Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jonathan Coulton Offers Some Gleeful Turnabout

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the copyright-and-covers-oh-my dept.

Music 157

The TV show Glee may have borrowed Jonathan Coulton's arrangement of "Baby Got Back" without asking him first, but he's got a response of the kind that it'd be hard for the show's makers to criticize without looking churlish. Borrowing it back, and using it to raise money for charity. As CNET puts it, "Coulton has foxily tossed up on iTunes his own version of the song and titled it 'Baby Got Back (In the Style of Glee).' He terms it 'my cover of Glee's cover of my cover.'"

cancel ×

157 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So... (5, Interesting)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711131)

What is Sir Mix-a-lot getting out of all of this?

Re: So... (4, Informative)

wilson_c (322811) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711145)

Publishing rights, which tend to make more money than mechanicals.

Re:So... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711163)

What is Sir Mix-a-lot getting out of all of this?

He's getting back.

Re:So... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712353)

Maybe he can finally get that hoopty [youtube.com] fixed.

Re:So... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711167)

Royalties on every song sold, as Coulton states on his website.

Re:So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711211)

Extreme orgasm.... goo everywhere... pop shot unhindered

Re:So... (0)

Safrina Noor (2818897) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713401)

Carz by Sir Mix-A-Lot is currently available from iTunes, and will be available shortly on other major online music distributors.... http://x.co/sfEV [x.co]

Skillful self-promotion (0, Flamebait)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711185)

I see more of a marketing ploy than an underdog story in this.

Re:Skillful self-promotion (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711231)

Yeah I agree. Fox totally ripped off that song in the first place because they knew it would churn up a bunch of Internet chatter about Glee. Have the ratings been down or something?

Re:Skillful self-promotion (4, Funny)

Megane (129182) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711235)

I see more of a yo dawg [google.com] story than an underdog story in this.

Re:Skillful self-promotion (5, Interesting)

ais523 (1172701) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711245)

As Capcom showed recently, there are often situations where you have the alternatives of engaging in expensive legal battles, or getting a bunch of free marketing and good publicity out of the situation. The second option is rarely taken, but it's nearly always better, and I applaud people for taking it.

Re:Skillful self-promotion (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711299)

Then you didn't read the story. Congrats.

This story is still boring. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711199)

Please just let it die.

Re:This story is still boring. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711381)

Concur. Coulton is was one of the last straws for me when it came to "geek" fandom.

His works are not clever, they're not funny, and they're not interesting. I never realised just how similarly all geeks thought until I noticed how similar and shallow their cultural tastes are.

HURRR PORTAL DOING APERTURE SCIENCE IMAGINE IF MACHINES WERE EMO etc. Shut up. Just shut the fuck up.

Re:This story is still boring. (-1, Troll)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711513)

Concur. Coulton is was one of the last straws for me when it came to "geek" fandom.

His works are not clever, they're not funny, and they're not interesting. I never realised just how similarly all geeks thought until I noticed how similar and shallow their cultural tastes are.

Yes, Glee sucks. But that is irrelevant to the story. Jonathan Coulton is a fucking douchebag who needs to shut the fuck up.

He didn't write the song. He just copied a song somebody else wrote because he a talentless hack who can't create anything worthwhile on his own. And now he's complaining that somebody copied his copying. Boo-fucking-Hoo.

Re:This story is still boring. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711575)

how much did fox pay you to write that?

Re:This story is still boring. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711661)

You, uh, have no idea what you're saying, do you?

The melody is original to Coulton. The words are not. There's more to music than words, genius.

But, of course, all that is beside the point. Artists do covers all the time...that doesn't mean they don't write original material as well. Are you 12? You sound 12.

Re:This story is still boring. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711857)

The melody is original to Coulton. The words are not

Actually, some of the words were original to Coulton too, Glee used his version of the lyrics as well.

Re:This story is still boring. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711681)

Not even going into this particular story or his musical ability, I do have issues with you saying he can't create anything on his own - Back Got Back is one of his few covers, and he did it during his Thing a Week project...I don't fault him for wanting to do a cover during a project of releasing a new song every week, and at least he changed the melody and rhythm and what not.

Re:This story is still boring. (0)

ActionDesignStudios (877390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711731)

I wish I had modpoints for you two.

Re:This story is still boring. (5, Interesting)

Dieppe (668614) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712061)

I have to call foul here. First of all, Jonathon Coulton previously had permission to perform the "Baby Got Back" song. Second, if a melody is important to the creation of what could be considered a "unique work", the original rap song had no discernible melody, except for a bass track that you could probably reproduce with your mouth no matter how unmusical you are. Jonathon Coulton created a unique melody to "Baby Got Back" and he changed one line to say "Johnny C's in trouble," referring to himself of course.

Now anyone creating a cover of "Baby Got Back"---and make no mistake Glee and Fox have hordes of talented musicians to choose from. See how "Piano Guy" just pops up out of nowhere? --- could create a new version with a unique melody that is different and distinct from Jonathan Coulton's version. Are you familiar with the "Jeopardy" Theme Song? Ever hear it used in a cartoon, but it's not the original tune. Notes go down, instead of up, and it's only vaguely familiar? Fox, in this case, used EXACTLY the same melody as JoCo, down to the note.

Lastly, JoCo's version has a different tempo than "Baby Got Back". There's a reason it's over 5 minutes long, when the original song is like 3 minutes something. The Glee version, while they could have sped up the tempo, or slowed down the tempo, is exactly the same.

Now I won't go into possible "duck" samples, or questioning the exact same use of the banjo, but Glee's version of "Baby Got Back" isn't a cover of the original Sir Mix-a-Lot's version, it's practically a note-for-note copy of JoCo's cover: same melody, same tempo, same words that JoCo changed referencing himself, and using exactly the same instruments and general feel of the song.

Fox has some giant balls on this one. I don't know why they bothered to change the vocals at all, personally, if they're going to steal the entire song in the first place.

-D

Re:This story is still boring. (0)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713251)

yes, jc made a new melody when on a song binge for a gimmick x songs in x amount of time. problem is the melody is boring as hell and nobody would actually give a rats ass about the song if it wasn't baby got back.

anyhow, he should've just come up with more of his own words and claim it as parody. but nobody would give a shit about it then.
furthermore this article could've already been part of the last jc article, it was already in the comments for it.

in the meantime.. weird al rocks, baby got jack. and he's got geek creds jc couldn't dream of.

Re:This story is still boring. (3, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713525)

Apparently he didn't actually have permission. He had a mechanical license, which by definition, does not allow the creation of works that differ melodically from the original. So there are two ways the courts could interpret this:

  • Universal's allowance of the Coulton variant constitutes tacit acceptance that they don't consider it to be different in character from the original (a.k.a. Fox's bizarro-world interpretation), in which case his arrangement of the song falls into a very special class of arrangement that isn't protected by copyright by virtue of the fact that it was created under compulsory licensing rules rather than under the terms of an actual agreement between the parties involved, or
  • Universal's lack of a lawsuit does not constitute tacit acceptance that his arrangement is not in violation of their copyright (but rather, mere unwillingness to bother suing), in which case Coulton owns the copyright for the melody, did not have a legal right to record the combination of that melody with the original lyrics, and is technically in violation of copyright for every copy he has ever sold to date.

In the first interpretation, he has no case. In the second interpretation (which IMO is more likely), he could ostensibly get money out of Fox, but only at the risk of getting then sued by Universal for his prior releases as revenge for having deprived them of royalties from Fox. Sadly, it's probably a no-win.

The best he could hope for is to get an activist judge and go for a Lanham Act case against Fox, but it would be unlikely to hold up on appeal, if Dastar v. Fox is any indication of the court's current leanings.

Re:This story is still boring. (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713529)

Slight correction. He had a compulsory mechanical license, which by definition, does not allow....

Re:This story is still boring. (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711531)

Concur. Coulton is was one of the last straws for me when it came to "geek" fandom.

So, you're saying you bought into every artifact of geek fandom until Jonathan fucking Coulton? He's the one who was "one of the last straws"? You were just cool with it all until "Code Monkey"?

You may be in a category of lame all your own.

Re:This story is still boring. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711645)

Yikes, you're a real tool.

Re:This story is still boring. (2)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711809)

I never realised just how similarly all geeks thought until I noticed how similar and shallow their cultural tastes are.

Why are you assuming that "all geeks" are Coulton fans, or have even heard of him?

-jcr

Re:This story is still boring. (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712553)

Some of us don't even read comic books ... yes, I said it.

Re:This story is still boring. (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711547)

So why'd you click the link?

Re:This story is still boring. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711553)

more Aaron Swartz!

Re:This story is still boring. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711765)

Sorry, all this talk of Aaron and Jonathan is preventing me from getting my much needed updates on BitCoin.

Re:This story is still boring. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712231)

Don't worry, BTC is still bullshit.

Re:This story is still boring. (5, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711735)

No, that's just letting the likes of Rupert and his ilk bleed society for their own fun and profit with impunity. Someone has to stand up and yank these big dogs back on their leash. So Jonnie C., hats off, publicly humiliating them (if that's even possible), painting them as ass-hats not by name calling but by framing their actions, stealing their thunder and their profit, doing the good thing and the right thing at the same time and making them the butt of their own ass-holiness... I'm inspired and moved by the class and the cleverness. Don't get mad, get even, and still take the high ground while doing it, bravo, well played sir!

Both songs suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711229)

Neither one is as good as the original: Sir Mix-a-Lot.

Re:Both songs suck. (2, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711419)

Seriously - I just listened to it on Youtube and it's AWFUL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo [youtube.com]

The Glee version is only slightly different but equally putrid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk [youtube.com]

vs. the original version which is absolutely brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo [youtube.com]

Honestly, Jonathan Coulton's version makes it painfully clear he's one of the white people at the beginning of the Sir Mix-a-lot video...

Re:Both songs suck. (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711545)

the original version which is absolutely brilliant.

Absolutely.

If nothing else, this concocted controversy served to introduce a whole new generation to the joys of what hip-hop sounded like when giants walked the Earth.

Re:Both songs suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711581)

Oh my god, subjective opinions about music! Who would have thought in this day and age someone might not like a particular song.

Re:Both songs suck. (0)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711805)

Where did I miss the memo where slashdot no longer allowed opinions?

Re:Both songs suck. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711889)

Fuck all of you, Sir Mix-A-Lot's version is the best. I hate you all!

Re:Both songs suck. (1)

CRC'99 (96526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711589)

Seriously - I just listened to it on Youtube and it's AWFUL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo [youtube.com]

The Glee version is only slightly different but equally putrid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk [youtube.com]

vs. the original version which is absolutely brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo [youtube.com]

Honestly, Jonathan Coulton's version makes it painfully clear he's one of the white people at the beginning of the Sir Mix-a-lot video...

Sadly, I agree. I checked out the links you posted to see what all the hullabaloo was... I got about 45 seconds in and couldn't bear to listen to the 'covers' of it. Its... just painful o_O

Re:Both songs suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42713551)

A lot of simps won't like this song.

Re:Both songs suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711713)

lol, I'm sure you're trolling. But just in case you aren't. Your last sentence is EXACTLY the point of the song.

Re:Both songs suck. (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711803)

No, I don't think it was his point. If he was intending 5+ minutes of sarcasm about an early 90's rap song focusing on African American standards of beauty, it's pretty racist... which is NOT a word I'd use to describe Coulton.

So which is it, racist, or just plain boring? (actually, could be both, but I'd go for the latter).

Re:Both songs suck. (2)

sd4f (1891894) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712933)

I thought weird al yankovic nailed the white person wannabe song White and Nerdy! [youtu.be]

Re:Both songs suck. (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712971)

Or even better Amish Paradise [youtube.com]

Re:Both songs suck. (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712995)

Damn, I haven't seen that White and Nerdy video for a couple years. I think it may be better. Either way Weird Al rules :)

Re:Both songs suck. (2)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711899)

I've heard Coulton's version once. Or at least, about half of it, before I got bored. What I did not doubt was that he knew exactly how he was coming across. I figured it was a joke. Joke's not as funny if you only do half the song though.

I've always felt the best done cover in the same concept (not the same song) was Dynamite Hack [youtube.com] .

Re:Both songs suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712281)

That one I actually like better than the original. I somehow managed to miss the video. I love how the video is positively dripping in irony.

Re:Both songs suck. (5, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711933)

Seriously - I just listened to it on Youtube and it's AWFUL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo [youtube.com]

The Glee version is only slightly different but equally putrid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk [youtube.com]

vs. the original version which is absolutely brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo [youtube.com]

The Coulton version is a joke. I think you missed the joke.

Re:Both songs suck. (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712121)

Just because it's a joke, doesn't mean it can't be a REALLY BAD one.

Re:Both songs suck. (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712579)

Yeah, I think the Coulton version is really kind of funny.

I've also never made it more than about 30 seconds or so into it, I dunno. It doesn't take long to get the joke and it's really fucking boring.

In that sense, maybe Coulton should be glad Glee didn't blame him for the arrangement...

Re:Both songs suck. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712635)

White people have been doing melodic covers over risque black music since forever. Coulton isn't inspired, he's just a mimic, and a flounce.
Evidence attached. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG2EGOB9-lc

Posting anonymously, because I mainly just read this site, but barely have justification to post anything, so it doesn't warrant account creation something something karma whoring.

Re:Both songs suck. (1)

Kashgarinn (1036758) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713477)

The joke is that you take a rap song and create a pop song, that doesn't make it OK that it's a crap version.

If you want an example of great covers which are both jokes and incredibly excellent, just google "Weird Al"

This story is fun, and his response is excellent, but both the original and and glee version suck because you can hear from be bad composing that he laughed so hard at his own joke that he just made something shit, then asked everyone who listens "hey don't you think this is funny?" Which the proper response is : "Yes, but it kinda sucks as well, no way does it stand up as a real song which is fun to listen to."

Re:Both songs suck. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712003)

I suspect that was precisely what he was trying to do. No need to try to talk trash about the man.

Re:Both songs suck. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712303)

I much prefer the Gilbert and Sullivan version [youtube.com] .

Re:Both songs suck. (1)

sd4f (1891894) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712949)

Nonexistent mod points to you sir!

Re:Both songs suck. (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712723)

Seriously - I just listened to it on Youtube and it's AWFUL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo [youtube.com] [youtube.com]

The Glee version is only slightly different but equally putrid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk [youtube.com] [youtube.com]

vs. the original version which is absolutely brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo [youtube.com] [youtube.com]

Honestly, Jonathan Coulton's version makes it painfully clear he's one of the white people at the beginning of the Sir Mix-a-lot video...

Which was exactly the point of his little mischievious escapade.

Re:Both songs suck. (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711525)

Neither one is as good as the original: Sir Mix-a-Lot.

I think you'll find that if glee had tried to cover the original, instead of a cover, it would have sucked more.

Might be a good way to make money - cover a popular song in such a way that it would fit within the capabilities of a bunch of semi-talented highschool kids and then wait for the royalties to roll in. Unless glee steal it instead of buying the rights to it... which they almost certainly will.

ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711409)

What, nobody ?? First Sponge Bob, and now this !! The sooner this gay-promoting "show" is off the air, the better the world will be !! These shows are made for those in places like Holland, where gay is the norm. It has no place in the red, white and blue America !!

Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! (2, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711499)

I am neither a Glee fan or gay. But seriously, someone has real sexual identity issues.

Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711965)

No, he's right. The only viewers the show has are women and gays. The show's main storylines are about, and are unabashedly, pro-gay. Not everyone thinks that's a good thing. For the record, I'm as straight as they come and have no confusion issues at all. I want it out of my face. What you do in the bedroom is your business. When you go promoting it, it becomes my business.

Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712351)

Sure. Mod me down. All of the normal people of the world were supposed to just all of a sudden say, "OH! I was wrong! Dicks DO go in buttholes!" Nope. You are still opposed. And you are a tiny minority. The oft-cited figure is 10%; it's much less than that, but gays do have a greater concentration in the arts, which have a wide reach & artificially inflates their reach. No one is talking about putting you in ovens or gassing you. That went out in 1945. But get out of my face. When you do that, it's my business.

Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711585)

It has no place in the red, white and blue America

Quick, grab you some big gubbamint and force them to get rid of it!

Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711587)

It has no place in the red, white and blue America !!

I mixed together the red, white and blue once. It came out a *fabulous* shade of lilac!

Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711709)

i get the feeling that the person who posted the comment probably doesn't like the idea of mixing colors, either.

Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711657)

What, nobody ?? First Sponge Bob, and now this !! The sooner this gay-promoting "show" is off the air, the better the world will be !! These shows are made for those in places like Holland, where gay is the norm. It has no place in the red, white and blue America !!

The people most against homosexuals are often the most "in the closet." So hey big boy! If you're ever in my "area" of town, I'd love to slide some glee between your buns! And you can slide a bit of glee in mine too!

Re:ALL NON-GAY GLEE VIEWERS CHIME IN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711993)

No, I'm not in the closet. I'm straight.

No vampires = not gay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712695)

Didn't you get the memo?

Huh... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711711)

What the hell is wrong with you people. Whether or not you like the style of his song is completely fucking irrelevant.

Here is a classic, indisputable, pristine example of the 'big guy' completely steam rolling over the 'little guy'. Any revenge he can extract is a cause that you all would be championing if it was a indie linux dev who had some GPL code stolen or some such.

Stop obfuscating the situation with your shitty opinion on if the song was 'good' or not.

Re:Huh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711777)

Fair point, Jonathan, but we still hate your song.

Re:Huh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712067)

No, Slashdot was obfuscating the situation by promoting & defending the gay agenda.

Re:Huh... (2)

OverlordQ (264228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712511)

Here is a classic, indisputable, pristine example of the 'big guy' completely steam rolling over the 'little guy'. Any revenge he can extract is a cause that you all would be championing if it was a indie linux dev who had some GPL code stolen or some such..

It wasn't stolen. If you cant call downloading movies and games stealing, you can't call this stealing either. He wasn't deprived of his property. So get your double standards straight.

Re:Huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712851)

Here is a classic, indisputable, pristine example of the 'big guy' completely steam rolling over the 'little guy'. Any revenge he can extract is a cause that you all would be championing if it was a indie linux dev who had some GPL code stolen or some such.

Stop obfuscating the situation with your shitty opinion on if the song was 'good' or not.

My guess is he's going to get his ass sued for using the Glee trademark and it's not going to be as sweet as everyone thinks it is. He doesn't have the money to go up against the big guns, and I think in the end they'll take the bad publicity and play the sue/counter-sue game rather than be seen to take a bloody nose without response.

He's funny and shows grace. (5, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711787)

Years ago, I thought Code Monkey was funny and sly, and although I'm not that into pop music, it had a good beat and was fun. It's under a CC license, which makes it possible for other people to do versions of it like this [youtube.com] .

The original Sir Mix-a-lot version of Baby Got Back has some interesting things to say about race and body image, and the video was funny in spots, but I thought Coulton's version was a hilariously silly juxtoposition of style with substance. Coulton goes up another notch in my estimation.

Fox rips him off without credit and produces a Glee skit that's funny ... for exactly the same reasons Coulton's song was funny. That's pathetic.

And then Coulton comes back with this very graceful response. Game, set, and match to Coulton.

Re:He's funny and shows grace. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712735)

"Songs that I wrote are licensed Creative Commons by-nc (covers and other stuff I don't own are not)."

Covers are not CC.

Re:He's funny and shows grace. (1)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713081)

Code Monkey is not a cover.

GNAA Statement of Support for Efforts to Compromis (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42711801)

Sunday, January 27, 2013

GNAA Statement of Support for Efforts to Compromise Google
Gary Niger, Esq. - New York, NY

GNAA is proud to support the successful completion of several recent attacks on google.com . As a result of the attacks, fully 59 pages on the google.com domain were taken over. GNAA requests that, in future, once taken over, these sites are used to distribute GNAA propaganda malware. The Google after-action report is included below as an attachment.

About Google:

Popular search service for individuals of unascertained sexual preference.

About GNAA:

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

        Are you GAY?
        Are you a NIGGER?
        Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!

Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

        First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~128mb) using BitTorrent.
        Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website.
        Third, you need to join the official GNAA IRC channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.eu, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to provide a link to your slashdot first post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA IRC channel, you may be on the wrong IRC network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.eu as our official server.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

Press contact: Gary Niger gary_niger@gnaa.eu
GNAA Corporate Headquarters
143 Rolloffle Avenue
Tarzana, California 91356

  All other inquiries:
GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.eu
GNAA World Headquarters
60-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright © 2002-2012 Gay Nigger Association of America

http://google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=google.com

Safe Browsing
Diagnostic page for google.com

What is the current listing status for google.com?

        This site is not currently listed as suspicious.

        Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 28 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?

        Of the 667115 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 59 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2013-01-27, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2013-01-27.

        Malicious software includes 158 trojan(s), 8 scripting exploit(s), 8 virus. Successful infection resulted in an average of 4 new process(es) on the target machine.

        Malicious software is hosted on 49 domain(s), including adsbyisocket.com/, imaginginsider.com/, dgsdfhsdfh.osa.pl/.

        31 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including googleusercontent.com/, feedsportal.com/, skating-board.com/.

        This site was hosted on 147 network(s) including AS15169 (Google Internet Backbone), AS8359 (MTS), AS36040 (Bandaid XT+).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?

        Over the past 90 days, google.com appeared to function as an intermediary for the infection of 18 site(s) including stroupecondoblog.com/, ow.ly/, www.jazaan.com.googlepages.com/.

Has this site hosted malware?

        Yes, this site has hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. It infected 2 domain(s), including hahait.com/, tedaltenberg.com/.

Next steps:

        Return to the previous page.
        If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google's Webmaster Help Center.

"Without looking churlish"? (3, Insightful)

L. J. Beauregard (111334) | about a year and a half ago | (#42711947)

Since when do plutocrats care about looking churlish?

This might be interesting... (1)

dwex (143870) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712093)

if the cover version didn't suck big butts...

Over 50 comments and nobody has said it... (3, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712205)

...so I have to say it.

DMCA takedown notices from Fox for this version AND Jonathan Coulton's first version in 3...2...1...

Re:Over 50 comments and nobody has said it... (1)

gknoy (899301) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712991)

I'd be more interested in what would happen to Fox's channel if Coulton were to have issued takedown requests on _theirs_.

Re:Over 50 comments and nobody has said it... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713309)

Someone at youtube looks at the notice, laughs, and throws it in the bin.

This does mean youtube becomes potentially liable, but for someone like Fox - a very popular and successful corporate giant, willing to supply the best lawyers money can buy to defend against any legal action - that is a justified risk.

Am I missing something? (1, Insightful)

millst (635068) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712211)

Am I missing something. Jonathan Coulton didn't write the song either. Its a COVER of someone elses song. Perhaps I am missing something Nobody has to ask anybody for permission to do a cover of a song. You just record it and release it and then pay the royalties after the fact. Glee is not liable to pay Jonathan Coultan anything because he did not write the song. Even if he had written it, they don't have to ask his permission to cover it. As far as I know, re-arrangement is not recognised under copyright law and its only the original writers who will get any royalties. Its like copying someone else's painting, then complaining when someone takes a copy of your copy. It seems Jonathan Coulton is an idiot.

Re:Am I missing something? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712401)

You are missing a few things.

First, Coulton didn't just cover it. He modified it greatly so that the end result, while still obviously a version of the original song, was nonetheless a new work in its own right.

Second, Glee is a TV show, and TV shows must license the synchronization rights to use a song. Period.

Third, in addition to not licensing the song, the show didn't even bother to credit him. That's just plain old douchebaggery.

Re:Am I missing something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42713097)

First, the cover is not a new work in its own right. That's part of the problem--Coulton has no legal recourse because of the license he used to create the cover in the first place.

Second, who says Fox didn't license the rights to the song?

Third, yes, except for the "not licensing" part, for which you have no evidence.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713315)

fox most probably did license the song. they might have not licensed using jc's recording of it though.

but the actual problem is that they couldn't really license the song from jc anyways.. despite it being a total rape of the original it's not an original song because that's how he labeled it himself, as just a cover. (I'm guessing this is actually because if he had just took the lyrics.. then there wouldn't have been a compulsory license, so he claims he covered the song when in fact he just took the lyrics).

Re:Am I missing something? (2)

BanHammor (2587175) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712443)

Not quite: people say they actually ripped his melody off. Directly. Using waveform reduction.
That may give him legal ground.

Also, with that kind of logic you can try and cover Rising Sun by the Animals using their arrangement, or a lot of things by Zeppelin (yes, even Stairway), because the original authors are long dead and gone.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712905)

Also, with that kind of logic you can try and cover Rising Sun by the Animals using their arrangement, or a lot of things by Zeppelin (yes, even Stairway), because the original authors are long dead and gone.

Stairway to Heaven was written by Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, both of whom are somewhat alive.

This is a triumph... (3, Funny)

TheSwift (2714953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712241)

I'm making a note here - huge success.

Re:This is a triumph... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42713379)

It's not January 2011, that doesn't work anymore.

I would have posted earlier.... (4, Interesting)

PuckSR (1073464) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712289)

But I spent the weekend trying to figure out why my Xbox suddenly quit communicating with my TV. Turns out that Microsoft pushed a new version of HDCP(a cracked encryption methodology) to encode NETFLIX in some weird attempt to protect all media all the time. Of course, this entire action makes no sense at all. It doesn't protect content from being pirated, and it doesn't make anyone's life any easier(mine, Microsoft's, or Netflix's). It was simply some idiots idea. That idiot worked for a major movie company. He required it in the contract with Netflix/Microsoft. They obliged because it was a minor issue.

Why do I mention that on a comment about Jonathan Coulton getting ripped off by Glee? Media companies are giant corporations who see the law as something to be abused only to protect themselves. It doesn't have to make sense or even be consistent. If the situation was reversed, he would be sued. In this situation, he has no recourse. It will never make sense if you try to think about it from the perspective of a rational and reasonable individual.

This will, unfortunately, always be the way of things. Unless lawmakers suddenly have some reason to drastically restructure the legal system to protect sanity, reason, and the individual over the monetary interests of their most important supporters we will never have a 'fair' system. Considering that no state in the history of the world has been able to avoid the egalitarianism and quid pro quo nature of Mandarin-type social levels, I doubt we will be able to achieve such a drastic technocratic change any time soon.

Re:I would have posted earlier.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42713305)

PC Netflix will do 1080p regardless of whether you have an HDCP setup, which makes that more entertaining.

Sad thing is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712331)

Fox will now undoubtedly get pissed off that he did a cover of glee that the writers of glee stole from him and sue lol... gotta love america

spent my $0.99 (1)

spleendamage (971412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42712617)

Not a fan of this song in particular, but I like a lot of Coulton's other stuff. I'm glad (but not surprised) that he's found a clever, creative way to increase his profile and bring some attention to the kind of double standard the big entertainment companies employ daily... screwing artists and consumers both with impunity.

Now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712697)

Watch it get DMCA'd by the assholes who used it without permission in the first place.

Fox is self-censoring news about this? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42712871)

An article from Fox was showing up in Google News, but no longer exists on the Fox website?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://fox8.com/2013/01/26/singer-glee-ripped-off-my-cover-song/

I'm making a note here (1)

Cyfun (667564) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713127)

To quote another song Glee will probably soon be doing:

THIS WAS A TRIUMPH!

Re:I'm making a note here (0)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42713339)

He doesn't need to. He wrote it. It's the moment of publicity that turned him from obscure bedroom-musician to internet celebrity.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>