KVR Audio

BERFAB · Post by **BERFAB** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:57 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainme ... oldieblox/

Couple of things:

First of all, the irony of the Beastie Boys being involved in copyright enforcement after they built a career on non-cleared samples waaaay back in the day, is not lost on me.

That said, this really pisses me off. Unlike the current "Blurred Lines" fiasco, where a pre-emptive suit was filed by the GENRE copyists, (the claim is that the overall sound is similar to a protected work), THIS controversy actually takes a Beastie Boys tune, the iconic "Girls," and uses it (with some lyrics changed) for commercial purposes.

My understanding is that the Beasties didn't ask for money, they just asked for it to be pulled (although that might have changed).

The company that used the tune without permission is claiming that it's "Fair Use" under the copyright statute because they created a "parody" by changing the words to the song so that it means the opposite of what the Beasties originally intended.

This is actually a valid legal point, and the precedent goes back to, IIRC, the "Pretty Woman" parody done by 2 Live Crew some years back. Except that song wasn't done for a specific commercial promotion (other than selling the record itself).

I really hope the Beasties crush this one in court. The reason it really gets me angry is, if you view the entire commercial, "Girls" is not only prominently featured, it is central to the entire premise. Additionally, this is obviously a VERY EXPENSIVE ad. Not only is this an elaborately shot and edited commercial, but there appears to also be some very expensive looking animation involved at the end.

My point is that NO EXPENSE WAS SPARED by the producers, EXCEPT for the music clearance, without which, the ad would just fall apart.

-B

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:07 pm

It makes you angry? Really?

ChiTown24 · Post by **ChiTown24** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:09 pm

the issue isn't about money, they're respecting Adam Yauch's dying wish not to use Beastie Boys music for advertising. That's not the same as, say, sampling their stuff to make your own tune. Or doing a parody for entertainment purposes. So there is no circumstance, even if they wanted to pay clearance fees, that they would have been allowed to use the track. They don't want their material used in advertisements - period.

Good for them, I hope they crush the company too. Plus the toys the company make are shit, in fact it only seems to be one toy at the moment - and it still panders to girl stereotypes like pink and pageants etc.

BERFAB · Post by **BERFAB** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:10 pm

Kriminal wrote:It makes you angry? Really?

Can't tell if you're kidding here, Krim.

Yeah, it makes me angry that a well-financed company (or anyone for that matter) can take your work without asking or compensating you, and then turn around and SUE you when you call them on it.

-B

kmonkey · Post by **kmonkey** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:48 pm

Kriminal wrote:It makes you angry? Really?

Sometimes i think you are one really really weird person..If you don't find yourself upset by someone using your work to earn,sell,get,money from (again) your work may i ask you - if you are so cool and don't care for such things, may i send you my paypal data so you can send me all your hard earned income. Before you answer me, remember you are one really cool person about this...

robogone · Post by **robogone** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:01 pm

kmonkey wrote:
Kriminal wrote:It makes you angry? Really?
Sometimes i think you are one really really weird person..If you don't find yourself upset by someone using your work to earn,sell,get,money from (again) your work may i ask you - if you are so cool and don't care for such things, may i send you my paypal data so you can send me all your hard earned income. Before you answer me, remember you are one really cool person about this...

But it's not BERFAB's song that is being used to make money from selling a product, so it's not really relevant to question what Dave's reaction to having HIS music ripped off might or might not be.

Dave didn't question whether the Beastie Boys should be angry or not.

Just saying...

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:17 pm

robojam wrote:
kmonkey wrote:
Kriminal wrote:It makes you angry? Really?
Sometimes i think you are one really really weird person..If you don't find yourself upset by someone using your work to earn,sell,get,money from (again) your work may i ask you - if you are so cool and don't care for such things, may i send you my paypal data so you can send me all your hard earned income. Before you answer me, remember you are one really cool person about this...
But it's not BERFAB's song that is being used to make money from selling a product, so it's not really relevant to question what Dave's reaction to having HIS music ripped off might or might not be.

Dave didn't question whether the Beastie Boys should be angry or not.

Just saying...

Exactly. I can understand feeling sympathy for a wronged party....but i wouldnt get 'angry' about it.

If he really feels that way, so be it, im not havng a dig at him for it, just curious.

osiris · Post by **osiris** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:49 pm

They gotta fight
For their right
to royaltiiieeesss....

since they don't make music anymore. Seriously, this was a parody, still the company at least should've asked permission.

tapper mike · Post by **tapper mike** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:26 pm

The issue isn't about money, they're respecting Adam Yauch's dying wish not to use Beastie Boys music for advertising. That's not the same as, say, sampling their stuff to make your own tune. Or doing a parody for entertainment purposes.

How is it not the same and how is it not parody? How can a song released to the public not be considered advertising? If someone does a mash up of a song and puts it on youtube. Youtube uses the video's presence as a means to advertise.

Publishing rights protect where and when content can be used. Publishing rights must be managed. Back then publishing rights went out the window when a record contract is awarded. Either you walk in with a big name publisher before you sign or you hand over the publishing rights when you sign. Look at what happened to the Beatles rights. Copyrights only state that said person created the work and are entitle to receive royalties for their work.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:27 pm

ChiTown24 wrote:
Good for them, I hope they crush the company too. Plus the toys the company make are shit, in fact it only seems to be one toy at the moment - and it still panders to girl stereotypes like pink and pageants etc.

Yeah, I really hope those really wealthy guys, who didn't give a crap about copyright when they could profit off it, get to crush that small startup trying to make educational toys for girls. That's the way it should be.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:55 pm

BERFAB wrote:
I really hope the Beasties crush this one in court. The reason it really gets me angry is, if you view the entire commercial, "Girls" is not only prominently featured, it is central to the entire premise. Additionally, this is obviously a VERY EXPENSIVE ad. Not only is this an elaborately shot and edited commercial, but there appears to also be some very expensive looking animation involved at the end.

My point is that NO EXPENSE WAS SPARED by the producers, EXCEPT for the music clearance, without which, the ad would just fall apart.

-B

I have no idea what your yardstick for 'very expensive' and 'no expense spared' are, but the entire company behind the toys started with kickstarter funding a tiny fraction of the advertising budget of a major toy manufacturer, and the video was done by an independent video producer known for successful viral videos for one otherwise-relatively-unknown bands, with a team of five people; pretty small potatoes overall.

If the idea is that this is a big toy company picking on the little guys, it's not. The Beastie Boys could probably buy out the company several times over every year. They're worth tens of millions, each. 75 million each according to one report I've seen.

And just so it's clear for those who might not get it; they can't be suing for money off anyone, just the right for their video to be allowed as fair use. Fighting for their right to parody, in fact.

nix808 · Post by **nix808** » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:42 am

whyterabbyt wrote: Fighting for their right to parody, in fact.

lol

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:45 am

osiris wrote: since they don't make music anymore

Anymore?

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:51 am

In Germany, the company would be sued.

Why? Copyright infringement. There is no such thing as "fair use" over here - not even for a YouTube joke covers (in reality - they would all need to pay! Yet nobody does - Grey Area!).

German laws are stricter than US on that behalf.

ChiTown24 · Post by **ChiTown24** » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:59 am

osiris wrote:They gotta fight
For their right
to royaltiiieeesss....

since they don't make music anymore. Seriously, this was a parody, still the company at least should've asked permission.

ya, but it's not about royalties. like some others have mentioned - the guys are already obscenely wealthy anyway. They just don't want their music used for advertising, for a commercial product especially. Period.

We'll have to see how the legal experts handle it, but I don't agree that the fair use aspect of doing a parody still stands when it's an advert for a commercial product.

whyterabbyt wrote:
ChiTown24 wrote: Good for them, I hope they crush the company too. Plus the toys the company make are shit, in fact it only seems to be one toy at the moment - and it still panders to girl stereotypes like pink and pageants etc.

Yeah, I really hope those really wealthy guys, who didn't give a crap about copyright when they could profit off it, get to crush that small startup trying to make educational toys for girls. That's the way it should be.

in the heady days of sampling and the golden era of hip hop, the heady days of pre-broadband-internetz-&-mp3 even, the heady days of astronomical record sales, yes it's true... quite some musicians ended up rich by creating their music in part by sampling other music. It's true. Those was some crazy times, eh ?

That's not quite in the same spirit as taking someone's music to flog some cheap tat. I'll join you in whipping the beastie boys from the sidelines when they sue some talented up & coming musician for sampling or parodying their shit. Until then, I'm happy to see the adorable start-up crushed like some fleeing pedestrian extra in the 'Intergalactic' Godzilla city-fight-scene parody video {oh the irony}, by the Beastie Boys

In no small part because the Beastie Boys were quite amicable in how they contacted the start-up, being complimentary and pleasant but simply stating their concerns re: advertising. Reply ? An aggressively worded lawsuit... part of which attacking the {satirically} sexist nature of the original as a justification of their actions. Lame...

But yes, lets not side with the millionaires. Lets side with the people vying to be millionaires themselves

Beastie Boys sued by company that took their song without clearance...