In theory, Goldie Blox is designed based on how Girls actually play. The term used by the Goldie Blox people was ‘play toward purpose’. What that means is the story/instructions are as important as the parts. IIRC the study was part of their Kickstarter project timeline.
I can sympathize with the Beastie Boys for not wanting their music used in commercials. And that’s what this is - Goldie Blox may talk about empowering girls but they are selling a product.
Any sympathy I might have had for Goldie Blow was lost when they decided to file a lawsuit.
A declaratory judgment is not a lawsuit.
Looks like not contacting BB first and then going legal first without further discussion is all simply a cynical marketing ploy to gain a bit of notorious publicity by Goldiblox.
Goldiblox hasn’t done this for parody at all, they have an agenda, one is to highlight misogynistic lyrics and the next to promote themselves in order to sell a product. This is simply the mild end of the PETA style propaganda campaign, but it is political in nature, no doubt about it.
Perhaps Goldi thought BB would be an easy target, after all, those lyrics make it easy to criticise them. The use of BB title in the video seals it for me and the fact that Goldiblox is consulting with a legal brief of the highest order is simply symptomatic of their cynicism - they are using the reputation of their legal team in order to intimidate - that legal brief just has to know that you cannot use the BB name to appear as if there is some sort of implied endorsement - and no matter what you say, use of the BB name in the title of the video is much more than parody, that becomes copyright infringement.
There was a recent case regarding the use of a name or image without consent to imply endorsement not long ago and the complainant won on those grounds alone, I just wish I could remember it.
Now of course, removal of the name on the video may change things.
When you look at the Goldieblox website, it is pretty clear that this is a hard nosed business venture, despite all the pastel shades and excess amounts of pink, it is only one step away from the mainstream early learning years toy marketing companies - someone is doing very nicely out of it, perhaps if they behaved nicely themselves they might have gotten along with BB, but that doesn’t generate the level of public interest as much as a little bit of conflict.
I shall quote from their website
The irony there in the mention of ‘the pink aisle’ is pretty cynical, around 30% of their webpage is in different shades of pink.
Its sad really, because there is a worthwhile message, pity they decided to choose this way to self publicise, but I guess when you get into a quasi-political movement, you don’t need to care too much about collateral damage - its all justifiable isn’t it?, especially when you use the material and images and invoke the names of such a laddish band - easy target I guess.
Goldiblox are about as worthy and empowering as the Spice girls with their message of ‘girl power’
Agreed. It’s a calculated shill. Here’s an interesting perspective on where GoldieBlox is coming from:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/11/26/goldieblox-fair-use-and-the-cult-of-disruption/
I’m going by what the article said: “led the toy company to file a preemptive lawsuit against the Beastie Boys, producer Rick Rubin and the group’s record label, Universal Music”.
In my opinion a song that old should be public domain. Fuck copyright laws as they currently exist.
You are very confused. What exactly do you think a parody is, and how exactly do you think that pointing out the obvious political nature of this song undermines the claim that it’s a parody?
…fortunately for the creative community: copyright law exists and are not likely to change.
…there is a difference between the “dictionary definition” of the word parody, and how the courts will define it. Just taking a casual look at the wiki entry on parody, it doesn’t look as clear cut as you seem to make it out to be.
I just read that, and it still looks clear-cut to me.
This uses some elements of a prior author’s composition (the music, the rhythm, the chorus) to create a new composition (the new lyrics) that comments on the author’s works (by repudiating the BB’s idea of what girls are and suggesting a different one). What element of parody is missing?
Right, but in this case, it IS commenting on the BB’s work. If they’d taken “Brass Monkeys” and turned it into “Sassy Monkeys”, to give a stupid analogy, that wouldn’t be commenting on the original; but this one most definitely is.
Right: that mocked the original book’s self-centered white lady. This parody mocks the BB’s self-centered bros.
I really don’t see on what grounds this fails as a parody.
…well thats your opinion. And I’m sure that that the argument that Goldieblox has and will make. But I don’t buy it. And I’m not sure, especially after having read this, that the courts will buy it either. It will take more than layman’s definitions to satisfy the court. You make it sound clear-cut: but it really really isn’t.
From the link:
The link to the YouTube video says “This video is private.”
Any idea what that video is about?
Found the answer to my own question.
Still can’t find the video.
It promotes that woman’s goat-purchasing charity and is called “I want a goat,” using the music from the song “I’m on a Boat” (which itself is a parody of rap videos but not any specific song).
Why not?
…why should I?
I think Goldieblox should have asked the Beasties for permission, which they probably would have to have declined given MCA’s wishes and the fact that he’s not around to make an exception. And Goldieblox should have respected that. It’s not the only song in the world–they could have found a different one.
I also think the Beasties were pretty much obligated to respond. My understanding is that if you don’t defend yourself against this sort of thing it becomes harder to defend yourself next time (though I could be wrong about that).
And I think that if Goldieblox is going to rail against pink girly toys, their toys shouldn’t be so pink and girly. I feel the same way about the pink glittery guitars they make for girls; I’m all for encouraging girls to play, but it seems to reinforce the idea that all other guitars are for boys.
I’ve offered detailed reasons above. You’ve said, essentially, “That’s just, like, your OPINION, maaaan.” If all you want to do is gainsay what I’ve put forth, that’s your business, but don’t act like I’ve offered no support for my own opinion.
You make a factual mistake on this message board, expect someone to correct you. You do it based on an interpretation of a law, expect that someone to be Bricker.