Girls

[dust monkey]

= lawsuit (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/11/19/goldieblox_commercial_rewrites_the_beastie_boys_ur ges_young_girls_to_pursue.html?wpisrc=burger_bar)?

[Mr. Smacktackle]

just seen this and came to the board to post it if nobody hasn't.

my first impression was that the vid was supported/given a green light by the boys themselves, because of the title. (and i find the vid quite cool.) but there's no note about that in the credits. if it wasn't approved by them it's kinda rude, right? especially knowing what MCA wrote in his will...

[M|X|Y]

it's not an ad, its a psa - pretty sure all would approve(y)

[JohnnyChavello]

That's awful, but it's fair use.

[Jiberish]

Oscilloscope just posted it on their facebook wall. Fair bet they know about it and are cool with it. Besides it takes the most terrible song they have [though catchy] and allows the Girls to "take it back" if you will.

I hated it and loved it while watching it. But mostly loved it.

[abbott]

Straight up awesome. :)

[Kid Presentable]

This is cool.

[YoungRemy]

it's awesome, why assume lawsuit?

[MrSmiley1]

I, for one, support this! What a positive message (even if it is to sell a product).

I have a 10 year old daughter and love that she loves the Beastie Boys too, but am disappointed that her favorite song is Girls given its sexist slant. Yes, I fully understand they were young and dumb and eventually realized the error of their ways, so I still can enjoy it on some level. She does not get that and will not understander stand their evolution as people for a few years yet.

She will however be getting to that age where she will figure it out what they are really talking about and probably start to dislike it.

[POMP]

I don't have kids, and that's probably a good thing... because "Girls" just sounds like a horny guy lusting after a girl to me (and some killer xylophone). Wanting sex doesn't make you sexist IMO. The song always seemed tongue-in-cheek to me, but I am a politically incorrect asshole, who also likes the way that they walk.

[b-grrrlie]

I love it (http://youtu.be/UFpe3Up9T_g)! The way the girls (well the advertising people....) gave the song a totally different meaning!
Also I love the fact that last year one of these multinational toycompanies had girls play with "boys toys" and boys play with "girls toys" in their Christmas catalogue here in Sweden last year and this year most of the European stores of the chain are doing the same!
(and IKEA has women in their catalogue in Saudi Arabia this year)

[Brass Monk]

it's not an ad, its a psa - pretty sure all would approve(y)

No it appears to be a commercial, a toy company selling toys.

[Extra Cheese]

No it appears to be a commercial, a toy company selling toys.

yeah, pretty clear cut.

[JohnnyChavello]

It might be on: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/beastie-boys-threaten-creator-viral-659308. Still think it's fair use, but the closest analogy, Campbell, doesn't involve product advertising.

[abbott]

Somehow it was played at our public schools

[JohnnyChavello]

They'll probably face some backlash over this based on the general response to the commercial. I'm 100% with the idea that young girls (boys, too) need to hear messages like this more often, but I'd rather it come from an actual person. The fact that it's naked advertising makes it completely different to me. Co-opting the cultures of the Beasties and feminism to create a viral ad in order to sell marginally educational toys that are manufactured in China isn't exactly my idea of empowering. I can understand why people would disagree, but I'm a cynic. The Beasties have been consistent about this, both publicly and privately, for a long time. Who knows, maybe they'll back off.

[beasties#1fan]

I really don't know how to feel about this to be honest...
D:

[tt5brevisited]

It's cute but indeed it's an ad.

[dave790]

It's a clever ad. Infringement or not, if the Beasties do file a lawsuit - given the advertisements "message" - it will not look particularly good, especially as every report will reference the original lyrics.

Shrewd work.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

It is an altered cover of a song, which is okay for an ad. It may not require permission (it depends though). I do not think cover artists require permission and advertisers can cover any song changing the lyrics as long as it does not hurt the reputation of the artist. It is not using actual Beastie-recorded material.

[Micodin]

The Black Keys filed federal lawsuits against Home Depot and Pizza Hut for using elements of their songs.

Elements is the key word. Because "Girls" is copyright protected. And the ad used a whole lot of elements of "Girls" for that song.

Personally, I think that the makers of the ad calling it a parody is a cop out.

Either way, it's a big mess for the lawyers to squabble about. It'll prob get settled out of court.

It is a cute video tho.

[Kid Presentable]

Oscilloscope posted it on facebook.

[Micodin]

Oscilloscope posted it on facebook.

Yeah, that's all and nice but the B-Boys and Rick Rubin are still getting sued. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/186402972/Beastie)

It's has to be the B-Boys lawyers that started all this. I guess they figure the ad is cute and all that but if they give this one a pass it would be tough to battle other cases similar to this one down the line.

[Mr. Smacktackle]

o.k. well now it might be safe to say that the boys' lawsuit will just make the video more viral and promote goldiebox even further.
(and maybe that's just what the company wanted to happen)

21st century marketing...

[JohnnyChavello]

It is an altered cover of a song, which is okay for an ad. It may not require permission (it depends though). I do not think cover artists require permission and advertisers can cover any song changing the lyrics as long as it does hurt the reputation of the artist. It is not using actual Beastie-recorded material.

Not at all OK for an ad unless it's fair use. There is a compulsory license provision in the copyright act applying to covers, but you can't change the lyrics or alter the fundamental character of the song - aside from minor changes necessary for genre, style, etc. Their entire argument is that they changed it so significantly (in terms of meaning, message) that it should qualify as a fair use.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Yeah, that's all and nice but the B-Boys and Rick Rubin are still getting sued. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/186402972/Beastie)



Wow why are they litigating against Beastie Boys?

[Lyman Zerga]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131122/17002425340/missed-opportunity-beastie-boys-should-have-supported-viral-parody-girls-song-rather-than-claiming-infringement.shtml?fb_action_ids=426334637489911&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=article&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=

another article

[JohnnyChavello]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131122/17002425340/missed-opportunity-beastie-boys-should-have-supported-viral-parody-girls-song-rather-than-claiming-infringement.shtml?fb_action_ids=426334637489911&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=article&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=

another article

Yeah, I was expecting that. The whole copyright bullies thing only makes sense if you think albums and advertisements are equivalent. They're not. I guess we know now that wrapping yourself in the flag is a really effective way to dumb down and simplify the issues in a debate. That's part of what makes me so uncomfortable about social issue advertising.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Yeah, I was expecting that. The whole copyright bullies thing only makes sense if you think albums and advertisements are equivalent. They're not. I guess we know now that wrapping yourself in the flag is a really effective way to dumb down and simplify the issues in a debate. That's part of what makes me so uncomfortable about social issue advertising.

Interesting. I think I may be changing my mind about this as the story is developing. One person commented quite rightly:

Corporations do not have the right to use songs in advertising without the permission of the songwriters!
Do you really wanna go down the rabbit hole where Exxon can promote fracking to the sound of Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' ?
From knowing the Beastie Boys, I am sure of 2 things:
If an actual ARTIST requested a derivative work license for 'Girls' from the Beasties, they would easily get it.
If someone posted on youtube a parody with well intentioned lyrics like these, they would enjoy it.
That's not what this is about. It's an Advertisement!
Does Masnick truly believe corporations are super entities that can ignore the laws the rest of us have to follow?

[Jiberish]

I wonder how much of this is from Def Jam's lawyers? I mean aside from the bit that Yauch put in his will about "no commercials".

[JohnnyChavello]

Do you really wanna go down the rabbit hole where Exxon can promote fracking to the sound of Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' ?

Exactly. It might still be considered fair, but it's not cut and dried given the nature of the use.

[abbott]

I still like it.

Beastie Boys should own the toy company.

[beasties#1fan]

I think this is a very opinionated topic.
"Girls" and essentially the whole LTI album was fun for the beasties at the time, and its a goofy, crazy, outspoken, and CLASSIC album.
People have blown it out of proportion with the lyrical content. People need to stop analyzing so hard on the beasties. People try SO hard to find any negativity and to be honest I feel bad for the bboys, they've been through enough the past couple of years, is this commercial bad timing? Yeah. Does it have a message that the beasties would like/agree with? Sure. But the whole lawsuits and parody bullshit is just annoying.
I like the message of the commerical, I dont like how the toy company started turning it around on the beasties in the article and made it seem like they were bullies....like wtf
i dont know- it seems like a complicated situation for a 2 min commerical/psa whatev.

[Kid Presentable]

I wonder how much of this is from Def Jam's lawyers? I mean aside from the bit that Yauch put in his will about "no commercials".

It's not up to Yauch. I agree with your theory.

Really poor form to pull the whole 'Beastie Boys defend misogynistic lyrics' angle, but shrewd also.

[JoLovesMCA]

Doesn't Yauch have some say in this since it's in his will?

I agree the video is cute or whatever but they didn't say oh all videos that are cute are an exception.

Stick to your guns Beasties and go after them.

People have blown it out of proportion with the lyrical content. People need to stop analyzing so hard on the beasties. People try SO hard to find any negativity and to be honest I feel bad for the bboys, they've been through enough the past couple of years, is this commercial bad timing? Yeah. Does it have a message that the beasties would like/agree with? Sure. But the whole lawsuits and parody bullshit is just annoying.


This.

And it does annoy me when people analyze it hard like that.... no need to turn the song around either. The song is fine. I love it.

[Laver1969]

Very interesting topic! I think the ad is creative and cute and has an awesome message. The problem is that it isn't a public service announcement and it is an advertisement.

But...they're getting a lot publicity so KP was right...that might have been their ultimate goal.

[Lyman Zerga]

I like the message of the commerical, I dont like how the toy company started turning it around on the beasties in the article and made it seem like they were bullies....like wtf


i agree, im not a fan of that article either
some other beastie fan posted it on fb and i thought i should share

[Michelle*s_Farm]

I feel manipulated by this company in that I almost bought one of their products for my daughter. I initially felt that it was a not for profit company or a product made by a scientist or child development expert. None of this is true. The company should be sued for using the song without permission while making it appear that the Beasties supported the ad. Finally the company should be sued for hurting the reputation of the band (making them look like sexists and bullies). Sadly it contravenes the longstanding and last wishes of Adam Yauch.

[Kid Presentable]

Hurts the image of the band. Band makes decisions, not Yauch.

[Micodin]

Hurts the image of the band. Lawyers makes decisions, not the band.

[YoungRemy]

what's weird is that Def Jam and Beastie Boys are listed as the DEFENDANTS in the case.



it's Goldieblox doin' the suin'


can anyone anyone explain that (Johnny Chavello)?

[Michelle*s_Farm]

what's weird is that Def Jam and Beastie Boys are listed as the DEFENDANTS in the case.



it's Goldieblox doin' the suin'


can anyone anyone explain that (Johnny Chavello)?

I read somewhere that this is a risky strategy to do when someone threatens to sue you. For example, Beasties' former label lawyers call up or send a letter asking for Goldieblox to remove the video from the internet. Then Goldieblox sues Beastie Boys and their former label saying back off Goldieblox's rights to use the song to sell crap. Unfair and risky. Hope the court stops this cheap attempt at making profit off naive parents. The manipulativeness of advertisers never ceases to amaze me.

[JohnnyChavello]

what's weird is that Def Jam and Beastie Boys are listed as the DEFENDANTS in the case.



it's Goldieblox doin' the suin'


can anyone anyone explain that (Johnny Chavello)?

It's just a procedural thing - GoldieBlox decided they wanted to stick to their guns and instead of waiting to be sued, filed a declaratory judgment action asking a court to decide the underlying fair use issue.

[Brass Monk]

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beastie-boys-girls-sets-off-viral-video-lawsuit-20131123

Ok, now I know specifically what you all are talking about.

"In the lyrics of the Beastie Boys’ song entitled Girls, girls are limited (at best) to household chores, and are presented as useful only to the extent they fulfill the wishes of the male subjects," the suit says. "GoldieBlox created its parody video with specific goals to make fun of the Beastie Boys song, and to further the company's goal to break down gender stereotypes and to encourage young girls to engage in activities that challenge their intellect, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. The GoldieBlox Girls Parody Video has gone viral on the Internet and has been recognized by the press and the public as a parody and criticism of the original song."


Pretty darned sleazy of goldieblox. Profiteering (or at least attempted profiteering) while conveniently draping yourself in a noble cause is a neat trick. I found the ad slightly amusing initially but now I don't.

[fonky pizza]

I don't like this at all.

[JohnnyChavello]

According to updates, there was "no complaint filed, no demand letter (no demand, for that matter) when GoldieBlox sued." Not sure how they'd expect to get attorneys fees if there was no demand.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

According to updates, there was "no complaint filed, no demand letter (no demand, for that matter) when GoldieBlox sued." Not sure how they'd expect to get attorneys fees if there was no demand.

Sounds like someone prematurely pulled a trigger. Now the war is on. I think based on internet and news opinion, the Beastie Boys' two decade attempts at making it clear that they are a band with a social conscience (i.e., starting at Ill Communication, Tibetian Freedom Concerts etc) has been hurt by a group of manipulative advertising executives. Hard to believe that a company can be so descructive just by making a viral youtube video combined with releasing a legal document to the media. I want this nasty selfish company legally taken down.

[JohnnyChavello]

They did the same thing with We Are the Champions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/goldieblox-video_n_3541690.html). People are getting played by GoldieBlox. This is why ads shouldn't be treated the same way as other types of content - and probably part of the reason why the Beastie Boys refused to license their music for advertising.

[dust monkey]

Open letter... (http://gothamist.com/2013/11/25/beastie_boys_goldieblox.php)

[JoLovesMCA]

Adrock spilt some truth tea on his twitter saying don't get it twisted that they are the ones being sued! Awwww... I see this company is shady as hell...And so now I hear this company was gonna try and use the song in a super bowl ad?

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Official open letter hosted by Nasty Little Man. Cool that Thom Yorke supports the band on his twitter account.

Link to hosted open letter

http://www.nastylittleman.com/2013/11/25/open-letter-from-beastie-boys-mike-d-adrock-to-goldieblox/

Link to Yorke tweet

https://twitter.com/thomyorke/status/405047354791055360

[Michelle*s_Farm]

It is amazing that a sizable majority of public opinion is against the band on this issue. Darn corporations, they practically control public opinion.
I did see this post online from one of the enlightened which I think is really good. One point I like is that the product itself is not overly impressive.

"I saw the ad online, loved the parody but not overly impressed with the product. But, given what I knew about the BBs not wanting their songs to be used in commercials (and the big change in their attitude towards women since that song was released and subsequent political activism), I assumed that the company had been somehow endorsed by the band, due to the girl empowerment message and the song re-written by them. Not sneaked out by a commercial company wanting to appeal to mums concerned by the increasing genderfication of kids toys. If the Beastie Boys had kept quiet, I'd have continued to think that.

If the company were so happy and pleased with their parody, maybe sending the video to the Beasties before launching it wouldn't have been a bad idea? Probably not as much publicity though..."

[fonky pizza]

That's really sucky. The message of the ad is bullshit in disguise, it's still some company telling girls what they should do. Fuck them and their pink hammer...and when will this stupid idea that a song like girls is "sexist" stops...to me is just a funny song about teen agers boys freely singing their stupid 18 years old lullaby and it's a parody, to me this song is not even about girls!!

[3stooges]

I always hated that song. Not because of the lyrics....I couldn't care less back then... I just hated the sound of it. I always fast forwarded Girls and Fight For Your Right. They're the lamest songs on the album. They're joke songs, which to me are only good for 2 listens, and then I never want to hear them again.

I can see a judgement for cease and desist coming down on this, but by then it'll be too late, they've already got all the press and attention they ever wanted. They got exactly what they wanted.

As for the ad's message, of course I like the idea of empowering girls to broaden their horizons and pursue all kinds of goals and vocations and whatnot, but at the same time, it's like, if a girl wants to be a pink-wearing girly-girl, there's nothing wrong with that either, they shouldn't be discouraged from expressing themselves however they want to if that's how they feel and that's who they are.

[MagicSpork]

Weird Al has never had to get permission to do song parodies, but he always asks out of professional courtesy. For pop/rap songs that don't require any instruments, he just straight up records his voice over the instrumental track. Of course, I think the right to parody is an artistic right. This is being used strictly for commercial purposes.

I'm sure Mike and Adam would have been fine with it had the company told them beforehand, but as metioned earlier, they knew they would get a lot more publicity this way.

[Megalon X]

Yauch said no songs in TV ads, it's in the fucking lyrics. Eat a dick. Just because it's a bunch of con artists using "feminism" to sell junk made by slave labor in China, doesn't mean you should let your phony liberal guilt over-ride the wishes of the Adam Yauch.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Eat a dick. Just because it's a bunch of con artists using "feminism" to sell junk made by slave labor in China, doesn't mean you should let your phony liberal guilt over-ride the wishes of the Adam Yauch.

Classic quote and nicely cuts through the bullshit. Wish the judge could be that decisive.

[Megalon X]

Classic quote and nicely cuts through the bullshit. Wish the judge could be that decisive.

You should also be highly suspicious of any business that used kickstarter for funding. It's the latest form of hustling. I honestly wouldn't give shit to kickstarter unless it was an actual film director or band of importance that has an actual track record. A lot of people use it to trick saps into funding their living expenses for multiple years, including people that try to gain sympathy from slacktivists who support certain political causes or ideologies.

[Kid Presentable]

The original song isn’t half as annoying as the common interpretations of it. Yes it’s juvenile, and yes it says stupid things. But on the whole, this kid liked this girl, and she rejected him. Twice. For his best friends. And so he lashes out with some insults to make himself feel better. Pretty standard. Not right, but standard behaviour, particularly for a young bloke. Verrrrrry tame insults, too. Think of the things he could have said. It’s just a silly song telling a silly story; the old “can’t live with them, can’t live without them” paradigm. Would have made a great hardcore track (which it basically is).

[Documad]

Open letter... (http://gothamist.com/2013/11/25/beastie_boys_goldieblox.php)

At least that headline looks accurate, unlike much of the coverage. It sure does appear that the toy company sued the Beasties -- for publicity if nothing else. Super sleazy in my book.

And the toy company stole the song to boot. It's not sampling to make something totally new, it's a pretty close copy. (even though I otherwise like the idea of a company selling toys to girls that encourage them to use their brains) It must suck to have to deal with this crap.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

The original song isn’t half as annoying as the common interpretations of it. Yes it’s juvenile, and yes it says stupid things. But on the whole, this kid liked this girl, and she rejected him. Twice. For his best friends. And so he lashes out with some insults to make himself feel better. Pretty standard. Not right, but standard behaviour, particularly for a young bloke. Verrrrrry tame insults, too. Think of the things he could have said. It’s just a silly song telling a silly story; the old “can’t live with them, can’t live without them” paradigm. Would have made a great hardcore track (which it basically is).

Ya we sure do say some stupid things when we feel rejected -- especially when you are young. Perhaps (at some deep unconscious level) the song writers were hypothesising that the origins of human sexism / homophobia is the result of unconsciously feeling inferior. Kind of like repressed gay men being homophobic. Or perhaps they were just telling a fun, silly story based on someone they new at the time. I think Goldieblox and others are making an enormous mistake to consider this song literally or how the authors felt and behaved toward women at the time (i.e., with regards to the female gender-stereotyped roles or if a woman does not like me she must be gay idea).

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Big news, on Goldieblox youtube channel the video has been made private. This could be tactic, legal reasons or perhaps Goldieblox is not willing to fight Beastie Boys and their legion of intelligent supporters (after they get mobilised).

[Kid Presentable]

Mobilised. Yeah, right.

[Lyman Zerga]

I always hated that song. Not because of the lyrics....I couldn't care less back then... I just hated the sound of it. I always fast forwarded Girls and Fight For Your Right. They're the lamest songs on the album.

yeah, the music for girls sounds like it got written for 3 year olds
and fight for your right is too rockish for me but i like the lyrics

im glad that company atleast hasnt used a better beastie song but it is still not fair at all

and till this case i didnt even know how many beastie haters were out there

[JohnnyChavello]

Goldieblox's letter re: takedown (http://blog.goldieblox.com/).

This company's a joke. They're on some evangelical, millenial, startup bullshit. Check out this video (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb6mty_i-want-a-goat-i-m-on-a-boat-spoof-f_people) they made to benefit a village in India. It's probably the most tone-deaf, offensive shit I've seen in a long time.

[Bernard Goetz]

Goldieblox's letter re: takedown (http://blog.goldieblox.com/).

This company's a joke. They're on some evangelical, millenial, startup bullshit. Check out this video (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb6mty_i-want-a-goat-i-m-on-a-boat-spoof-f_people) they made to benefit a village in India. It's probably the most tone-deaf, offensive shit I've seen in a long time.

I am growing to really dislike this company. They're contending to become for girl empowerment what PETA is for vegans. Awful.
"A song we weren't too proud of..." Umm, you can't be proud or not proud of something you have nothing to do with, dickwads.

[JohnnyChavello]

"A song we weren't too proud of..." Umm, you can't be proud or not proud of something you have nothing to do with, dickwads.

Exactly. What level of being a self-involved asshole do you need to reach to tell someone you aren't proud of their music?

[The Ron]

That letter from GoldieBlox is ridiculous.
It states: “Our hearts sank last week when your lawyers called us with threats”

How is asking them how/why they used “Girls” w/out permission considered a threat??

[JoLovesMCA]

The more they talk the deeper their hole of shit gets! And the whole part of “song you’re not proud of” just pisses me off. Yes they had every intention of using it to sell their product and their open letter reveals that........they are trying to make the Beasties look bad. PALEEZE!!! This band has done a lot more for youth and female empowerment than their little old company ever will.

I like that they said Adam Yauch is the reason they decided to pull it, but it doesn’t seem sincere at all. Especially since they say in the next breath oh but it’s fair use anyway…like they are doing the Beasties a favor by not using it now.

[Lyman Zerga]

I am growing to really dislike this company. They're contending to become for girl empowerment what PETA is for vegans. Awful.
"A song we weren't too proud of..." Umm, you can't be proud or not proud of something you have nothing to do with, dickwads.

yes (y)

i love your comparison

[Micodin]

All they had to do was ask permission first.

If they were such fans and wanted to be friends, that would of been the polite thing to do.

[Documad]

Goldieblox's letter re: takedown (http://blog.goldieblox.com/).


What a load of shit. Now I'm actually getting upset. They're continuing to set this up as if the Beastie Boys brought the lawsuit. This stupid company wants everyone to believe they were FORCED to sue the Beastie Boys and now they have no control over it--they can't possibly dismiss the lawsuit they started. Yes, they could, easily. WTF.

[checkyourprez]

probably some women who made that commercial and thought they could get away with it.


:rolleyes:

[Kid Presentable]

What a load of shit. Now I'm actually getting upset. They're continuing to set this up as if the Beastie Boys brought the lawsuit. This stupid company wants everyone to believe they were FORCED to sue the Beastie Boys and now they have no control over it--they can't possibly dismiss the lawsuit they started. Yes, they could, easily. WTF.

Doc, is there an element of slander or defamation involved in what the toy company is communicating?

[Documad]

Doc, is there an element of slander or defamation involved in what the toy company is communicating?

They can probably say that's how they felt -- they were just stating their opinion in saying they felt threatened. But it's really shitty. Next the company will say their lawyer forced them into it. :rolleyes:

[3stooges]

All they had to do was ask permission first.

If they were such fans and wanted to be friends, that would of been the polite thing to do.

Yes, but they knew the B-Boys stance on commercials. They figured there was a strong chance they'd be turned down. So their move was to put it out without asking. Then when the B-Boys contact them, they blow it up in the press with a lawsuit. Some underhanded shit, as they still get all the attention and press they wanted. I'm sure in their minds they were like "either way we can't lose".

A wolf in sheep's clothing. They pretend they're for these noble social causes, but in reality, all they care about is themselves and their business. The audacity of some people, it just never fails to surprise me. It's really sickening.

[Documad]

Apparently the company is in a super bowl ad contest? (http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2013/11/toy-company-behaving-like-corporate-bully-in-super-bowl-ad-contest/)

[abbott]

Hate the game, not the player?

Granted My kids are not getting shit from this company.

[Megalon X]

Hate the game, not the player?


Is this what Brutus said about stabbing Caesar in the back?

I think a quote by PT Barnum is more appropriate here.

[Kid Presentable]

It's a really weird, interesting thing that's going on. Still sorta positive they pulled the clip.

[Megalon X]

I like the interpretation of this as a "millennial" thing. The absolute arrogance and self-importance combined with total cluelessness and see-through douchebaggery is very apparent. XD I wouldn't be surprised if this company was founded by active Tumblr users.

[MCScoobyT]

somebody needs to make a mash-up with the original 'Girls' song over the top of that commercial... or even better throw 'What Comes Around' on top of the vid :eek:

[tt5brevisited]

Yes, but they knew the B-Boys stance on commercials. They figured there was a strong chance they'd be turned down. So their move was to put it out without asking. Then when the B-Boys contact them, they blow it up in the press with a lawsuit. Some underhanded shit, as they still get all the attention and press they wanted. I'm sure in their minds they were like "either way we can't lose".

A wolf in sheep's clothing. They pretend they're for these noble social causes, but in reality, all they care about is themselves and their business. The audacity of some people, it just never fails to surprise me. It's really sickening.

This!

[Michelle*s_Farm]

The company has lost out on my money and others who are fans of Beastie Boys. Did they pick up sales from this debacle? Perhaps, but the long-term harm to their reputation could outweigh a viral youtube smash hit video. We do not know if their sales increased initially and then dove-tailed (i.e., regression to the mean) after the 'con' was revealed to more prudent consumers. I can only hope. Your sales to liberal / alternative consumers must be hurt when the lead singer of Radiohead is 'against' you.

[Micodin]

somebody needs to make a mash-up with the original 'Girls' song over the top of that commercial... or even better throw 'What Comes Around' on top of the vid :eek:

If there is anyone on this board that knows how to make shitty mash-ups it's you homeboy. :rolleyes:

[MCScoobyT]

shitty mash-ups are my specialty ---> yourmamasbasementsyourhomeboy!

I just haven't got into video mash-ups yet... and shouldn't

How come Rube Goldberg's estate isn't pissed about this one?

[Micodin]

I concur. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0QunML0l-g)

[YoungRemy]

How come Rube Goldberg's estate isn't pissed about this one?

not sure of serious


it's a contraption!

[JohnnyChavello]

The hiatus is back off ... again. Beasties file a response and counterclaims to Goldieblox's declaratory judgment suit alleging copyright and trademark infringement, misappropriation of the right of publicity, and other claims.

Story and filing here (http://gigaom.com/2013/12/10/beastie-boys-countersue-as-fair-use-fight-over-girls-song-escalates/).

[Megalon X]

Good for the Beasties. Thank god. I would have been upset if these hucksters were allowed to get away with this.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

The hiatus is back off ... again. Beasties file a response and counterclaims to Goldieblox's declaratory judgment suit alleging copyright and trademark infringement, misappropriation of the right of publicity, and other claims.

Story and filing here (http://gigaom.com/2013/12/10/beastie-boys-countersue-as-fair-use-fight-over-girls-song-escalates/).

Aren't they trying to play both sides of the coin here? In fact, based on the Biz Markee case, it would seem this Girls commercial has a better shot at fair use defense than the Beastie's have in their other current suit.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

Will the fact that it's a commercial make the difference??? Hmmmm. Could be pretty interesting. Is a flat-out commercial treated differently from a song made for commercial purposes? The Beasties get into the most interesting copyright suits.

[JoLovesMCA]

That move appears to have been insufficient. The Beastie Boys' new lawsuit, filed in a California court, claims the GoldieBlox video has caused "injury to [the group's] business, good will and property". The hip-hop (http://www.theguardian.com/music/hip-hop) act is claiming it is "entitled to recover from GoldieBlox the gains, profits and advantages [they have] obtained as a result of [their] wrongful conduct", or an award of statutory damages for the alleged wrongful conduct.

In a statement obtained by the New York Times (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/11/beastie-boys-continue-copyright-battle-with-toy-company/?ref=music&_r=0), GoldieBlox's lawyer, Daralyn Durie, said they were reviewing the new legal brief. "Although the ad has been taken down and we would prefer an amicable resolution, we strongly believe that the parody constitutes fair use," she said.

Do you know how much great publicity that Goldieblox is getting? I’ve seen many new interviews with the founder of Goldieblox on their company, their history, how they got started, photos etc…. so yeah I am glad they are counter-suing. The lawsuit lists Dechen Yauch and we all know she is executor of Adam’s estate so this is still a three party deal where the Beasties are concerned.

I know a lot of fans though say they are tired of the whole thing, well I am sure they are too.

What information does the lawyer have that supports it is indeed fair use though. That's where I am confused.

[JohnnyChavello]

Aren't they trying to play both sides of the coin here? In fact, based on the Biz Markee case, it would seem this Girls commercial has a better shot at fair use defense than the Beastie's have in their other current suit.

You mean the 2 Live Crew case (Campbell)? I don't think they are playing both sides and here's why:

Campbell is very close to being directly on point, but 2 Live Crew was making music, not selling toys. The Supreme Court in that case said, "the use...of a copyrighted work to advertise a product, even in a parody," is given less protection under fair use law. Campbell was not an advertising case, so the Court was making a clear distinction in justifying its decision. So, this is that case - should product advertising be given the same amount of protection as other forms of speech - songs, movies, etc. or are there reasons why advertising should be treated differently? (Also, the Goldieblox parody sounded a LOT more like the original than 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman.)

The degree to which speech is commercial is relevant to all kinds of first amendment questions. In cases where the speech is the advertisement of a consumer product, it begins and ends as a commercial work. Despite the fact that musicians create music in order to make a living, and sell music, advertising is already commercial in a way that artistic works aren't. And in this case, the advertisement (commercial) is promoting a consumer product (toys) by a for-profit corporation (Goldieblox). The more I think about it, the more I think Goldieblox would and should lose. (Not to mention the trademark and right of publicity claims that are now joined in the lawsuit.)

In the Beasties current cases with Trouble Funk, and all other cases involving alleged infringement of music copyrights in the creation of new music, the analysis should be different. The goal of copyright law is to promote the public interest by encouraging the production of new creative works. Commercials and ads might be clever and interesting, but they're not creative in the same way and the rights granted by copyright aren't a necessary incentive for the creation of advertising - you could eliminate all copyright protection for commercials today and it wouldn't even slow them down.

I'm a huge fair use advocate, but they're right about this.

[pm0ney]

They are using a Beastie Boys song illegally to sell shitty toys and they should be sued. Period. Who cares about the "message" they are sending? Beastie Boys are 100% in the right.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

You mean the 2 Live Crew case (Campbell)? I don't think they are playing both sides and here's why:

Campbell is very close to being directly on point, but 2 Live Crew was making music, not selling toys. The Supreme Court in that case said, "the use...of a copyrighted work to advertise a product, even in a parody," is given less protection under fair use law. Campbell was not an advertising case, so the Court was making a clear distinction in justifying its decision. So, this is that case - should product advertising be given the same amount of protection as other forms of speech - songs, movies, etc. or are there reasons why advertising should be treated differently? (Also, the Goldieblox parody sounded a LOT more like the original than 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman.)

The degree to which speech is commercial is relevant to all kinds of first amendment questions. In cases where the speech is the advertisement of a consumer product, it begins and ends as a commercial work. Despite the fact that musicians create music in order to make a living, and sell music, advertising is already commercial in a way that artistic works aren't. And in this case, the advertisement (commercial) is promoting a consumer product (toys) by a for-profit corporation (Goldieblox). The more I think about it, the more I think Goldieblox would and should lose. (Not to mention the trademark and right of publicity claims that are now joined in the lawsuit.)

In the Beasties current cases with Trouble Funk, and all other cases involving alleged infringement of music copyrights in the creation of new music, the analysis should be different. The goal of copyright law is to promote the public interest by encouraging the production of new creative works. Commercials and ads might be clever and interesting, but they're not creative in the same way and the rights granted by copyright aren't a necessary incentive for the creation of advertising - you could eliminate all copyright protection for commercials today and it wouldn't even slow them down.

I'm a huge fair use advocate, but they're right about this.

Yeah, I meant the 2 Live Crew case. But doesn't it get more complicated than just "it's a commercial so you lose, even if it's a parody"? I agree that an advertisement is about as far as you can go towards commercial use, but music made and sold to the masses is still a commerical use. It's not like a news story or an educational use. What if the Beasties use "Superfly" for the purpose of a cut on their album (Egg Man). And let's say, for the purpose of this discussion, that it's a fair use. Then, 10 years later they use Egg Man in a TV commerical to promote their tour? Now it's an ad, is it no longer a fair use?

I guess that's why you look at all this on a case by case basis, but it seems to me that the practical effect of all this is free advertisement for this company, plus the possibility of this coming back to haunt samplers in the future. I admittedly haven't thought too deeply about this particular scenario but my knee jerk is that these types of cases have the potential to do some real harm to muscians who sample. I hate to see muscians who sample suing other people for copyright infringement in general. I think it sends the wrong message.

[JohnnyChavello]

But doesn't it get more complicated than just "it's a commercial so you lose, even if it's a parody"? I agree that an advertisement is about as far as you can go towards commercial use, but music made and sold to the masses is still a commerical use. It's not like a news story or an educational use. What if the Beasties use "Superfly" for the purpose of a cut on their album (Egg Man). And let's say, for the purpose of this discussion, that it's a fair use. Then, 10 years later they use Egg Man in a TV commerical to promote their tour? Now it's an ad, is it no longer a fair use?

It is more complicated than just whether or not it's commercial. 2 Live Crew's use was commercial, but it wasn't advertising. What the court is saying in Campbell is that a use in advertising is less likely to be considered fair, and therefore, even further down the scale of what is considered to be a "commercial" use.

In a case decided after Campbell, a circuit court decided whether or not a parody of Demi Moore's naked and pregnant Vanity Fair cover photograph was infringed by a poster for Naked Gun 33 1/3. In that case, the court talked about the language in Campbell that suggests that the use of a copyrighted work, "even in a parody," "to advertise a product" is less likely to be considered a fair use. They actually found that the poster (an advertisement) was a fair use, but drew another line, suggesting that they were somewhat persuaded by the idea that the advertisement was connected to an artistic work (a movie) and, by implication, it would be harder to reach the same result if it were an advertisement for a consumer product, which is what Goldieblox is, a product. So, Goldieblox is now even further out on the limb of what's considered to be commercial. It's still an open question, and I know a lot of very smart people who've disagreed with me about this specifically, but I don't think there's any question that it's even more commercial than either Campbell or the Naked Gun case and commerciality is still an important part of the law in fair use cases.

Beyond the current law, recognizing a strong distinction between artistic expression and mere advertising is crucial for artists. Blurring that line will actually make it harder for musicians and others to argue that their work is entitled to greater protection and if all works are treated the same, my expectation would be that over time, fair use will contract as a response to the broader scope, and both artistic works and purely corporate works will be negatively affected.

It's hard to understand the lack of skepticism people have now about advertising. A lot of people see this ad as an artistic work in it's own right and not a vehicle for a message that's intended to create goodwill, resulting in the sale of toys, and that's strange to me. In my opinion, that's just not how advertising works. Companies would (and did, for a long time) use the opposite message (sexism) to sell products. Their actual connection to the message is always utilitarian.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

It is more complicated than just whether or not it's commercial. 2 Live Crew's use was commercial, but it wasn't advertising. What the court is saying in Campbell is that a use in advertising is less likely to be considered fair, and therefore, even further down the scale of what is considered to be a "commercial" use.

In a case decided after Campbell, a circuit court decided whether or not a parody of Demi Moore's naked and pregnant Vanity Fair cover photograph was infringed by a poster for Naked Gun 33 1/3. In that case, the court talked about the language in Campbell that suggests that the use of a copyrighted work, "even in a parody," "to advertise a product" is less likely to be considered a fair use. They actually found that the poster (an advertisement) was a fair use, but drew another line, suggesting that they were somewhat persuaded by the idea that the advertisement was connected to an artistic work (a movie) and, by implication, it would be harder to reach the same result if it were an advertisement for a consumer product, which is what Goldieblox is, a product. So, Goldieblox is now even further out on the limb of what's considered to be commercial. It's still an open question, and I know a lot of very smart people who've disagreed with me about this specifically, but I don't think there's any question that it's even more commercial than either Campbell or the Naked Gun case and commerciality is still an important part of the law in fair use cases.

Beyond the current law, recognizing a strong distinction between artistic expression and mere advertising is crucial for artists. Blurring that line will actually make it harder for musicians and others to argue that their work is entitled to greater protection and if all works are treated the same, my expectation would be that over time, fair use will contract as a response to the broader scope, and both artistic works and purely corporate works will be negatively affected.

It's hard to understand the lack of skepticism people have now about advertising. A lot of people see this ad as an artistic work in it's own right and not a vehicle for a message that's intended to create goodwill, resulting in the sale of toys, and that's strange to me. In my opinion, that's just not how advertising works. Companies would (and did, for a long time) use the opposite message (sexism) to sell products. Their actual connection to the message is always utilitarian.

Good post. I think the argument that this advertisement is more commercial than the 2 live crew joint or the Naked Gun poster is probably a winner. I also agree its a close call on how this ends up. These days the line between what's a commercial and what's art is getting pretty blurry. And I'm sure the Court is going to consider the social statement being made in this one. An ad for a hamburger would probably get even less protection. I also don't see how this really hurts the Beasties, other than it reminds people of a cut they aren't that proud of anymore (maybe I'm jumping to conclusions there.) I think that the best argument they have is that viewers may think the Beasties endorse the product and the use of their song it, which is not the case and it goes against their wishes to have their songs used in advertisements. But I don't see anything in the add that necessarily leads me to believe that the Beasties are supporting this. At the end of the day though, it's an advertisement to sell toys!

Anyway, you make a good strong argument. I'm fairly convinced from a legal perspective. The more that I think about it's a good test case. They likely don't have any problem with the social message being sent. It's not like their song is being used to sell guns, or used on the campaign trail for some politician they disagree with. It appears as though they agree with the core speech, but that they just don't want their music being used in advertisements regardless of the nature of the speech (unless the advertisement is to promote their own music). It's actually a pretty intellectually honest position.

[KENNY GUIDO]

I emjoyed it. I don't think you can copyright "girls". But if weird al can do it, iI'm sure anyone else can. Didn't rick rubin and ad rock write the song?

[Megalon X]

I emjoyed it. I don't think you can copyright "girls". But if weird al can do it, iI'm sure anyone else can. Didn't rick rubin and ad rock write the song?

Even the Happy Birthday Song is copyright protected. Of course you can!

[Lyman Zerga]

I also don't see how this really hurts the Beasties

except for people calling them butthurt, bullies etc. now

[pm0ney]

I emjoyed it. I don't think you can copyright "girls". But if weird al can do it, iI'm sure anyone else can. Didn't rick rubin and ad rock write the song?

The two examples are apples and oranges.

Weird Al wrote parodies and the artists he parodied received royalties from the profits of those parody records. On top of that, he always got permission from both the artist and more importantly their record label (except the well documented Coolio spoof.)

This is a blatant advertisement by a toy company to sell their shitty chachkies that is changing the lyrics of a song they never asked permission to use.

[Micodin]

After toy company GoldieBlox used the Beastie Boys' song "Girls" in an ad, the Beasties sued due to copyright infringement. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the two parties have come to a settlement, the terms of which are unknown. The case has been dismissed.

The company initially made the argument that their commercial parody of the "highly sexist" song was covered under the Fair Use Doctrine. The band disagreed, arguing that it was copyright infringement. Adam Yauch's will prohibited the use of Beastie Boys songs in advertisements. Shortly after Yauch died, the band sued Monster Energy Drink for illegally using their music.

source (http://pitchfork.com/news/54387-beastie-boys-toy-company-goldieblox-settle-lawsuit-over-girls-video/)

[MrSmiley1]

After toy company GoldieBlox used the Beastie Boys' song "Girls" in an ad, the Beasties sued due to copyright infringement. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the two parties have come to a settlement, the terms of which are unknown. The case has been dismissed.

The partial details didn't take long to come out

GoldieBlox "has to both issue a public apology and kick over a portion of its revenues to charities selected by the Beastie Boys, benefitting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for girls"

Source (http://www.avclub.com/article/beastie-boys-settle-lawsuit-goldieblox-over-girls-202326)

[Micodin]

The partial details didn't take long to come out

GoldieBlox "has to both issue a public apology and kick over a portion of its revenues to charities selected by the Beastie Boys, benefitting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for girls"

Source (http://www.avclub.com/article/beastie-boys-settle-lawsuit-goldieblox-over-girls-202326)

Whoever posted this in the talkbacks is a genius.

"The Beastie Boys issued a statement hoping the charitable donation would help young women get science for any occasion, postulating theorems, formulating equations."

[Sir SkratchaLot]

The partial details didn't take long to come out

GoldieBlox "has to both issue a public apology and kick over a portion of its revenues to charities selected by the Beastie Boys, benefitting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for girls"

Source (http://www.avclub.com/article/beastie-boys-settle-lawsuit-goldieblox-over-girls-202326)

That's excellent!

[abbott]

:)

[MrSmiley1]

Whoever posted this in the talkbacks is a genius.

"The Beastie Boys issued a statement hoping the charitable donation would help young women get science for any occasion, postulating theorems, formulating equations."

I know! I saw that and laughed my butt off. Glad someone here saw it and appreciated it as well.

[MrSmiley1]

Goldie blox just posted the public apology at the bottom of their website's main page.

"We sincerely apologize for an negative impact our actions may have had on the Beastie Boys. We never intended to cast the band in a negative light and we regret putting them in a position to defend themselves when they had done nothing wrong. As engineers and builders of intellectual property, we understand n artist's desire to have his or her work treated with respect. We should have reached out to the band before using their music in the video. We know this only one of the mistakes we're bound to make as we grow our business. The great thing about mistakes is how much you can learn from them. As trying as this experience was, we have learned a valuable lesson. From now on, we will secure the proper rights and permissions in advance of any promotions, and we advise any other young company to do the same."

[JoLovesMCA]

I am surprised they apologized after they went out of their way to say they did nothing wrong. Wonder if they really mean this or if their lawyers advised them it would be best to do.

Who cares I guess, it least they admitted their mistake.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

This is my fave quote -- happy days:

"One thing the company will learn is the Beastie Boys' favorite charities, as part of the settlement includes a payment by GoldieBlox, based on a percentage of its revenues, to one or more charities selected by Beastie Boys that support science, technology, engineering and mathematics education for girls."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/goldieblox-apologizes-to-beasties-we-have-learned-a-valuable-lesson-20140319#ixzz2wW2IaUTO

[Documad]

I am surprised they apologized after they went out of their way to say they did nothing wrong. Wonder if they really mean this or if their lawyers advised them it would be best to do.

Who cares I guess, it least they admitted their mistake.

The company apologized because that's what the Beasties demanded in order to settle the lawsuit.

It's a shame that the company sue the band when the company was the one in the wrong. The settlement looks like a clear victory for the band. I wonder how much the Beasties had to pay their attorneys.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

The company apologized because that's what the Beasties demanded in order to settle the lawsuit.

It's a shame that the company sue the band when the company was the one in the wrong. The settlement looks like a clear victory for the band. I wonder how much the Beasties had to pay their attorneys.

My guess is that they have a few attorney friends who would practically do this work for free or for a modest fee (e.g., an original country mike LP).

[JohnnyChavello]

My guess is that they have a few attorney friends who would practically do this work for free or for a modest fee (e.g., an original country mike LP).

I'm sure they do, but they were represented by Sheppard Mullin (at least with respect to the GoldieBlox suit). Attorneys fees may have been part of the settlement, though.

[KENNY GUIDO]

ok, theres a movie coming out, forgot the name of it...coming out and during the commercial for the song, they are playing a beastie boys song. now i know when they play a song to promote a movie, chances are the song is never on the soundtrack or even in the movie.

doesnt this fall in the same lines of what adam did now wants? thier music promoting a movie?

[Lyman Zerga]

bad words?

[Michelle*s_Farm]

ok, theres a movie coming out, forgot the name of it...coming out and during the commercial for the song, they are playing a beastie boys song. now i know when they play a song to promote a movie, chances are the song is never on the soundtrack or even in the movie.

doesnt this fall in the same lines of what adam did now wants? thier music promoting a movie?

I do not understand your question. Film is art and being associated with another artist is not an ethical problem unless you do not support the art or the artist. For example some people would want their their music in a Lars Von Trier film and others may not (e.g., a Christian Rock artist may be offended by Lars' work). Presumably when the production / marketing company requests for the music to be included on a score, soundtrack or promotional materials the Christian Rocker would say "no thank you".

This is a good article on the subject of music, advertising and 'selling out' by one of my favourite bands Yo La Tengo:
http://pando.com/2013/09/17/yo-la-tengo-on-how-to-make-it-in-music-without-selling-out/

No one wants to be a "sell out"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_who_sell_out_album_front.jpg