Glee Airs Performance of Jonathan Coulton's "Baby Got Back"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Worst song ever performed ever in the history of the universe. I wish I could undo the 5 seconds I watched of this.

I think the thing that ticks me off the most is the arrogance of that statement. "You should be happy we stole your stuff." Just...I can't imagine having the nerve to say that to someone. Some people simply are unbelievable to me.

Sarah LeBoeuf:
Glee refused to credit Jonathan Coulton for its version of his song, stating he should be "happy for the exposure."

What the- I...I don't know what to say. Words fail me. The amount of douchebaggery in this statement is...astronomical.

They're basically saying Coulton should be thanking them because people are talking about him now, but they never even credit him. So if they weren't terrible thieves, he never would've gotten the exposure. So fuck you Glee.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be the current pecking order:

Little guy uses work of art from big corporation = SUE HIM FOR ALL HIS LIFE SAVINGS AND DESTROY HIS FAMILY RARGHARGHARGH!!!
Big corporation uses work of art from little guy = Haha, fuck you bitch, you had it coming.

...fuck you, Fox.

Frozengale:
"happy for the exposure"

What perfect little douchebags these people are.

They said the same thing when Slash and Dave Grohl protested their songs being used.

Slash. As in, Guns n' Roses Slash.

They told one of the most famous rock guitarists of all time that he should be happy for the exposure on a vapid show for tween girls.

Seriously, fuck these people.

Sorry for the harsh language: the whole crew behind this arse-ripping, testicle burning and queer "show" is composed of complete f*****g FA****S!!!!
JC, if you find just about any legal footing - rip them a new one. Mke sure they won't like it.
PS: MODs, think twice - Yahtzee uses words like these on a nearly weekly basis!

I am capable of enjoying Glee, and I am still going to make it my duty to make sure any Glee fans I see on facebook praising that song end up hating it.

What a ridiculous artifact of US copyright law that an arranger isn't entitled to royalties or even so much as credit for their original work. Maurice Ravel is turning in his grave.

I'll admit it. I quite like Glee. But I hate Fox.

A lot of the guys in the background seem like complete arseholes. And Ryan Murphy has his head so far up his arse it's ended up looking like it's in the right place. This is a completely dick move. Just because some songwriters/labels send you their music to consider using for 'good' exposure doesn't mean everyone is willing to throw themselves at your feet. As for "happy for the exposure", YOU DIDN'T GIVE HIM CREDIT HOW IS THAT EXPOSURE? Fuck's sake

They removed the duck quack and "Johnny C" line for this version...

Falseprophet:
What a ridiculous artifact of US copyright law that an arranger isn't entitled to royalties or even so much as credit for their original work. Maurice Ravel is turning in his grave.

Arrangers are entitled to royalties and credit for their work if they have asked the owner of the copyright for permission and pay royalties on their work. Now this is my guess at what happened Glee went to the publishers of the original to negotiate for rights to use that first, after all their is no point going to the arranger before getting the rights to the original. At which point they discovered Copland had not any legal right to use the original and had not being paying royalties. So Copland has no copyright, but the publishers probably won't sue him because he can use the parody defence that was used in the 80's for an explicit rap version of stand by me. Until such times as a court case is heard, Fox can only pay and give acknowledgement to the properly constituted copyright holder. Further more, any statements that Fox make on the subject could be used in a court case between Copland and the publisher. The safest thing to do is what Fox have done.

He should be happy for the exposure, eh? Where have I heard that line before?

Oh yeah, the pro-piracy crowd. "It's not stealing; it's giving them free publicity! Even though I only listen to/watch it privately in my home. And even if I did talk it up afterwards, I'd still be doing that if I had paid for it."

Yeah. Give 'em hell, is all I can say.

It's like he says.

Happy for the exposure? What exposure?

If he gets no credit how is this giving him exposure at all?

This is just lazy and sad.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be a pretty simple lawsuit?

I mean there's no questioning that it's a blatant black and white crime. It's something that a lot of people like to call "Plagiarism"

So is there anything at all from stopping him from copy pasting songs from Glee, and selling a "new original album"? After all, if it's just a cover, it doesn't matter right?

In response to this theft, I will... uh... continue to not watch Glee?

Heh, you know what? I'm pretty sure the producers of the show, not being in touch with the nerd/gamer community, probably thought that Coulton was a nobody, and they'd be able to steal his work without any kind of a stink being raised about it. Kind of reminds me of back when Timbaland ripped off a chiptune artist, probably thinking the exact same thing.

Although Coulton is a much bigger name thanks to his work on the Portal soundtracks, so this should be fun to watch :)

Not really surprised as much as a i like JC i didnt think he had much to stand on legally and glee being super popular will make it hard for him to fight them.

OT: since Glee did baby got back can we expect them to homogenize "put em on the glass" next?

"Be happy with the exposure!" -refuses to credit Coulton-

I didn't think it was possible for my hatred for Fox to grow any larger than it already was. Thanks for proving me wrong guys!

The consumer steals a song for personal use, they get sued for a million dollars. The corporate machine steals a song to make money off of it, nothing.

FUCK.THAT.SHIT.

Sarah LeBoeuf:
Instead, he was told that he should be "happy for the exposure."

I'm sure Fox is just as happy for their exposure when they take down YouTube videos that infringe on their copyright, regardless of whether or not the videos credit them.

So they're allowed to sell a cover of a cover and make profit off of it? That seems pretty retarded to me.

The worst part about all this is Coulton probably would have happily let them do it with his permission.

Falseprophet:
What a ridiculous artifact of US copyright law that an arranger isn't entitled to royalties or even so much as credit for their original work. Maurice Ravel is turning in his grave.

Actually Fox got away with this because of how Coulton classed his music. It seems. Some sort of "fair use" license meant for fans of his work.

That people can rearrange it without legal trouble. However, Fox used this to steal. A legal loophole.

You know you're doing something wrong when Kanye West gives more credit to the artist of the song he uses.

OK, I have a couple of problems with that:

1. "Happy for the exposure"-As many people have already pointed out: WHAT FUCKING EXPOSURE??! YOU DIDN'T CREDIT HIM, YOU ASSHOLES.

2. "Their policy is not to credit covers of covers"-Well first of all, why the hell not? If you can use his music without having to pay him no matter what you do, why NOT just be decent human beings and credit him? What do you have to lose?

2.a. "Covers of covers"-Except they didn't "cover" Coulton's song-They just played his song. Like, the EXACT same song. The only thing they re-recorded was the vocals.

This is kind of baffling to me. It seems like they could've used his music for free AND with his permission very easily, so why are they going out of their way to be massive dicks about it?

Orange12345:
He should release an album where he does all the glee songs

POETIC JUSTICE! Perfect.

OT: Fuck Glee. That's all one can say. Not only do they butcher every single song they sing; I have yet to hear a single song that makes me say "Hey! This isn't bad! or "It's better than the original!" and I have nothing against covers; but they blatantly admit they're stealing people's songs AND not credit the author in any way possible.

AND! They make it look as if they're doing them a favor!
Glee: "Oh, please. Jonathan who? Guy, just be thankful we gave you your 5 minutes in the spotlight. Now, step aside and let the pros do their job. This isn't amateur hour."

Look, people who like Glee, nothing against you but there are better things to watch out there. broaden your horizons. Don't support these shitty thieves.

How is this show still alive anyway?! Stealing songs? Crappy covers? Are tween girls THAT dumb?

...Might be a rhetorical question.

Ultratwinkie:

Falseprophet:
What a ridiculous artifact of US copyright law that an arranger isn't entitled to royalties or even so much as credit for their original work. Maurice Ravel is turning in his grave.

Actually Fox got away with this because of how Coulton classed his music. It seems. Some sort of "fair use" license meant for fans of his work.

That people can rearrange it without legal trouble. However, Fox used this to steal. A legal loophole.

Maybe. However, since Fox is gaining considerable profit, like through iTunes sales , I think "fair use" no longer applies. It's clearly intended for commercial purposes.

In an interview Coulton said he payed a license to use the song. I don't know if Fox has done that. If they have payed, it's not piracy, but it is plagiarism since it's the exact same track. Coulton's cover is so many world's away from the original's version you'd have to have your head screwed on backwards to think two people could arrive at identical arrangements from that source material by coincidence.

Callate:
Glee has often seemed to have a tempestuous relationship with the people who provide (or refuse to provide) the music they use at best- see also: http://screenrant.com/glee-music-ryan-murphy-dave-grohl-foo-fighters-mcrid-106663/

For somebody headlining a massively popular show that single-handedly propelled an obscure Australian singer's single into the Billboard Year-End Number 1 for 2012, Ryan Murphy sure does act like an entitled, whiny piece of shit at the slightest provocation.

he was told that he should be "happy for the exposure."

Those fucking cunts. They're telling him that he should be grateful that they stole from him? That's like me punching someone in the balls and then telling them to thank me for reducing their risk of prostate cancer. What a bunch of arseholes. I hope he sues them for every penny he can get.

Wow. What condescending douchebaggery. I never liked Glee much to begin with, but i took a live and let live approach as long as they didn't get to big and i had to hear them everywhere. Well now i have to openly campaign against them.

Beautiful End:
Are tween girls THAT dumb?

Yes, yes they are.

We can only hope that Mr Coulton can take legal action against them. Although FOX will, as I've said before, throw a few million dollars at some legal monkeys and make the problem go away. Where are Anonymous when you need them?

CriticalMiss:

Beautiful End:
Are tween girls THAT dumb?

Yes, yes they are.

We can only hope that Mr Coulton can take legal action against them. Although FOX will, as I've said before, throw a few million dollars at some legal monkeys and make the problem go away. Where are Anonymous when you need them?

Oh, I don't know if you wanna summon the Anon gods. They're kinda like a monkey's paw. Maybe they will ruin FOX in some way but others might suffer for it. For example, I like New Girl.

...What? Zooey Deschanel is awesome!

ex951753:
Never seen glee before...*clicks on vid*...the f*** did I just watch?! Excuse me as I go pour bleach in my eyes.

Better put that stuff in your ears as well.

OT: Using Jonathan Coulton's particular version of this song without asking/crediting him is pretty bad by its own merits, but what gets me is the sheer arrogance and utter lack of empathy that is displayed in the quote: "You should be happy for the exposure." Who do these people think they are?

Besides, what exposure?

Now to everyone here.. What do you prefer...?

Glee or Kids bop? :P

I am considering taking a copy of that episode, cutting out the closing credits and putting the dvd of said show in a case with the title "That musical show: Baby got Back" and selling it for $0.50 a disk. I am sure they would be happy for the exposure.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)