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.
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, Al's lawyer ask for permission first.
Only out of politeness... (Score:3, Informative)
There's at least one instance, "Amish Paradise", where the original artist (Coolio) denied permission and Weird Al went ahead with it anyway. As it turns out, several Amish communities were also horribly offended by the song, but it's against their beliefs to sue him, so they haven't done anything about it.
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:4, Funny)
Jaysyn
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Interesting)
The amish want their kids to make the choice to follow their ways with full knowledge; they don't want people in their community who feel that they weren't given a choice and would feel resentful.
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Informative)
Also their prohibitions are not iron-clad. If they have good reasons to do so they will override their day-to-day prohibitions.
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Amish are doing us a service. They are keeping "old" technology alive that might very well be useful when establishing a colony on a new planet. The Amish have the kept the line of really good draft horses not only alive, but thriving. They're a valuable resource to humanity.
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or alternately, they keep thier perfect society by dumping their malcontents and mentally ill on us.
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Funny)
Sh!t, they R teh r0xX0r!
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only out of politeness... (Score:5, Informative)
As it turns out, several Amish communities were also horribly offended by the song, but it's against their beliefs to sue him, so they haven't done anything about it.
The Amish didn't write the song, so on what grounds would they sue? Being offended by a song has nothing to do with copyright law.
Weird Al *thought* he had permission... (Score:3, Informative)
and had been told as much by his record label. He did not receive a denial and go "ahead with it anyway". Read this [weirdal.com] and get your facts straight before sounding off.
In fact, I'll make it easy for you; here is the relevant excerpt from the FAQ:
What about Coolio? I heard that he was upset with Al about "Amish Paradise."
That was a very unfortunate case of misunderstanding between Al's people and Coolio's people. Short version of the story: Al recorded "Amish Paradise" after being told by his record l
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:5, Informative)
Likewise, JibJab used "This Land is Our Land" to satirize President Bush and Senator Kerry. If they had wrote a song that was merely a parody of "This Land is Our Land" then they would have been fine and it would have been protected. However, they used the song for other purposes, not covered under the provisions that protect parody.
Fortunately, the song was in the public domain and hence the restrictions didn't apply.
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:3, Informative)
One thing that's being overlooked is the right to perform/record/re-record a song out of a song book it a very cheap thing to aquire. The copyright owner on the song can't say "no", and the price is spelled out in law. That's what "mechanical royalties" are all about.
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cdbaby.net/dd?f=8
It's slightly different here in the UK (and slightly easier as it's a single "clearing-house"), you'll need to get in touch with the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS) and probably the Performing Rights Society:
http://www.prs.co.uk/soundadvice/
http
For specific advice on doing a cover, see the FAQ (question 9) here:
http://www.mcps.co.uk/productlicensing/
Note that when you publicly perform a cover you'll need a Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) and a PRS licence.
If you're an artist/band then I'ld recommend joining/registering with both the MCPS & PRS, it doesn't cost much (if anything) and means that you're work is protected and you'll get paid for things like radio play, so it's well worth it. They also give you a load of advice and are really helpful in general.
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:5, Informative)
"Q. Does Al get permission to do his parodies?
A. Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties."
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:3, Informative)
Parodies are protected speech, satire is not, that's why there was a lawsuit.
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like they were making fun of both (using the original lyrics of the song to make a point).
WRONG! (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know where on God's green earth you got that from, but you couldn't be more wrong. Both parody and satire are protected forms of speech. I don't have the cases in front of me, but the New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Hustler v. Fallwell case, et al, bare this out. In fact, when the satire is aimed at a public official, there is a much higher standard that is used in finding whether or not the work was defamatory in nature ("actual malice").
On a side note, there is a unique case coming up through the Texas courts involving something called "Libel by fiction" (ie - "If what i said is fiction, it's can't be a truth I'm asserted, therefore 'wrong'").
For the non-legal types, here [cnn.com] is a good CNN article that pretty much somes it up in plain english. Note that the finding of the lower courts in Texas is not the law is the vast majority of jurisdictions, so let's hope that Texas gets this one right at their Supreme Court level.
In this limited context: RIGHT!!! (Score:4, Informative)
The point is about fair use. It is considered fair use (no permission needed, though mechanical royalties may have to be paid) to parody the original song. It is not considered fair use to use the original song to satirize something *other* than the original song, and therefore permission can legally be denied by the author of the song (or assignees).
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:3, Informative)
No, parody of copyrighted material is protected, and parody of politicians is protected. Inappropriate use of copyrighted material to parody politicians is not necessarily protected.
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it wasn't parodying the "This Land" song, it was satirizing the political campaign. One could probably make a case for the reverse - but what do you think is more likely?
"I think I'll make fun of Dubya and Kerry. This old song could be useful."
-or-
"I think I'll make fun of this old song. Dubya and Kerry could be usef
Re:Protected speech already? Oh wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
so they didnt win (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so they didnt win (Score:3, Insightful)
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:so they didnt win (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so they didnt win (Score:3, Interesting)
The REAL Question is..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The REAL Question is..... (Score:5, Funny)
How many others.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets hope this case serves as inspiration to others to dig up other gems for the public domain.
Re:How many others.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How many others.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Read Free Culture [free-culture.org] for some interesting bits on this... it doesn't help that stuff is in the public domain if there are no publicly-available copies. The studios were allowed to check their own films out of the Library of Congress, indefinitely and without charge, so there aren't any copies there, so the only remaining copies are dissolving to dust on studio shelves.
False claims of copyright should be criminal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:False claims of copyright should be criminal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful what you ask for (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these things should stay civil law.
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.
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:3)
Re:EFF hurts us all again (Score:5, Informative)
Instead of liberating lots of songs for this sort of use, they got the company to agree to let JibJab continue to use the song. If you read the article you would know that the company disputes that copyright has expired, so the song has not been liberated and other "infringers" could still be sued. This hasn't prevented anything in the future.
So yes, JibJab is fine now, but that is all that has happened.
Re:EFF hurts us all again (Score:3, Informative)
This might not have proven anything and damages awarded might have been less than the amount spent on the case, making it not worth pursuing more vigorously.
--RJ
Re:EFF hurts us all again (Score:5, 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!
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.
You don't understand the legal system. (Score:3, Informative)
2) There was no precedent to be set in this case. JibJab and the EFF were relying on well established principles of Fair Use, before they discovered that the property in question was in the Public Domain. If the courts had ruled against
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
If it's been PD since 1973... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If it's been PD since 1973... (Score:4, Informative)
Ludlow believes its copyright -- initially filed in 1956 and renewed in 1984 -- remains valid and disputes EFF's claims.
This never made it to court, so it's likely that a Judge would have to make that kind of determination. Ludlow may have backed down for just this very concern for all we know.
Re:If it's been PD since 1973... (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens to people who paid royalties since then. Can they sue to get their fees back, or are they SOL?
Just offhand, as a random law student (I know, I know, IANAL...yet...), they might be able to get some money back through something like unjust enrichment -- on the grounds that they didn't actually get anything when they paid their money. Who knows, maybe a claim of fraud might work too. The problem with that is that unjust enrichment is usually considered an equitable principle, and that means that whoever they paid their money to could argue laches, which is basically the equitable version of a statute of limitations; people who paid money back in the 80's might still be screwed.
But good luck to whoever sues, since that way we'll finally get a court decision. Litigation's way too expensive these days, and that's impairing the development of the law as a whole.
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
(only half-joking)
Excellent question! (Score:3, Interesting)
This song is owned by you and me (Score:4, Funny)
re-emphasizes the censored (Score:4, Interesting)
While I was walking that ribbon of Highway
I saw a sign that said "no trespassing"
but on the other side, that sign said nothing.
Well, that side was made for you and me.
At least... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At least... (Score:5, Informative)
I have a dream speach (Score:4, 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. =)
Re:I have a dream speach (Score:4, Insightful)
Souds good to me.
two points (Score:5, Funny)
I think this would be far more telling if they were victorious over the grounds that it is a political parody using a well known tune and lyrics to make a political satire or point, which is 1st ammendment protected as free speech... however, this was simply someone suing because they thought they owned rights to something that they didnt...
Kind of like land owners squabbling about 5 feet of land that each things he/she owns, before they check teh actual surveys to see who really owns that 5 feet of land...
Second point...
wonder how long it will be before Mr. T. sues them for using the words JibJab? Wasn't it Mr. T who was well known for the phrase "I dont wanna hear no jibbajabba!"
Heh... the first time I heard of this site, the very first thing that popped into my mind was Mr. T saying (wait for it...
Here it comes...
yes, its obligatory...)
This land is your land fool!
this land is my land fool!
dont gimme no jibbajabba!
or i'l breaka your face
I pity the fool who gives me tha jive talk, sucker!
What a Poor Settlement! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This song is my song, this song is your song (Score:5, Informative)
Time to do some research people.
I hate to place a fly in the ointment though, especially in public where Ludlow's lawyers might see it, but the Sonny Bono Copyright Act extended copyright retroactively, including onto those titles that had already fallen into the public domain. This has been a real pain to online publishers of public domain works, many of whom have withdrawn certain titles that were clearly in the public domain when they first posted them.
To my knowledge this portion of the act has never actually been tested in court though, and still hasn't since this issue was resolved by the withdrawl of the complaint. They are free to remake it for some decades.
In this case though we still have Woody's own grant of public rights on first publication. I wonder if that didn't influence Ludlow's action, since going to court over the issue would inevitably bring that up. They may wish to avoid a judicial ruling on that score.
KFG
Guthrie would approve (Score:3, Funny)
Nice quote from the songbook... (Score:4, Interesting)
This example is especially Sick. (Score:5, Informative)
The song itself is all about the value of the country and how it should be shared by all of us.
The version that I (and most of the people that I know) learned in school goes:
That is the version as it was first recorded at guthrie's last commercial session. Interestingly enough there is a missing verse that shows up in a few rare recordings that appear in the Library of Congress. It states:
This shows up in a recording that Woodie made that is now part of the Smithsonian Folkways recordings (see here [si.edu] and Here [magnetbox.com]).
I can't think of a more appropriate response to this than that.
You can see more info:
IMHO whoever claims to "own" this is as sick as the people who claim to "own" the image of Martin Luther King as property. See the commentrary at the internet archive: here. [archive.org]
Ebert text. (Score:5, Informative)
The promised land goes condo
March 30, 2001
BY ROGER EBERT
The voice from the television set was measured and familiar, the cadence one that has been engraved on my memory.
"I have a dream
It was a camera angle I hadn't seen before. And, oddly, he wasn't flanked by other civil rights leaders, but was standing all by himself. As his words continued, the camera's point of view circled to look out over his head and down the Mall, which was completely empty.
CGI, I thought. Computer-generated imagery. Then the tag line came on. It was a commercial for Alcatel, a company involved in communications networks and cell phones. An Alcatel newspaper ad with the same image spells out the message: "Before you can inspire
Via Alcatel, of course.
I was filled with anger and sadness.
Not this speech, I thought. Not this moment in American history.
Ads have exploited almost every image worth quoting in our society. United Airlines has made it impossible for anyone to ever again hear Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" without thinking about airplanes. Fred Astaire, the most graceful dancer in movie history, was seen dancing with a Dust-Buster. Such ads are pathetic, yes, but I suppose the copyright owners have a legal right to license them, and if their estates have no regard for the reputation of Gershwin or Astaire, well, that's greed for you.
But surely there are a few moments too sacred, too special, to be bought and sold. I would have thought Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was one of them.
It shines like a beacon in our history. It belongs to all of us. It does not belong to Alcatel, which should not have the temerity and insensitivity to use it in an ad. And in a way, it doesn't belong to the King estate, either. The estate should consider itself the protector of this speech, not its retailer.
Perhaps, I thought, the speech was somehow in the public domain, and Alcatel had ripped it off to sell its networks and cell phones. I called the Martin Luther King Center in Atlanta and spoke with Robert Vickers, its public relations spokesman.
"I am afraid you will have to fax me your questions in writing," he said.
"I have only one question," I said. "Did the King Center license the Alcatel TV commercial?"
"Yes," he said. "It was licensed by the King estate's Intellectual Properties Management."
"Have you had a lot of calls about the ad?" I asked.
"Yes," he said, "comments both ways."
I started to ask how much the speech sold for, but he told me about the fax again. I didn't much feel like sending the fax. I knew the price.
Thirty pieces of silver.
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
Who's the real winner? Lawyers. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Heh.. (Score:3, Funny)
This song is my song, it is not your song...
For what it's worth... (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, so I'm a self-promoter. But hey, I put some good time and effort into writing it, and I'm proud of my work.
This Doesn't Just Affect JibJab (Score:4, Informative)
What about previous buyers? (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Patriotic songs (Score:5, Funny)
Copyrighten?? Must... resist.... (Score:3, Funny)
Achtung! Alles Lookenspeepers!
Das Record oder Film ist nicht fuer CopyPasten oder DownloadFileSharePiratDuplizieren. Ist easy schnappen der Monopoly, blowenfusen der Oligopolisten und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Mussen Protectieren das ScroogeMcDuck-Geldgewinn und das Monopoly. Uber Alles!
Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das Generalpublikum. Das Piratbenutzer keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das Blinkenlichten.
Gruss Gott, die RIMPAAaaargh
Re:Patriotic songs (Score:4, Informative)
Patriotic huh?
Chorus
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side
Now that side was made for you and me!
Chorus
In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.
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:Patriotic songs (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Patriotic songs (Score:3, Funny)
To which the libertarians might sing:
Re:What puzzles me (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do they not count for some reason?
Re:The difference between Parody and Satire (Score:5, Informative)
From Dictionary.com:
A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.
It doesn't say it has to make fun of the song, only imitate the style and be funny, sarcastic, or ironic. Not that dictionary.com is the end all resource.
Satire is NOT protected because you are using someones song for an alternate purpose.
Again from dictionary.com:
A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
It seems that satire doesn't involve imitation at all. Political satire is a longstanding tradition in both British and American literature, and more recently in cartoons. South Park, for example, is often a satire but not a parody. When they show the Vatican worshiping a spider queen, that's satire, not parody. Satire doesn't have to be protected under copyright because it doesn't have to be derivative. Parody is a case where you take someone else's style and use it to be funny, maybe make fun of the author or the song, maybe make fun of something else. It has to be protected because normally that would be considered plagiarism. The whole point is that it is obviously, intentionally deriviative and they are using the fact of imitation to produce either humor or ridicule.
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: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.
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 real
Re:Woody Guthrie would have *approved* (Score:4, Insightful)
And what's wrong with writing anti-Bush songs?
So how would the pro-Bush version go? (Score:5, Funny)
For Halliburton, Chevron and Ashland
Kill the redwood forests, and pollute the waters
This land should blindly follow me
As I was talking, I felt a yearning
I have to ask, is our children learning?
And thanks to me now, Baghdad is burning
This land should blindly follow me
"This machine kills fascists."
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!)