Beastie Boys send copyright threat to toy company that remixed "Girls"

boing
81

Recipes are not copyrightable.

82

Thanks very much for the info and clarity in your response, Mathew.

FWIW, the original lyrics in question (for those who don’t already remember them verbatim):

Girls.
All I really want is girls
And in the morning it’s girls
Cause in the evening it’s girls

I like the way that they walk
And it’s chill to hear them talk
And I can always make them smile
From White Castle to the Nile

Back in the day
There was this girl around the way
She liked my home-piece M.C.A
He said he would not give her play
I asked him, “Please?” - he said, “You may.”
Her pants were tight and that’s ok
If she would dance - I would D.J
We took a walk down to the bay

I hope she’ll say, “Hey me and you should hit the hay!”
I asked her out - she said, “No way!”
I should’ve probably guessed her gay
So I broke North with no delay
I heard she moved real far away
That was two years ago this May
I seen her just the other day
Jockin’ Mike D. to my dismay

Girls - to do the dishes
Girls - to clean up my room
Girls - to do the laundry
Girls - and in the bathroom
Girls - that’s all I really want is girls
Two at a time - I want girls
With new wave hairdos - I want girls
I ought to whip out my

Girls, girls, girls, girls, girls!

This was one of those times when any of the Beastie’s irony is lost (if any was intended to begin with), aside from their generally trollish, shock-value-style pranksterism.

4 Likes
84

Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.

2 Likes
85

great now i have my own mental “remix” of cindy lauper’s song stuck in my head:

“girls just want to h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶f̶u̶n̶ be marketed to” 
 “all they really want, i̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶f̶u̶n̶ is crappy products that pander to and commercialize girl power” 
 “they just want-ta, they just want-ta h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶f̶u̶n̶ buy our products”

3 Likes
86

Honest question, but haven’t I heard their song “Sabotage” used in movie trailers? How do they differ from advertising? It seems like they’re okay with that commercial use. Also, I remember reading an interview where the Beastie Boys said that they really regret “Girls,” and other misogynistic songs, so I’d almost feel like they would approve of this retooling. Not to mention the girls are totally punk rock, and you would think that would appeal. If I were the toy company, I’d make a second one, remix “Fight for your Right” and stick it in their eyes.

87

So your complaint is that they didn’t make sweeping enough changes in their total subversion of the entire message of a song? That they were able to make a very strong, damning point by only changing one aspect of something instead instead of five or twelve or whatever other arbitrary larger number?

That’s like saying painting the White House in a rainbow motif in order to send an LGBT message isn’t “a new thing”, because the building itself is still the same shape, made of the same components, has the same foundation, and houses the same people and personnel.

88

Apparently you misunderstood the original song. “Girls” is a parody of sexist songs that are dismissive of women, so this remix is not a subversion of the original song’s message but a confirmation of it.

As to the White House example, I don’t see how that is comparable at all. No one has successfully claimed ownership of the LBGT flag as the Beastie Boys have copyright over “Girls,” so its use in commercial, personal or political worlds is perfectly fine. And, no, it wouldn’t be a new thing. It would still be the residence of the President of the United State and the primary seat of the offices of the Presidency. That it’s colors changed on the outside would be a statement, sure, but the house itself would be the same.

89

What’s a copywrite?

1 Like
90

It is when you can read the answers on your neighbour’s exam paper.

1 Like
91

Brilliant. Nicely played, sir. Nicely played. :slight_smile:

1 Like
92

I’m disappointed a teacher doesn’t have better reading comprehension. You introduced a generality I found faulty, and I was continuing in that context. Nothing personal about it at all.

So I’m rather stunned at your response. Tell you what, how about you go fuck yourself for being too dim to teach kids.

93

Also, lest anyone be quick to tar MCA, and the Beasties, with the broad claims of misogyny, here’s a great piece from Jessica Valenti on “MCA’s Feminist Legacy.”

Hearing the Beastie Boys speak out against sexism made me feel like if these men who had once sung about getting girls to “do the laundry” and “clean up my room” could understand, maybe the rest of the world would follow suit. It made me hopeful in the best way.

2 Likes
94

If the mediation of the experience is commodity a prori, then I refute its’ attempt. That’s all. I’m not declaring a legal position, I’m declaring that when experience and intention is first mediated by capital, it has no artistic value for me. I’ll buy a toy from this company, they’re slimy to me. They attempt to win the hearts and half of the minds of people a posteri with conceptual arguments, but all I see is another carpet bagger at my door, hastily sticking a beret on their pate, stretched canvas in tow. I’m sure the american legal system will find a way to declare what these people are doing is fair. Legal arguments can do what they want. So can I, which is to never buy a product which employs Spectacular Recuperation as its argument.
P.S. sorry about the spelling and grammar, I tried to clean it up a bit ; )

95

Yes commercial uses are not automatically infringing, but whether the use is commercial or not IS part of the “fair use” determination. ISTR that was one of the factors in Texaco vs. AGU.

1 Like
96

P.S. Bear in mind, everything I’m trying to say is coming from lsd-25


97

OK. Substitute the copyrightable item of your choice for that part of the hypothetical instead.

98

Hard for me to say without knowing the examples. Perhaps the song “Sabotage” was also in the soundtrack for that movie? Or perhaps that’s a form of advertising that didn’t meet Yauch’s definition, because a film is also a sold work of art?

Also, independent films can often use music without permission, and not pay for licensing unless and until they actually get picked up by a distributor. So it’s possible you saw trailers that the Beastie Boys didn’t even authorize.

99

That does it. I’m tired of trying to convince everyone that you are cool. From now on you can make your own sandwiches. And I’ll have you know something else. That same thing goes for CHRISTMAS! Now drop and give me 20.

100

I don’t remember if it was in the trailer, but Sabotage was definitely in the 2009 Star Trek, and a “Body Movin’” remix is in Into Darkness. I kinda want to say they used a Two Steps From Hell track on the trailer.

Yeah, I don’t get it, either.

As far as the parody goes
I don’t know. I know I’ve seen the argument that Yauch said in his will “no advertisements” (which means they can’t just work it out amicably, I guess) and they seem like massive freakin’ hypocrites defending a License to Ill song on the grounds of copyright violation. On the other hand, it’s clearly supposed to just be turning the Beastie Boys song on its ear. Then again, it’s a parody of satire (honestly, the album is pretty much satire), and that particular track is (imho) an original work.

My gut wants for the Beastie Boys to lose this one, but my gut isn’t a lawyer.

101

On my first CV after graduating from university I wrote that I had experience as a “copyrighter”. I’m sure it earned a chuckle or two from potential employers.

1 Like