JibJab Wins - 'This Land' is Public Domain 628
The Importance of writes "JibJab, creators of the hilarious parody of Woody Guthrie's 'This Land is Your Land' featuring Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry, were first threatened with a lawsuit and then, with the help of EFF, went to court first in a pre-emptive strike. Well, EFF discovered that the song has actually been in the public domain since 1973 because it was first published in a songbook [PDF] in 1945 and the copyright was never renewed. The case has now been settled. Here are some addtional links."
Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that no matter what parody was protected regardless of copyright? Isn't that how Weird Al operates? Oh wait, I forgot, the government doesn't work for the people. The government is employed by the corporations. I'll go and take my seat in the corner again.
so they didnt win (Score:5, Insightful)
False claims of copyright should be criminal! (Score:5, Insightful)
So wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
EFF hurts us all again (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it's a runon sentence, but this kind of pussyfooting around actually challenging usurpations of our freedoms by the EFF has become their calling card. Hop aboard winning cases, make a lot of noise, settle out of court, then call it a victory. Well boys, it ain't a victory unless there is a ruling and so long as you want to keep the courts out of this type of thing these challenges to our rights will continue unabated.
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
(only half-joking)
Re:Patriotic songs (Score:3, Insightful)
While some songs may seem more obvious than others, who gets to determine if a song is patriotic?
Re:False claims of copyright should be criminal! (Score:5, Insightful)
At least... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a dream speach (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:EFF hurts us all again (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? Instead of getting a ruling on this one perticular incident, they prevented these assholes from suing anybody ever again for using that song.
They not only sucessfully defended JibJab, they also liberated a song!
Re:EFF hurts us all again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so they didnt win (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EFF hurts us all again (Score:5, Insightful)
Once it was discovered that "This Land Is Your Land" was already in the public domain, there no longer was a case capable of being fought. I can just imagine what would have happened if EFF did bring it before the court:
EFF: Your honor, during discovery, we found out that "This Land Is Your Land" is actually in the public domain.
JUDGE: That's good to know. Now after finding that little piece of information, why are you wasting the time of this court? Case dismissed!
What a Poor Settlement! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patriotic songs (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, patriotic. Patriotism is loving your country, not your government (per se), and being willing to defend your country from threat of harm. Even... no, especially, if that harm comes from it's government.
Re:EFF hurts us all again (Score:5, Insightful)
Slow down, Beavis. JibJab asked EFF to step in on their behalf, and would have been financially committed to the fight if they turned down the settlement, which would have been a battle of words and old records:
According to EFF, the initial copyright term was triggered when Guthrie sold his first versions of the song as sheet music in 1945. The copyright on the song then ran out when Ludlow failed to renew its registration in 1973. Ludlow believes its copyright -- initially filed in 1956 and renewed in 1984 -- remains valid and disputes EFF's claims.
It is correct to say this hasn't settled anything outside of JibJab's case itself. In the case of 'This Land', what this actually accomplishes is now a large company could use it and be prepared to attack with EFF's finding's. It is a victory in the sense that the EFF helped accomplish what they were engaged for - JibJab can use the song without getting sued. Just because that falls short of what some would like to see doesn't nullify it.
Be careful what you ask for (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these things should stay civil law.
Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
You can still love your country and question it's direction.
Remember, patriotism [m-w.com] does not mean you have to wave a flag.
Am I the only one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perpetuating the myth that Kerry is a sophisticated northener whereas Bush is an average joe southerner, for example (they're *both* filthy rich northerners, George W. is the only one of his family to somehow pick up that Texan accent).
Delivering the "flip flops" talking point is also pretty damn ludicrous, as Bush is guilty of at least as bad, if not worse. The majority of the accused "flip flops" are minor changes over the course of a 20 year political career - I don't call that a flip flop, I call that legitimately maturing and changing your mind.
Anyway, yeah. I don't think it's that funny, and I don't think it's that balanced. I don't think the lawsuit against it was legitimate, either, but that's neither here nor there at this point I suppose.
Re:What puzzles me (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do they not count for some reason?
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not a patriotic song (Score:2, Insightful)
Case in point: the pledge of allegience. It was written by a Socialist who worked for a flag-making company in an attempt to sell more flags.
So, is the pledge of allegiance currently used as a socialist tool? No. Is the flag-making lobby responsible for keeping it in our schools? No.
It matters very little what it was written for, it's all about what it is now.
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guard the message ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was purely for financial gain, I suspect he would have issues with it.
I suspect to a larger degree, not hijacking the message of the good Reverend is far more important to them. At some point, I should think the integrity of its use far outweighs the simple financial values.
Cheers
PS - Copywrite describes file-system perms. CopyOnWrite describes a memory policy for shared memory. Copyright describes the Right To Copy. Your friendly neighborhood grammar monkey. =)
Either capitalist or against us? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, where does it say that you're not a patriot if you're left wing?
It IS a patriotic song, it is NOT a capitalist song.
Capitalism is not the same thing as patriotism, McArthy.
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have a dream speach (Score:4, Insightful)
Souds good to me.
Re:not a patriotic song (Score:5, Insightful)
that ribbon of highway
I saw a sign that
said no trespassing
but on the other side
that sign said nothing
that side was made for you and me.
Of course, being farther left on the spectrum that you or I doesn't mean a person isn't patriotic. The notion that "the people who don't agree with us don't really love their country" is, at its root, an anti-democratic notion. Nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing.
Communist != unpatriotic (Score:3, Insightful)
Honest, IMHO communists are mistaken and communism has brought more wrong than good to the world. Yet one cannot deny that communists have shown themselves to be fierce patriots throughout history. During WWII, communists have formed the backbones of many resistance groups in most occupied countries (Poland, Russia, Yugoslavia, France...)
My belief is that when the country is really in danger, all patriots are welcome, whatever their religion, skin color or political affiliation. Before that time, there's no way to know who really is a patriot.
Re:Patriotic songs (Score:5, Insightful)
Shrug that's true (Score:1, Insightful)
The "I do kick ass" is not necessarily good or bad, and yes anti-war folks will dislike it. But the point is that it's consistent and it refutes some of the criticism Bush receives. If nothing else, he's decisive, and that's what he's running on these days.
Anyway, don't try to psychoanalyze me here over this. I fully acknowledge that nobody can be unbiased. But still, substantively respond to my assertion, as it stands apart from any twisted psychology I have. My point is that there is only one critique of Bush, and it's a very played and fangless critique at this point (e.g. his stupidity), whereas there were many critiques of Kerry, most of them talking points and definitely effective and important ones.
Regardless of the truth or falseness of the accusations on Kerry, my point is that there were more criticisms of Kerry than there were of Bush. Why didn't we hear about Bush flip-flopping? Why didn't we hear about Bush going to war illy prepared?
Hrmmm, maybe it's because the criticisms of Kerry can be talked about humorously (if I may deign to say so, because they are largely manufactured), but the criticisms of Bush are grave and don't exactly fit in that well with a humorous song.
Who's the real winner? Lawyers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Either capitalist or against us? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Look at Soviet and East German songs -- they can't seem to get a verse out without mentioning "Socialist Motherland" (in Soviet songs) or "sozialistischen Vaterland" (in East German songs). Patriotism and Nationalism are found on both sides of the political spectrum -- in fact, particularly at the sides of the spectrum -- most moderates find excessive flag waving more amusing than inspiring.
Act now to stop BPI/Sonny Bono in Europe. (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the BBC..... [bbc.co.uk]
"A campaign is under way to protect music copyrights due to expire on 50-year-old records by Elvis Presley and other rock legends.
The UK music industry has begun the fight over a legal loophole on royalty payments.
Starting on 1 January 2005, copies of songs can be issued in Europe 50 years after their release without the need for payments to copyright owners.
It could affect records by Chuck Berry, James Brown - and by 2013, The Beatles.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) is spearheading the campaign.
Landmark rock 'n' roll recordings such as Presley's That's All Right and Shake, Rattle and Roll by Bill Haley and his Comets come out of copyright in Europe in January.
Prized catalogue
Over the next few years major hits by acts such as Little Richard, Johnny Cash, Bo Diddley and Fats Domino will also come into the public domain.
The Beatles' catalogue would begin to become freely available from 1 January 2013, with their first single Love Me Do. The band's entire repertoire - the most prized catalogue in rock music - would follow over the next eight years.
Recordings by other key British acts such as Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Tommy Steele and Lonnie Donegan are also at the centre of the campaign.
The Beatles
The Beatles' first single comes into the public domain in 2013
Once out of copyright, the BPI fears such potentially lucrative recordings could be exploited without recompense to the performers or the copyright holders.
Unlike Europe, copyright protection exists in the US for 95 years after the recording was made. Australia and Brazil have 70-year terms, and India 60 years. Composers and writers also enjoy 70 years' protection.
Peter Jamieson, the BPI's executive chairman, said less favourable copyright terms could put the UK's record industry at a commercial disadvantage to the US.
He said it was unfair to performers and investors to fail to get a return for a "free-for-all" in Europe - often within the artist's lifetime.
Record labels argue that their ability to invest in new talent often depends on money generated by their back catalogue.
The BPI is leading about 20 recording bodies including the Association of Independent Music (Aim) in lobbying the government over its concerns."
According to me....
Love, Love me do, there's a hole in me shoe, and you ain't nothing but a hound dog, just a crying all the time.
A large number of musical recordings from such people as The Beatles and Elvis Presley have become part of the National, European and World Wide culture. Most everybody in the west knows the songs, young musicians practice them with desires of making it great, and you can hear people singing the songs in pubs, bars, restaurants and homes on any night, up and down the country.
Despite all this I could still be breaking copyright if I had extended my opening sentence. It has come to something when a piece of material more than 50 years old, that everyone can knows and can probably do a simple reproduction of, either by whistling, humming, strumming or singing, can be owned, not by the original artist, but by the music distribution companies.
Don't act like a small child in the playground. Let the music go, let it be free, give it to the people, let them feel the music.
My favorite quote from the EFF press release... (Score:3, Insightful)
Learn from this (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is what they can learn from this case: Go to court for a tiny piece and you can wind up losing the whole enchilada.
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many adults in the hick area we lived in couldn't remember where she was from after repeatedly being told, they kept on confusing Pakistan and the Philipines and had no clear idea of the difference between the two countries.
Who is more advanced? I'd put my money on the Amish anyday for a political opinion or any question about history or world knowledge.
Re:so they didnt win (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, if this is really frustrating to you then I suggest you consider curtailing your donations and instead contributing to a lobbyest or PAC that has the same goals as you. Sure, the ultimate goal of the EEF might be to change law, but at the core they are protecting PEOPLE who are getting steamrolled. Lobbyests and PACs cut out the middleman (the poor shmuck who is about to lose everything he has because *insert conglomerate here* has an army of lawyers on his ass) and go straight to the lawmakers.
Re:Woody Guthrie would have *approved* (Score:4, Insightful)
And what's wrong with writing anti-Bush songs?
Re:The difference between Parody and Satire (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, the First Amendment is just as much a part of the Constitution as that which is in the original articles. Being an "amendment" doesn't make it any less valid or important; it is just as much a "part of the Constitution" as any of the original articles. Furthermore, actually examining the relevant passages of the U.S. Constitution itself should give us an enlightening view on what trumps what and how the different pieces must work together.
Compare these two. They are both the "highest law of the land" and therefore must work together. The "copyright clause" simply indicates that Congress has the power to create copyright law. Note, however, that it does NOT indicate that Congress MUST create copyright law! The "first amendment" indicates that Congress is flatly PROHIBITED from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Essentially, Section 8 provides Congress with a power, and Amendment I spells out a limitation of that power (but is not a contradictory directive).
Now, let's consider the what combination of those two Constitutional Directives means.
It means that Congress MAY (not MUST) create copyright laws, provided that those laws do not abridge freedom of speech.
Furthermore, it means that if Congress cannot create a copyright law that does not abridge freedom of speech, it cannot create a copyright law at all!
Simple, really. Here's a relatively simple analogy:
I, as a father, have the power to discipline my children by administering punishments. That doesn't mean I am REQUIRED to punish my children. However, should I choose to exercise the power I have to punish, I am prohibited by law to abuse my children. If I cannot find a way to punish my children without abusing them, I am prohibited from punishing them.
Similarly, Congress has the power to create copyright law. That doesn't mean they're REQUIRED to make copyright law. However, should they choose to exercise the power they have to create copyright law, they are prohibited by the Constitution to abridge free speech. If they cannot find a way to create copyright law without abridging free speech, they are prohibited from creating copyright law.
Simple. Effective. Try READING the Constitution in its entirety and understanding how the component parts fit together rather than stopping once you hit the clause you like to support your own world view. Getting hung up on one clause (whether it's Amendment II or Section 8 or anything else) and feeling that "this is the clause which trumps all others" is an unhealthy way to look at the document, and leads only to misunderstanding of its intent.
--AC
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you know what? It isn't at all clear that they're wrong. The Amish seem to do alright for themselves, have very low crime, and (though I don't have any studies handy) are generally more happy with their lives than the rest of us.
But maybe you were just trolling?
Re:EFF hurts us all again (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the song was discovered to be in the public domain, any copyright dispute brought before the court would have been "frivolous." I, for one, do not want the EFF to tarnish its image by bringing frivolous cases before a court.
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, failing to notice the difference would make you almost certainly a proud gaduate of our wonderful american school system, yes?
Re:Patriotic songs (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet somehow, people who oppose President Bush and his war in Iraq are labeled as unpatriotic. (Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks, etc) We have things like "The Patriot Act" which have nothing to do with patriotism. While the dictionary definition may be correct, the current administration is changing the meaning of the word.
No. that would be Nationalism (Score:2, Insightful)
PS you can be patriotic about a country that you weren't born in. some of the most patriotic people I know were originally refugees
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they give their kids the appearance of choice of beliefs.
Did no-one see "Amish in the city", when the Amish kid was so afraid of dying away from the community, because then he would "be denied heaven"? It would take an exceptionally free-thinking Amish to break away after experiencing an insular childhood full of mythology.
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair, to live a 19th Century lifestyle doesn't require much more education than 8th grade. Think about it...what percentage of our population went to college even in the early 20th Century? My grandfather made quite a good living and he never graduated the 8th grade. I would say everything changed with the technology push surrounding WWII...after that, we became advanced to the point where we simply needed more time to learn everything that's necessary to make one's way in the modern world.
If the most intellectually challenging thing I was ever going to do is raise a barn, I wouldn't require more than an 8th grade education either. On the other hand, I might still be knowledgable in terms of facts about the world, but I certainly wouldn't consider myself as having been exposed to advanced concepts. For instance, the author of the parent post says these Amish kids knew all about Pakistan and India. But what are the chances any of those kids will ever grow to understand the situation well enough to be a diplomat and do something about it? Probably zero.
The Amish way of understanding the world seems to me to be based on the idea that there's value in useless trivia. Knowledge gained for the purpose of serving one's fellow human and bettering everyone's condition requires much more heart and soul than being able to rattle off recent world events.
(Incidentally, where did these Amish kids get their knowledge of current events in India and Pakistan? A newspaper, printed on a printing press? A book, which is another product of modern technology? Or was it all word-of-mouth from outside the community...from people that did get their facts from books, newspapers, TVs, radios, etc?)
Re:Patriotic songs (Score:3, Insightful)
My motto is "America: Love it or Change it." Because you goddamn can. Most of the pride I feel in America is due to the fact that we all have the right to argue and fight for whatever we believe in, not in the fact that we're inherently "better" than everybody else. We'll see America's superiority fall in our lifetime, and I'll still be damned proud of it.
Re:"hilarious" (Score:4, Insightful)
People thinking it was "hilarious" only proves that point.
I've seen quite a few posts from folks with similar opinions. Quite a few people shouting "Look! Look how well cultured and sophisticated I am! I didn't think it was funny! Look at me! Respect me! "
The video was ment to be funny. You can not be considered better than ANYONE else simply because you didn't find the video funny.
This immature "I'm better than you/everyone" attitude you find on slashdot is disgusting.
(goodbye karma!)