Girls

[JohnnyChavello]

Originally Posted by Michelle*s_Farm

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

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]

Originally Posted by beasties#1fan

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]

Originally Posted by 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)?

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]

Originally Posted by 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)?

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/ne...wsuit-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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. 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...

[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/2013/1...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]

Originally Posted by Megalon X

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]

Originally Posted by Michelle*s_Farm

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]

Originally Posted by dust monkey

Open letter...

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.