That's true. Regardless of whether or not the arrest is lawful, resisting even illegal arrest through self-defense will get you a beating, jail, and charges while they are immune to any crimes they have committed. At least if I manage to get a hold of the criminal's gun in a struggle and shoot him, I can claim self-defense. Shoot a corrupt cop in self-defense and you become a target for his buddies to make your life a living hell. Police are just as much a gang of thugs as the Bloods or the Crips.
I only need my cable to do one thing: connect me to the internet. I don't need their TV packages, I can get my own entertainment online just fine. So let them drive their business into the ground, nobody needs them anymore.
You say that as if copyright makes being a professional artist possible. It doesn't. Copyright doesn't make copying impossible nor does it make people respect the concept of obeying the artist's wishes in the use of their works. There are other things in art than can be leveraged to make money that would allow the artist to give away their works. Believe it or not, there are people out there that will furiously throw money at you if they like your work enough and you give them ample opportunities to buy stuff from you. Pissing and moaning that people can't make a living without copyright just rings hollow.
You're trying to claim that what they did was "special" and, therefore, exempt from the same kind of scrutiny that is being applied to Goldieblox. It doesn't count for one iota that their actions are out of respect for the wishes of a dead friend, the law doesn't, and shouldn't, take that into consideration. It's not legally binding. So "Girls" is a famous song, so what? That doesn't make it anymore exempt from fair use than any other.
Furthermore, Goldieblox didn't even sample the song. They recorded a new song with the same composition, but different lyrics. Nothing of the BB's recording exists in the song used in the ad.
And they're not hypocrites? This article would put that to doubt.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BUT, you're still going with the wrong side:
That is complete and utter fallacy. The fact that the song was constructed from other songs hits the moral outrage pretty hard because it's hypocritical. However, proving that a work being defended from alleged infringement is actually infringing itself can render a copyright null, thus rendering a copyright suit null.
Also, I never said nobody has the right to be paid, that is a fabrication. I said nobody has the right to bitch about people using your works when you do the exact same thing to create yours! It's a double standard to use the works of others for profit and then go after those that do the same to your works. You don't need copyright to make money, it was set up as an incentive to get people to make more art, not a welfare system for artists nor a cudgel to beat people over the head because you don't like what they're doing.
Drop the moral indignation, you're not on high ground here.
Except the Beastie Boys didn't write wholly original songs either. They "store" riffs, melodies, and other pieces of prior art to build their album as jupiterkansas noted above. If you can come down on Goldieblox over their use of the Beastie Boys' song, then you should equally come down on the Beastie Boys for their use of other songs in that album. The bottom line is that the Beastie Boys are being immensely hypocritical.
Re: Re: Re: BUT, you're still going with the wrong side:
"Your" art? Prove to me that you didn't use any prior art in the creation of "your" art and I will concede that it is wholly yours.
That's mostly a rhetorical statement because it's impossible to create art without using prior art. Everything comes from what came before. You create based on what you've learned and what you've experienced, so everything you use to create art is based on prior art. To claim it as yours is to say that by planting a few seeds in the ground, you own the Earth. You made a small incremental change in the scope of all of art history and expect everything it came from to be your property.
Cops should absolutely not have the leeway to punish people for exercising their 4th amendment rights. The whole idea of the 4th amendment was to avoid abuse like this. They're nothing but thugs with too much power. They should all be at the workforce center looking for new employers and banned from public safety service. Their job is to protect the civil rights of the people and instead they wipe their asses with them.
1.The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
1. Commercial use is a consideration, but it is not a negating factor. 4.It also has to be considered on a basis of impact on the affected work. As in the case of the Beastie Boys, the impact is rather nominal. 3. The amount used is rather small considering the song is a completely original recording that only uses the composition of the original BB song. The lyrics, vocals, instruments, and arrangement is new. 2. The song itself is a commentary on the original song because the lyrics (although it's assumed to be a sarcastic slant) take an opposing attitude compared to the literal phrasing of the original song.
Based on that criteria, it stands a high probability to be subject to fair use.