Beastie Boys being SUED by GoldieBlox after feminist company GoldieBlox uses a modified version of their song "Girls" as a new feminist "anthem"

Horrorbuff2 · 2013-11-26T05:45:26+00:00

I think the most disturbing part of this is that they are using their music even though Adam Yauch-(MCA) said in his will that he refuses to have his music played in any form of advertising. Also, important to add that Ad-Rock and his wife Kathleen Hanna are both vocal feminists. Everything the late MCA did to fight for women's rights in Tibet, and all the money that was donated to the Pro-Choice movement by Mike D, and this is how a feminist organisation repay them?

This is beyond disgraceful.

41145and6 · 2013-11-26T10:41:19+00:00

Given the speed with which the GoldieBlox complaint appeared, indeed, it’s reasonable to assume that they had it in their back pocket all along, ready to whip out the minute anybody from the Beastie Boys, or their record label, so much as inquired about what was going on. The strategy here is to maximize ill-will: don’t ask permission, make no attempt to negotiate in good faith, antagonize the other party as much as possible.

.

This way, at least, the battle lines get drawn pretty clearly. The jurisprudential analysis comes out, defending GoldieBlox and its right to use the Beasties’ song as parody. After all, fair use is a protection under the law, which means that if it applies, then it doesn’t matter what the Beasties think, or want: GoldieBlox can do anything it likes. On the other hand, in the key precedent for such issues, Campbell vs Acuff-Rose Music, Justice Souter explicitly said that “the use of a copyrighted work to advertise a product, even in a parody, will be entitled to less indulgence” under the law than “the sale of a parody for its own sake”.

.

Instead, however, GoldieBlox did exactly what you’d expect an entitled and well-lawyered Silicon Valley startup to do, which is pick a fight. It’s the way of the Valley — you can’t be winning unless some household-name dinosaur is losing. (The Beasties are actually the second big name to find themselves in the GoldieBlox crosshairs; the first was Toys R Us.) The real target of the GoldieBlox lawsuit, I’m quite sure, is not the Beastie Boys. Instead, it’s the set of investors who are currently being pitched to put money into a fast-growing, Stanford-incubated, web-native, viral, aggressive, disruptive company with massive room for future growth — a company which isn’t afraid to pick fights with any big name you care to mention.

Source: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/11/26/goldieblox-fair-use-and-the-cult-of-disruption/

The company has some big brass balls I give them that, but they are up against a band with a record company with some very deep pockets (Deff Jam along with Sony and UMG are named in the lawsuit) and that can easily drag out the case draining them of money in the process. As their kickstarter it seems raised some [$290k](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/16029337/goldieblox-the-engineering-toy-for-girls. And with no clear legal ground for them to sue, an that with a clear precedent this company will loose and loose hard. Either they be shutting their doors or that paying a nice sum of money over time and that having to pull their commercial.

Roulette88888 · 2013-11-26T06:17:31+00:00

If they just made a parody, I wouldn't give a crap. The fact they're using it commercially- as in, to sell a product- then they should be held accountable.

lasertits69 · 2013-11-26T06:51:10+00:00

Wait. GoldieBox infringes their copyright and then sues them? So, can i put out a new Star Wars movie and then sue George Lucas?

user1492 · 2013-11-26T14:23:52+00:00

First of all, lets address the "GoldiBlox sues Beastie Boys" part. In the United States if someone threatens to sue you, you don't want that lawsuit hanging over your head. If you think you're in the right you should have some way of bringing the issue to a head.

That is the rationale behind the "Declaratory Judgment" action (28 USC § 2201). When a party is threatened with suit (such as by receiving a cease and desist letter), the party may sue the threatening party to force adjudication of the issue. There are a number of reasons why you would sue first, but usually it is because you want a specific venue to hear the case (e.g. 9th Circuit vs. 6th Circuit).

So there's nothing wrong with GoldieBlox suing Beastie Boys. The Beastie Boys threatened GoldiBlox with suit, they should have known that a DJ action was possible.

Second, GoldiBlox unequivocally is infringing on the Beastie Boys' song. The only question is whether their defense of "fair use" is valid. Fair use under the copyright act (17 USC § 107) is not a bright line test. There are four factors that are to be considered. If these consideration of these factors weighs in favor of fair use then the use is authorized. If not, then it is copyright infringement. The factors are:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 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; and

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

A good case to look at is the case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994). In this case the Supreme Court struggled with 2 Live Crew's parody (or was it satire?) of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman."

It turns out the Parody-Satire distinction matters. According to the Supreme Court, "parody, like other comment or criticism, may claim fair use." Id. That doesn't mean parody is absolutely entitled to fair use, the four factors must be considered.

That brings us to the question: what is parody? According to the Supreme Court a parody must "comment on [the original author's] works" by using some elements of the composition to create a new one. Id.

But if the infringement only exists to gain attention and there is no "commentary" on the original song, the work is not parody but satire. In this case, where "the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger." Id.

This distinction has been eroded, see particularly Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin where a lower court recognized that there is not a clear distinction between parody and satire.

I only listened to a portion of the song, but it seems to me that the GoldieBlox song is not parody. They aren't poking fun at the Beasie Boys song. The original "Girls" isn't extremely popular, or extremely prevalent. The parody is to poke fun at the social aspect they are attempting to cure: the lack of appropriate toys for young girls. In this analysis, I think the GoldieBlox song is a satirical song where the authors wanted to use the original work to "avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh."

It is, in my opinion, likely that GoldieBlox will not meet the fair use defense, and if the case goes to trial, they will be held liable for copyright infringement, possibly willful copyright infringement. The case will more than likely settle well before that point.

Source: IP attorney.

JaydenPope · 2013-11-26T04:19:05+00:00

Man i hope the beastie boys buries that company is a deep dark pit.

2013-11-26T18:17:26+00:00

These guys fought for our right to party, and this is how they are repaid?

onetenth · 2013-11-26T05:57:03+00:00

deleted

2013-11-26T17:30:40+00:00

If you do not obtain entusiastic consent, it is rape, even if it's technically not against the law.

ProjectDirectory · 2013-11-26T16:28:57+00:00

My initial impression after reading to headline was "You must be confused." but then I read the article and now I'm just speechless.

lasertits69 · 2013-11-26T11:21:36+00:00

This is not a "sue you for money" lawsuit. It is a "let's see if the law permits me to use this version of your art for profit" lawsuit. Honestly, I think it does. Weird Al made a career of selling parody versions of songs and has basically said that parodies do not require the consent of the original artist but that he gets the OK anyway to not be a dick. Goldieblox is acting like a dick, but it may be totally legal.

SJW_Scum · 2013-11-26T14:41:22+00:00

[permanently deleted]

octnoir · 2013-11-26T21:52:10+00:00

Wait, is GoldieBlox sueing Beastie Boys? I was under a completely different impression because I heard about this case through EFF - they're sending legal support to defend GoldieBlox.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/beastie-boys-goldieblox-fair-use-lawsuit

neofau · 2013-11-27T07:56:44+00:00

I had to reread this a few times to make sure I was not hallucinating.

dublbagn · 2013-11-27T13:45:24+00:00

Seems obvious to me, if you cover a persons song for use in a commercial you have to get permission/clearance and you have to pay them. The beastie boys dont want goldieblox money, and never gave permission to use their creative work on the commercial. But I do like where this pushes the limit of fair use.

mindfields88 · 2014-02-04T03:56:27+00:00

the word "feminist" in the thread title...

humanityisavirus · 2013-11-26T15:33:15+00:00

Wait..GoldieBlox stole their song..and are suing them!?

Edit:

Welp, I cared, as in past tense.

“Like many of the millions of people who have seen your toy commercial ‘GoldieBlox, Rube Goldberg & the Beastie Boys,’ we were very impressed by the creativity and the message behind your ad,” Beastie Boys’ Mike D and Ad-Rock said in a statement issued today. “We strongly support empowering young girls, breaking down gender stereotypes and igniting a passion for technology and engineering.”

Well done you fucking doormats.

Capitulate to the people who stole your song and sued you for it.

Their only reason for giving a shit seems to be because the song was used in a commercial, not that they got the fair use version of being mugged then arrested for being mugged.

2013-11-26T05:42:14+00:00

Ok? I don't see how this is in any way relevant to men's rights.

Title	Beastie Boys being SUED by GoldieBlox after feminist company GoldieBlox uses a modified version of their song "Girls" as a new feminist "anthem"
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	187
Comments	72
Date	November 26, 2013 3:26 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1rgx5q/beastie_boys_being_sued_by_goldieblox_after/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/beastie-boys-being-sued-by-goldieblox-after.1157773 https://theredarchive.com/post/1157773

Comments