to pay $1,000,000 to charity for a license from the Beastie Boys to use “Girls” for the period of time that they had used it.

2. GoldieBlox also admitted that they had made a mistake in not asking the Beastie Boys for a license before using “Girls.”

3. GoldieBlox also agreed to publicly apologize to the Beastie Boys on their website.

4. GoldieBlox also agreed to publicly promise to not make the same mistake in the future.

5. As per the settlement agreement, the Beastie Boys agreed to do nothing other than grant the license to GoldieBlox.

now, I believe it is you that should stfu

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You have completely and totally failed to prove anything. As I said, cite the wording in the COPYRIGHT ACT that indicates this is clear infringement since that is the law that is applicable to the issue and not your gut feeling. I did not say give me your baseless speculation.

1. That was their choice. It does not prove infringement.

2. Their admission is not proof. There are legally defined criteria to test for fair use.

3. See number 1.

4. See number 3.

5. If this had actually gone to court and a judgement of fair use was found, GB would never have been under any obligation to ask for a license.

I say again, find the text in the law that proves this to be infringement. I don’t care about your opinions and baseless assumption.

bob (profile) says:

Re: Re:

And who says they would even get one. What they did wasn’t fair. They took what wasn’t theirs and they used it to profit. That’s not fair use. Period.

You can go on dreaming and drinking the Kool aid around here but that won’t change how fair use is interpreted. They were guilty of taking and so it’s good they’re paying.

Zonker says:

Re: Re: Re:

What Goldieblox did is absolutely fair. They wrote a parody (every word different from the Beastie Boys song but one: “Girls”) turning a chauvinistic song into an empowering one. That was Goldieblox’s creative work which they have a right to use as they see fit. The Beastie Boys song would not have been appropriate for the purpose Goldieblox envisioned.

Don’t let emotions over a deceased band members wishes for their own music trump the legal rights of others under copyright law. Commercial use is not dispositive of the fair use rights of parody as decided in the 2 Live Crew “Pretty Woman” case. If Roy Orbison’s wishes for control over how “Pretty Woman” could be not be used against 2 Live Crew’s right to make a parody for profit then neither does the Beastie Boys. In fact, the tune for “Girls” was lifted from the Isley Brothers’ “Shout” so the Goldieblox parody could just as well have been a parody of that song without the Beastie Boys having anything to do with it.

By your reasoning, Weird Al Yankovick could not have make money selling his “Amish Paradise” parody of Coolio’s “Gangsta’s Paradise”. Originally done without permission and against Coolio’s wishes before coming to his senses and admitting it was fair use and there was nothing he could do about it.

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

Re: Re:

And going to a charity that will help create more customers for Goldieblox products – something they would probably do anyway if they were a highly profitable company.

Not to mention I’d never heard of Goldieblox before this incident, so it’s pretty much a marketing expense.

And the Beastie Boys maintain their street cred.

Everyone’s a winner here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Not fair use

Liebovitz was a clear case of parody, while Goldieblox was just using someone else’s song to move their overpriced, second-rate edu-toys — same as Apple using Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” without his permission to move iPods.

“Does Mike Masnick find the infringer to be sympathetic?” isn’t a factor in the fair use analysis that I’ve seen any court employ.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I do agree. I work in a school district (have worked in 4 over the years) and all I see are signs that say things like ‘the most important thing a girl wears is her confidence’ posted in the buildings (usually Elementary, but occasionally in the HS buildings also).

Im glad girls are getting their fair shake at stuff, but what does that tell the little boys who never see a poster that tells them how important they are also.

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So if it had not been for profit, it would have been ok? Or if, say, The Beastie Boys had used samples in some of their music they may be on the wrong end of someone else’s claim?

Is “for profit” your only argument against fair use? While that may be an emotional subject for you, it is simply not the law. Do you have any insight about this particular use and how ALL of the factors for fair use apply to it?

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Here would be my short analysis:

1) the purpose and character of your use (dead heat)
Parody is transformative and the original song appears to be send a different message, but a commercial use. I think these two pretty well cancel each other out here.

2) the nature of the copyrighted work (-1 for fair use)
The original is a for-profit commerially distributed song. It was already published previously.

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken (+1 for fair use)
This goes to both length of the song and the portions of it that were used. The lyrics were different, the tune was not exactly the same, and only a portion of the song was actually used rather than a song of equal length.

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market (+1 for fair use)
There was no market for this song in commercials because the Beastie Boys do not license it for commercials. The commercial is not a substitute for the original song.

jack says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

1) the purpose and character of your use (dead heat)
Parody is transformative and the original song appears to be send a different message, but a commercial use. I think these two pretty well cancel each other out here.

I say -1 to glodlyblox. More than just a commercial use (i.e. a documentary, etcc..), but a commercial. so -1 to the infringer’s team.

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

More than just a commercial use (i.e. a documentary, etcc..), but a commercial

Do you have any legal basis for believing that “use in a commercial advertisement” is elevated to a higher level of commercial use?

Also, this goes back to an earlier question: Is “for profit” your only argument against fair use?

Togashi (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Weird Al Yankovic didn’t write the original of a lot of his music. He directly profits off sales of his parodies. He doesn’t pay a dime to any of the original artists. He gets their permission because he’s a good guy, but legally he does not have to. His parodies don’t even typically make any sort of point. Please explain what you think makes his and Goldieblox’s legal sitations different.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Fair Use Consideration

Fair use aught to be considered very near the beginning of each and every copyright infringement case. In fact, it aught to be that the plaintiff have considered and written out the fair use tests, and how they feel they don’t apply of course, in the original suit.

That is isn’t is a testimony to the abusive rules promulgated by the incumbent gatekeepers.

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Fair Use Consideration

That is sort-of what happened here.

The Beastie Boys had their lawyers send a letter to Goldieblox informing them that they believed the spot was infringing and Goldiblox actually sued for declaratory judgement that their spot was not infringing.

Then, if memory serves me, the Beastie Boys counter-sued for infringement, the internet buzzed a lot about it, Goldiblox got a bunch of bad press, and then they settled in secret.

Settling was probably the best thing for Goldiblox, but that does not mean it was not fair use.

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Fair Use Consideration

I agree, but it is also what is made necessary by the law because of the way fair use is determined.

The simple version is by suing for a declaratory judgement that the use was not infringing, they get to make the fair use argument up front. If they had waited, they would not have been able to make the fair use argument until later in the case – and the difference can be millions of dollars in legal fees.

Zonker says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Fair Use Consideration

You already know the answer to that, you just want to conflate the issue to make it seem like your argument was sensible when your actually revealing just how weak your argument is.

Parodies of songs have fair use status, yes. That means you can make your own piece of writing, music, etc., that imitates the style of someone or something else in an amusing way. You can use your own parody in your own commercials, but you would have to get Goldieblox’s permission to use theirs. You don’t need to parody the song if your use falls under any of the other definitions of fair use, such as commentary and criticism. No, you can’t just use the actual Beastie Boys recordings in your commercial without permission as that does not meet the requirements for fair use.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Fair Use Consideration

My suggestion is that the complainer think about what they are about to do so that they do not waste the courts and defendants time and money.

Fair use is often not considered at all, and that is a shame.

If fair use was required to be considered, and the four factor test (did I get that right?) is applied beforehand, and considered in the light the court might see it, many suits would never be filed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Fair Use Consideration

I think that fair use is probably considered a little more often than you’re giving credit. Plenty of news and comedy shows rely on fair use, and I don’t think they have to spend every day fighting court cases.

It could be argued that a serial litigator like Disney would be inclined to sue, for instance, The Colbert Report for recently using a snippet of “Let It Go” from the film Frozen, but as far as I can tell, they didn’t go after Comedy Central. Maybe Disney knew they had no case in light of Fair Use, or maybe they just didn’t care.

I thought at first that you meant that a plaintiff should present all possible theoretical defenses before the defense even puts forward their justification, which would be madness in the extreme. Defendants come up with rationales for their alleged crimes/torts that no one in their right mind should be able to foresee. Twinkies, for a popular example.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Fair Use Consideration

IANAL, but I do read widely. My understanding is that if an infringement case goes to trial, they do not get to the fair use portion of consideration until sometime down the road, at a fair expense. Other times, like in this case, the defendant folds, at times for financial reasons, not whether they feel they are wrong and might very well be vindicated in a trial they cannot afford. In that scenario, fair use never gets considered, yet may very well be the correct analysis. How many of those happen? With secret settlements (why are they allowed to be secret?) we may never know.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

and that really is the pity, the courts could have clarified everything… but public opinion trumped pursing the actual law in this area.

Far to often the opinions of copyright holders are taken as being actual law, despite there not being real support in the law as written for their demands. One would think that if this was such an open and shut case, a short trial would have provided the answers and guidance needed in this area so we could stop relying on personal opinions and rely on the law.

JMT says:

Re: Re:

“IMO, just being parody is not enough.”

You’re right, just being a parody isn’t enough. But you seem to be completely ignoring all the other factors that are considered in a fair use determination. You’re fixating on the commercial aspect, despite court rulings (including from the Supreme Court) that concluded that commercial works can be fair use. Not only is the GoldieBlox song the textbook definition of parody, it was intended to be educational in nature, has completely different lyrics (transformative use) and has no negative effect on the Beastie Boys work (it can even be argued it’s had a positive effect).

“Fair use can include commercial uses, but I don’t think fair use is applicable here.”

And you’ve done an extraordinarily piss-poor job of explaining why you think that’s the case. You just keep claiming it’s “obvious” or “an open and shut case”, but haven’t presented anything resembling a substantive argument. Instead of parroting your earlier claims, why don’t you explain why all of the other factors in their favor shouldn’t count?

Anonymous Coward says:

I know this is Techdirt, but I’m going to suggest that we look at the evidence anyway:

1. In the settlement agreement, GoldieBlox agreed to pay $1,000,000 to charity for a license from the Beastie Boys to use “Girls” for the period of time that they had used it.

2. GoldieBlox also admitted that they had made a mistake in not asking the Beastie Boys for a license before using “Girls.”

3. GoldieBlox also agreed to publicly apologize to the Beastie Boys on their website.

4. GoldieBlox also agreed to publicly promise to not make the same mistake in the future.

5. As per the settlement agreement, the Beastie Boys agreed to do nothing other than grant the license to GoldieBlox.

Given all of that, it’s abundantly clear that GoldieBlox realized that it had made a mistake in not getting a license in the first place. If the fair use argument were even remotely as clear as Mike thinks, why would GoldieBlox settle on such terms? Remember, it was GoldieBlox who sued first.

Keep digging that hole, Mike. It’s not like anything could hurt your credibility at this time–you don’t have any.

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There are a couple of things to consider.

First, when the Beastie Boys counter sued, it was pretty clear that this could turn into a long and costly battle regardless of the outcome. GoldieBlox may have sued for the declaratory judgement simply hoping that the Beastie Boys would simply back down to avoid the legal fight. Just because Goldiblox sued does not mean they were prepared to spend millions of dollars in legal fees.

Second, and probably more importantly, between the Goldiblox filing and the Beastie Boys counter-suit, Goldiblox lost very badly in the court of public opinion. Regardless of whether or not they were on good legal ground, their own customer base decided what they had done was dickish. Once your customers have decided what you did was an asshat move, having a judge tell them it wasn’t isn’t going to get your sales back.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

So what did you expect from a settlement? There was no decision, so that cannot be it. They did not lose because they were wrong.

Those terms, whether they reflect the truth or not, are small potatoes compared to possibly spending multi-millions of dollars more on a full trial. Even with the egg on the face.

They may have taken the blame as part of ‘losing’ because they chose to settle, but that does not mean they were wrong. They chose to settle for a million bucks and a bit of humiliation vs. paying several more millions of dollars to make a point, and maybe running into an unreasonable judge.

jackn says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

GoldieBlox also admitted that they had made a mistake in not asking the Beastie Boys for a license before using “Girls.”

GoldieBlox also agreed to publicly apologize to the Beastie Boys on their website.

GoldieBlox also agreed to publicly promise to not make the same mistake in the future.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I know this is Techdirt, but I’m going to suggest that we look at the evidence anyway:

You could make points without insulting and we could have had an interesting and informative discussion. Not sure why you decide to start with an ad hom. Weakens any belief that you’re here to have an informed discussion (which is further supported by the rest of your comment, which doesn’t appear to understand the legal system).

Given all of that, it’s abundantly clear that GoldieBlox realized that it had made a mistake in not getting a license in the first place. If the fair use argument were even remotely as clear as Mike thinks, why would GoldieBlox settle on such terms? Remember, it was GoldieBlox who sued first.

It’s not at all clear from the agreement that Goldieblox was giving up its fair use argument. There are many, many reasons to settle and make such an agreement. Here are just two: (1) it’s cheaper/faster than dealing with a full lawsuit (even if you were to win). (2) Goldieblox realized that, no matter what the legal status, they had lost the PR battle, and thus getting out of the lawsuit quickly made sense.

Once you do that, it’s all a negotiation. And the “apologies” and admissions are just the things that are negotiated. They have little meaning in real life over how Goldieblox actually felt, especially concerning the fair use status.

Similarly, there are many legitimate reasons for Goldieblox to have filed for declaratory judgment first. In copyright and patent cases, filing for a DJ following a demand letter is actually a fairly common move — often done to secure a better jurisdiction. The “remember, it was Goldieblox who sued first” is not meaningful. They “sued” for a DJ, not for any money or anything. Asking for a DJ just clarifies the legal situation so you don’t have it hanging over your head — which in Goldieblox’s position probably made a fair amount of sense, prior to the PR side backfiring.

So, your “facts” have little to do with the overall question of whether it is or is not fair use. And, it would be nice to have a rational debate about that, but given your focus on ad homs, I’m not sure that’s what you’re actually interested in.

jackn says:

Re: Re: Re:

“It’s not at all clear from the agreement that Goldieblox was giving up its fair use argument. “

To me, it is the clearest message in the wording, without actually mentioning fair use.

“There are many, many reasons to settle and make such an agreement. Here are just “….

I guess I see where you’re going, they may have opted for the easy way out at this point. and they got the license.

“So, your “facts” have little to do with the overall question of whether it is or is not fair use. And, it would be nice to have a rational debate about that, but given your focus on ad homs, I’m not sure that’s what you’re actually interested in.”

Its techdirt again! circular logic for everyone

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“It’s not at all clear from the agreement that Goldieblox was giving up its fair use argument. “

To me, it is the clearest message in the wording, without actually mentioning fair use.

Do you realise that you have failed to clarify this conclusion to anyone? I can see that it’s obvious to you, but would you mind explaining it to the rest of us?

Zonker says:

Re: Re:

  1. The agreement was actually that Goldieblox donate 1% of their revenue to the charity until they reach $1,000,000. It may take them a while to make the $100,000,000 necessary to reach that million dollar total.

    2. Stating as a settlement condition that Goldieblox made a mistake does not change the legal grounds they had in their favor. At most it is waiving any valid legal claims Goldieblox may have had.

    3-4. Again such apologies and promises were not a legal requirement or ruling, it was a negotiated settlement. It appears that this was preferable to any PR flack or legal costs that Goldieblox or the Beastie Boys would face by continuing the fight.

    5. This is actually most problematic for the Beastie Boys. Why? Because by licensing the commercial use of “Girls” to Goldieblox for even that one week actually violates the wishes of their deceased band member that their music never be licensed for use in commercials. Yes, the Beastie Boys agreed to violate their “no commercial use” policy on their music by allowing Goldieblox to license it, however briefly and in retrospect.

    I understand how much hatred people have developed for commercial advertisements (unless it’s halftime for the “Big Game” on TV) and how this must be coloring the perception of right vs. wrong here, but that does not by itself make something not fair use. You don’t have to like advertisements to support fair use rights, but you should support fair use rights for all to preserve your own.

John85851 (profile) says:

Law versus emotion

As usual, companies have to fight the “court of public opinion”: even if they’re 100% correct (as in a case of fair use), the public might complain. Then, in order to stop any drop in sales, the company gives in and settles.

Like you said, what does anyone’s will have to do with fair use or parody? Nothing, but it makes a stronger emotional case against GoldieBlox.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I was going to ignore this obvious troll question, but in case there’s someone new reading who might actually believe your mistaken characterizations, I’ll give a quick answer. There are tons of uses that would be infringing and not fair use. For example, copying the song and distributing it without permission and not for any of the uses that the law recognizes as fair use (commentary, education, etc.).

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Hey lets turn it around for the freetards.

What do you consider to be a “freetard” anyway?

Can one of you guys give an example of something that you would NOT consider fair use? I am just curious where it ends with you guys.

Lots of stuff is clearly not fair use. Things that are infringing. In fact, contrary to your claims that we believe everything is fair use, we’ve mocked folks for claiming fair use where there is none: Hey lets turn it around for the freetards.

Here’s one example: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140210/11274926167/whether-not-dumb-starbucks-is-pr-stunt-joke-real-its-parody-claims-are-pretty-questionable.shtml

We also noted that Joel Tenenbaum’s fair use argument over his downloading was ridiculous as well: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090727/1914495676.shtml

So, no, contrary to your false claims, we do not argue that everything is fair use.

This case, however, I stand by the fair use claim. It seems like a clear cut fair use argument to me.

jackn says:

Re: Re: Re:

Thanks for the reply. I was quite shocked by your article. Not the content, the conflict, or the result, just your words.

Actually, it looks like you removed the most offending line from your article. I am glad its gone, I was thinking that this place might become the FOX NEWs of IP blogs.

But it does seem that you think PARODY = FAIR USE. I don’t agree with that assessment.

What is the key part of this situation that makes you want to say fair use, the parody? is there something I am missing.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“But it does seem that you think PARODY = FAIR USE.”

Only if you haven’t actually read what TD have written on this topic. Their reasoning has never been that simplistic or incomplete.

“What is the key part of this situation that makes you want to say fair use, the parody?”

Clear parody, educational message, transformative use, and no effect on the copyrighted work.

“is there something I am missing.”

Clearly…

jack says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Actually, I seem to be in the right, so I guess it is “you” guys that are missing something. Actually, I think ‘yall’ got a little extra!

“Clear parody,….”

Everyone has agreed, that is not a valid argument.

“, educational message, “

ya, right..

” transformative use,”
OK, whatever

“and no effect on the copyrighted work.”

that is wrong.

Please, do go on, at length….

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

So they lyrics were not intended to educate? Have you even listened to the song? I suspect not…

You obviously have no idea what transformative means in this context. Every single word in the lyrics was changed bar one. The message of the lyrics is the polar opposite of the original lyrical message. Please explain how that’s not transformative.

And then explain how exactly this affects the original work.

I accused you above of making no actual argument at all, just repeating “I’m right, you’re wrong”. I see you’re sticking with this tactic. Can’t you do any better?

LAB (profile) says:

This might very well have been fair use. How this “seems like an unfortunate result,” doesn’t make that much sense to me. What is the purpose of advertisement? To convince customers to buy your product. Was this ad doing that? Quite the opposite. I doesn’t matter if it was fair use or not. The ad they spent $$ on was doing the opposite of its intended purpose. The company wants to further science ed for girls, and what are they doing instead of paying the Beasties? Donating $$ for science ed for girls. In what world is this a bad outcome? Most suits settle regardless if you are “right” or “wrong”

JMT says:

Re: Re:

“What is the purpose of advertisement? To convince customers to buy your product. Was this ad doing that? Quite the opposite. I doesn’t matter if it was fair use or not. The ad they spent $$ on was doing the opposite of its intended purpose.”

Can you explain why you think that? I can’t see how this campaign could have a negative affect on their sales. The people who were getting so pissy about it are not exactly the products’ target market.

LAB (profile) says:

“The people who were getting so pissy about it are not exactly the products’ target market.”

It was not the ad itself more the reaction to it. Adults buy toys for children. So the target market is truly adults. The company uses a Beastie boys song but does not attempt to license it(I’m not saying they legally need to presuming it’s fair use). The they sue the Beasties first. Then the Beasties say they are all for what GoldiBlox stands for but one of the dead members has, in his will, not to use their songs for commercials. Public perception of the company? They stole the song, didn’t try to get permission to use it, and would ignore the wishes of a dead group member all for a commercial for kids toys…….terrible PR and not really the image you want for a toy maker. Tag line …Just another big bad company that does what it wants……

JMT says:

Re: Re:

“The they sue the Beasties first.”

As has been explained many, many times, they sued for declaratory judgment, not money. You’re trying very hard to paint an inaccurate picture. Under threat of possible legal action, they simply asked a court to decide if they were right or wrong.

“They stole the song…”

Again with the simplistic and inaccurate claims. It’s bad enough when you claim infringement is theft, but to make the same claim about parody just makes you look silly and ignorant of the law.

“…terrible PR and not really the image you want for a toy maker.”

As an engineer with two young daughters, I thought the marketing approach they took was fantastic. Their message is a million times more useful to society than the message from the original song. I’d rather my girls be influenced by Goldieblox than any musicians getting a bit precious about a 26 year old song.

“Just another big bad company that does what it wants…”

You think these guys are “big” and “bad”? I don’t think you have any idea who you’re talking about.

LAB (profile) says:

The they sue the Beasties first.”

“As has been explained many, many times, they sued for declaratory judgment”

Who took legal action first? Lawyers must be hired, lawyer costs money. I am well aware of what a declaratory judgment is, but is the public? No

“They stole the song…”

Listen, I know we disagree a lot but please read what I wrote. I didn’t say I thought this, I said that was public perception. you asked me to explain how the ad campaign could hurt them that’s all I did.

“It’s bad enough when you claim infringement is theft”

Theft: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another.

Ask yourself these questions. Is it against the law? Does it belong to me? Does it belong to someone else? Did they give it to me as a gift? Did I take it? You can call it whatever you want. All infringement is not theft. Some is. Piracy would seem to satisfy the above definition. Some people said they stole the beastie boys song. That is not my view.

Did you not see where I said they didn’t need permission if it was fair use? This is what I wrote:

“This might very well have been fair uses.”

“I thought the marketing approach they took was fantastic. Their message is a million times more useful to society than the message from the original song.”

The Beastie boys agreed with you and so do I, that’s why I said I didn’t see why the outcome of the case was all that bad. Instead of the group getting the money, its going to charity. Why is this an unfortunate outcome as the author stated?

“Just another big bad company that does what it wants…”

Again, public perception. I don’t think this. You asked why I thought the ad campaign could hurt sales and I told you how some people could see it. What is the point of advertising? To get people to buy your product and to make the company look good. When they started getting bad press for using a song, it made them look like the bad company and made the Beastie Boys into two guys trying to honor the wishes of their dead band member, who died from cancer, and not some guys just trying to get paid.(public perception).
That is how it could have a negative effect on sales

JMT says:

Re: Re:

“Who took legal action first? Lawyers must be hired, lawyer costs money.”

So what? It means practically nothing. The only reason you keep bringing it up is to make them look bad.

“I am well aware of what a declaratory judgment is, but is the public? No”

Which is exactly why people like you keep screaming “They sued first!”, instead of pointing out that it’s a perfectly common and sensible legal strategy. The negative portrayal works for you, because you don’t like what they did.

“Some people said they stole the beastie boys song. That is not my view.”

You’re not very convincing on that point, but even that’s not relevant when the fair use argument is so strong. If it’s fair use it’s not even infringement, let alone ‘theft’.

“Why is this an unfortunate outcome as the author stated?”

A nice as it is that some some money will go to charity, it’s being done under very unfortunate circumstances. Fair use is important to the growth and dissemination of art and culture, so having a strong legal ruling that strengthens the protection of those engaging in fair use and dissuades copyright owners from attacking them would be a much better result for society in the long run.

LAB (profile) says:

“The only reason you keep bringing it up is to make them look bad.”

They didn’t try to license the song first. If they had, this would have been avoided. They would have learned of the dead group member’s will stating “no commercial use.” They wouldn’t have had to spend money on lawyers to file for Declaratory Judgment. What is fair about forcing the Beastie Boys to fight a legal battle to honor the wishes of their dead group member. They do look bad. Sorry many people thought, and still think, the wishes of a dead man are important.

“Which is exactly why people like you keep screaming “They sued first!”, instead of pointing out that it’s a perfectly common and sensible legal strategy.”

People like me…. screaming….sure…You file for declaratory judgment when you know you are going to get sued. That is what a lawyer advises when asked “what should we do? we are pretty sure we are going to get sued.” If they had even communicated with the group the whole nonsense would have been avoided.

“You’re not very convincing on that point.”

Sorry you feel what I right is not indicative of what I believe.

“so having a strong legal ruling that strengthens the protection of those engaging in fair use and dissuades copyright owners from attacking them would be a much better result for society in the long run.”

You would rather they have a long protracted legal action instead of a settlement and money going to charity? Just to prove it’s fair use? Quite telling. I guess this IS an unfortunate outcome. The Beastie boys liked the use of the song. They continued legal action to honor MCA’s will. In almost every infringement case the defense of fair use is used. The law is very clear on its definition. There is no need to strengthen it. It is to be used on a case by case basis. The Beastie Boys would have sued regardless. And if I was in a group, and one of us died, and it was in his will not to use our music in commercials….I would sue too. Even if we lost and it was fair use, I would have been respectful of a passed group member’s wishes. I suppose if the roles were reversed and you were in the group, you would say” I know what his will says but we shouldn’t fight it, it’s fair use…..

Leave a Reply to Michael Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

German Government Hires DC Law Firm To Threaten Its Own Parliament With Criminal Prosecution For Talking To Snowden
Congress Continues To Pretend That SOPA Actually Is The Law
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...