Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Trib)   Beastie Boys fight for their rights and win $1.7m in copyright case vs. Monster Beverage   (chicagotribune.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Beastie Boys, Monster Beverage, monsters, Yauch, federal jury, Ad-Rock  
•       •       •

2445 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 06 Jun 2014 at 4:45 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-06 01:16:00 AM  
The video, which Monster uploaded to YouTube, featured the competition and an after-party attended by DJs, including Z-Trip. It included a remix by Z-Trip of Beastie Boys songs, including "Sabotage," "So Watcha Want" and "Make Some Noise."

I'm not a lawyer or an artist or an executive - but people do this all the time. Anybody can "remix"anything and put it on Youtube - but most legitimate artists, DJs, producers and labels, would NEVER take credit for work that wasn't theirs.
 
2014-06-06 04:53:00 AM  
So that's like a case of Monster, right?
 
2014-06-06 04:59:05 AM  

vernonFL: The video, which Monster uploaded to YouTube, featured the competition and an after-party attended by DJs, including Z-Trip. It included a remix by Z-Trip of Beastie Boys songs, including "Sabotage," "So Watcha Want" and "Make Some Noise."

I'm not a lawyer or an artist or an executive - but people do this all the time. Anybody can "remix"anything and put it on Youtube - but most legitimate artists, DJs, producers and labels, would NEVER take credit for work that wasn't theirs.


Not for commercial purposes. It was branded with Monster all over. Shot and edited by people associate with Monster.
 
2014-06-06 05:02:01 AM  

vernonFL: The video, which Monster uploaded to YouTube, featured the competition and an after-party attended by DJs, including Z-Trip. It included a remix by Z-Trip of Beastie Boys songs, including "Sabotage," "So Watcha Want" and "Make Some Noise."

I'm not a lawyer or an artist or an executive - but people do this all the time. Anybody can "remix"anything and put it on Youtube - but most legitimate artists, DJs, producers and labels, would NEVER take credit for work that wasn't theirs.


I think the issue isn't so much that they took credit, it's that Monster was using this to promote their brand.  Most artists don't give a crap if you remix something and upload it to YouTube (or SoundCloud, etc.) just to share. It's when you start making money off of it without getting permission first that they start getting all frownyface.

Really though, what probably made the surviving Beasties so hot about this was that Monster included a "RIP MCA" at the end, making it look like a case of stealing their work and then trying to invoke some lame-ass attempt at goodwill by mentioning their dead friend.  It looks pretty douchey even now, but right after MCA's death... yeah, I could see them getting all kinds of pissed.

Monster could be telling the truth, that it was an honest mistake and some guy didn't check music clearances properly.  Incompetence doesn't make it any less illegal though.
 
2014-06-06 05:29:36 AM  
"Monster countered that it owed no more than $125,000, calling the case "illogical" and saying an employee had mistakenly believed the company had permission to use the music."

Evidently their defense was headed by one Mr. Spock of the famous firm "Kirk, Bones, & Sulu"...
 
2014-06-06 05:59:05 AM  
Kathleen Hannah is (1). straight, (2). married to a Beastie Boy?!!? News to me, especially the straight part.
 
2014-06-06 06:12:28 AM  
It amazes me that a company the size of Monster could drop the ball like this. I'm currently writing a silly little app for cats that's going to have free/$1 full versions and uses stock photography, sounds, and 3D models. Unlike these guys, I paid money to license each of these assets, but even though I don't have my GED in law I still had the common sense to thoroughly read through each license agreement before purchasing to make sure my intended use was explicitly granted. If my app and licensed assets were anywhere near as high-profile as Monster and Beastie Boys, I'd be 10x more cautious.
 
2014-06-06 06:23:36 AM  
Kind of ironic that the band known for utilizing dozens of samples in their work now coming down hard on others for sampling their work.

Paul's Boutique remains the absolute zenith of the golden age of the Sample Era. It's full of so many samples it's not even appropriate to call it genuine music but more like a collage (cf. Dust Brothers).

They will never make music like that ever again.

And that's a sad.
 
2014-06-06 06:27:27 AM  

Ishkur: Kind of ironic that the band known for utilizing dozens of samples in their work now coming down hard on others for sampling their work.

Paul's Boutique remains the absolute zenith of the golden age of the Sample Era. It's full of so many samples it's not even appropriate to call it genuine music but more like a collage (cf. Dust Brothers).

They will never make music like that ever again.

And that's a sad.


I think there's a pretty huge difference between incorporating samples into your artistic endeavors and using a song (or mashup/remix) to promote a commercial product. The Beasties have had a "No commercial use" clause for a long time.
 
2014-06-06 06:33:04 AM  

detached23: I'm currently writing a silly little app for cats that's going to have free/$1 full versions and uses stock photography, sounds, and 3D models.


What's the market penetration like for felines?  Do cats prefer iDevices or Droids?
 
2014-06-06 06:37:26 AM  

Eshy: Ishkur: Kind of ironic that the band known for utilizing dozens of samples in their work now coming down hard on others for sampling their work.

Paul's Boutique remains the absolute zenith of the golden age of the Sample Era. It's full of so many samples it's not even appropriate to call it genuine music but more like a collage (cf. Dust Brothers).

They will never make music like that ever again.

And that's a sad.

I think there's a pretty huge difference between incorporating samples into your artistic endeavors and using a song (or mashup/remix) to promote a commercial product. The Beasties have had a "No commercial use" clause for a long time.


This. Also, I seem to recall MCA having that in his will as well. /seen Beasties in '08
 
2014-06-06 06:42:47 AM  

Eshy: I think there's a pretty huge difference between incorporating samples into your artistic endeavors and using a song (or mashup/remix) to promote a commercial product. The Beasties have had a "No commercial use" clause for a long time.


Well, yes. But let's not blame Z-Trip for that. The mashup scene is the last vestiges of a once proud and expressive art form, destroyed by lawyers.
 
2014-06-06 07:01:56 AM  

yukichigai: detached23: I'm currently writing a silly little app for cats that's going to have free/$1 full versions and uses stock photography, sounds, and 3D models.

What's the market penetration like for felines?  Do cats prefer iDevices or Droids?


That's a good question. I can only speak for our cats. I have an Android tablet and my gf has an iPad. They seem to be pretty platform-agnostic. We have another cat app installed on both and they don't seem to show any preference. My app right now is Android-only, but if it does well I'm gonna see about porting to iOS.

Unsolicited plug: it's called Kitty Typewriter. Basically it's a "swat-the-mouse" kind of game overlayed on a typewriter keyboard. Objects move between letters, and which letters are available depends on the context. Say they hit a frog over the "D" key. The frog will then move between second letters for words that begin with "D" and so on until they form a word. My dictionary also knows about parts of speech, pronunciation, syllable stresses, etc., so cats can create things like haiku and rhyming poetry. I even went a bit overboard and did a proof of concept for creating java code that will actually compile.
 
2014-06-06 07:16:58 AM  

vernonFL: The video, which Monster uploaded to YouTube, featured the competition and an after-party attended by DJs, including Z-Trip. It included a remix by Z-Trip of Beastie Boys songs, including "Sabotage," "So Watcha Want" and "Make Some Noise."

I'm not a lawyer or an artist or an executive - but people do this all the time. Anybody can "remix"anything and put it on Youtube - but most legitimate artists, DJs, producers and labels, would NEVER take credit for work that wasn't theirs.


MCA, Adam Yauch, put IN HIS WILL, that he did not wish his music to endorse PRODUCTS... Respect a dead mans wishes... he was a Bhudist, and his music was to be shared and ENJOYED, not for a company HE MIGHT NOT agree with to use for THEIR benefit.... if that was a dying human beings thoughts and wishes, one should respect them as such.
 
2014-06-06 07:28:47 AM  
img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-06 07:29:32 AM  
And yet it's okay for them to rap that they "once got busy in a Burger King bathroom?!"

Illogical, indeed!
 
2014-06-06 07:57:11 AM  
Yeah, but even so, their mom threw away their best porno mag
 
2014-06-06 08:08:19 AM  

jake_lex: Yeah, but even so, their mom threw away their best porno mag


what's a "porno mag"? can I find one online?
 
2014-06-06 08:08:28 AM  

Ishkur: Kind of ironic


Doncha think? Came in here to make that point so thanks for saving me the trouble
 
2014-06-06 08:35:48 AM  

detached23: It amazes me that a company the size of Monster could drop the ball like this.


I would suspect that the energy drink industry would understand better than any other that the potential for them to have the staying power of a brand like Coke is highly unlikely and that they need to get while the getting's good by any means they can and worry about the consequences later.
 
2014-06-06 09:17:21 AM  

mekkab: And yet it's okay for them to rap that they "once got busy in a Burger King bathroom?!"

Illogical, indeed!


What's more illogical is that you confused the Beastie Boys for Digital Underground.

thecommittedindian.com
 
2014-06-06 09:24:11 AM  

Iczer: "Monster countered that it owed no more than $125,000, calling the case "illogical" and saying an employee had mistakenly believed the company had permission to use the music."

Evidently their defense was headed by one Mr. Spock of the famous firm "Kirk, Bones, & Sulu"...


Yep. One single employee. Not one single other person approved this before it was uploaded.
 
2014-06-06 09:48:18 AM  

DeepDownHounds: What's more illogical is that you confused the Beastie Boys for Digital Underground.


that makes one!

/trolled like the skinny puppy you are! ;)
 
2014-06-06 09:50:55 AM  

mekkab: DeepDownHounds: What's more illogical is that you confused the Beastie Boys for Digital Underground.

that makes one!

/trolled like the skinny puppy you are! ;)


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-06 10:11:22 AM  
So, let me get this straight, a DJ REMIXED one(or three) of your songs and you get to sue the company? Its called sampling and has been proven many times over in court that you cant recoup costs from someone else sampling your song. This should be overturned as much as I like the Beasties. I wonder how many times the Beasties sampled a beat from someone?
 
2014-06-06 10:13:17 AM  
Monster claims it was just a mix up because of ill communication. Beastie Boys argue they didn't give them license to ill.
 
2014-06-06 10:21:28 AM  
Monster is going to appeal? Ha. The Beasties lawyer can't, won't and don't stop.
 
2014-06-06 10:21:59 AM  

DeepDownHounds: mekkab: DeepDownHounds: What's more illogical is that you confused the Beastie Boys for Digital Underground.

that makes one!

/trolled like the skinny puppy you are! ;)

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x352]


I really have nothing better to do, today.
 
2014-06-06 10:42:40 AM  

BEER_ME_in_CT: So, let me get this straight, a DJ REMIXED one(or three) of your songs and you get to sue the company? Its called sampling and has been proven many times over in court that you cant recoup costs from someone else sampling your song. This should be overturned as much as I like the Beasties. I wonder how many times the Beasties sampled a beat from someone?


I do kind of wonder what the parameters of acceptable use are for sampling, if any. How long can a sample be? Is there a minimum required delta (whatever that may mean) between the derivative work and the sampled work? I could be wrong, but I'm guessing I couldn't get away with "sampling" an entire song from another artist, adding in a few clips of me saying "yeah" between lines, and turning around and selling it.
 
2014-06-06 10:57:25 AM  

detached23: I couldn't get away with "sampling" an entire song from another artist, adding in a few clips of me saying "yeah" between lines, and turning around and selling it.


Are you Diddy?
 
2014-06-06 10:58:08 AM  

detached23: BEER_ME_in_CT: So, let me get this straight, a DJ REMIXED one(or three) of your songs and you get to sue the company? Its called sampling and has been proven many times over in court that you cant recoup costs from someone else sampling your song. This should be overturned as much as I like the Beasties. I wonder how many times the Beasties sampled a beat from someone?

I do kind of wonder what the parameters of acceptable use are for sampling, if any. How long can a sample be? Is there a minimum required delta (whatever that may mean) between the derivative work and the sampled work? I could be wrong, but I'm guessing I couldn't get away with "sampling" an entire song from another artist, adding in a few clips of me saying "yeah" between lines, and turning around and selling it.


I hate it when sampling is in the chorus. I don't know if that's the rule, but that's where the sampling line becomes ripping off to me.
 
2014-06-06 10:59:34 AM  

busy chillin': Monster claims it was just a mix up because of ill communication. Beastie Boys argue they didn't give them license to ill.


They thought the licensing was real. Beastie boys thought it was a mirage...
 
2014-06-06 11:00:18 AM  

Eshy: I think there's a pretty huge difference between incorporating samples into your artistic endeavors and using a song (or mashup/remix) to promote a commercial product.


...So...when the Beastie Boys used samples in their music and then sold that music for a profit (for themselves and their record label), that's okay?

/argument just seems thin
//good for the Beasties.
 
2014-06-06 11:04:08 AM  
img.fark.net

time to get ill.
 
2014-06-06 11:04:44 AM  

maxwellhauser: Eshy: I think there's a pretty huge difference between incorporating samples into your artistic endeavors and using a song (or mashup/remix) to promote a commercial product.

...So...when the Beastie Boys used samples in their music and then sold that music for a profit (for themselves and their record label), that's okay?

/argument just seems thin
//good for the Beasties.


from the paul's boutique wikipedia page:

Contrary to popular belief, most of the sampling for Paul's Boutique was cleared, but at dramatically lower costs compared to today's prevailing rates.[7] A 2005 article by Paul Tingen about The Dust Brothers reveals that "most of the samples used on Paul's Boutique were cleared, easily and affordably, something that [...] would be 'unthinkable' in today's litigious music industry."[7] Mario "Mario C" Caldato, Jr., engineer on the album, later said in an interview that "after [Beastie Boys] did Paul's Boutique we realized we had spent a lot of money in the studio. We had spent about a $1/4 million in rights and licensing for samples."[8] This type of sampling was only possible before Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc., the landmark lawsuit against Biz Markie by Gilbert O'Sullivan, which changed the process and future of hip hop sampling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul's_Boutique
 
2014-06-06 11:07:24 AM  
that link fell apart for some reason...now I've got Eugene's Lament.
 
2014-06-06 11:13:19 AM  

BEER_ME_in_CT: So, let me get this straight, a DJ REMIXED one(or three) of your songs and you get to sue the company?


No, but if a DJ remixes one of your songs and the company uses it in a commercial, you do.
 
2014-06-06 11:17:50 AM  

PhDemented: BEER_ME_in_CT: So, let me get this straight, a DJ REMIXED one(or three) of your songs and you get to sue the company?

No, but if a DJ remixes one of your songs and the company uses it in a commercial, you do.


His remixes are pretty sweet at that.
 
2014-06-06 11:36:34 AM  

LucklessWonder: detached23: I couldn't get away with "sampling" an entire song from another artist, adding in a few clips of me saying "yeah" between lines, and turning around and selling it.

Are you Diddy?


olapbill: PhDemented: BEER_ME_in_CT: So, let me get this straight, a DJ REMIXED one(or three) of your songs and you get to sue the company?

No, but if a DJ remixes one of your songs and the company uses it in a commercial, you do.

His remixes are pretty sweet at that.


Ive heard some of his stuff havent heard the specific remixes, but Z-trip chops the songs up pretty good. Hes not just "covering" the song and saying "yeah" every 5 seconds lol.

This is a weak lawsuit. Does anyone remember the toy commercial that used the Beasties "girls" without permission?

THAT was a ripoff(and they sued and one that one as well)
 
2014-06-06 01:02:05 PM  

maxwellhauser: Eshy: I think there's a pretty huge difference between incorporating samples into your artistic endeavors and using a song (or mashup/remix) to promote a commercial product.

...So...when the Beastie Boys used samples in their music and then sold that music for a profit (for themselves and their record label), that's okay?

/argument just seems thin
//good for the Beasties.


I knew someone was going to say this. Does a painting cease to become art when the artist sells it? Huge difference between trying to sell cans of Monster with music that isn't your own and (again) incorporating a piece into a commercial video whose sole use is to promote a product.
 
2014-06-06 01:04:16 PM  

Eshy: maxwellhauser: Eshy: I think there's a pretty huge difference between incorporating samples into your artistic endeavors and using a song (or mashup/remix) to promote a commercial product.

...So...when the Beastie Boys used samples in their music and then sold that music for a profit (for themselves and their record label), that's okay?

/argument just seems thin
//good for the Beasties.

I knew someone was going to say this. Does a painting cease to become art when the artist sells it? Huge difference between trying to sell cans of Monster with music that isn't your own and (again) incorporating a piece into a commercial video whose sole use is to promote a product.


Whoops. That was phrased badly. I meant to say that what Monster was doing doesn't approach art in any fashion, so there's a pretty wide gap between what they did and what the Beasties did.
 
2014-06-06 02:56:11 PM  
Well everybody's rapping like it's a commercial. Acting like life is a big commercial. So this is what I got to say to you all. Be true to yourself and you will never fall.
 
2014-06-06 03:04:54 PM  

farkingismybusiness: Well everybody's rapping like it's a commercial. Acting like life is a big commercial. So this is what I got to say to you all. Be true to yourself and you will never fall.


Excellent.

Love that line.
 
2014-06-06 05:00:20 PM  

Eshy: maxwellhauser: Eshy: I think there's a pretty huge difference between incorporating samples into your artistic endeavors and using a song (or mashup/remix) to promote a commercial product.

...So...when the Beastie Boys used samples in their music and then sold that music for a profit (for themselves and their record label), that's okay?

/argument just seems thin
//good for the Beasties.

I knew someone was going to say this. Does a painting cease to become art when the artist sells it? Huge difference between trying to sell cans of Monster with music that isn't your own and (again) incorporating a piece into a commercial video whose sole use is to promote a product.


Except the painting analogy is more like, if I were to take a copy of a famous painting, rip it into small pieces and use one of those pieces as the basis of a new painting that is infinitely awesome, and I profit from using the small piece of the original painting....

Music is a commercialized product.  Beasties produce a quality product and sell it (and I buy it).  Monster makes a (non-musical) product and sells it.  It's not that big of a difference, in my eyes.  Other than the fact that the Beasties apparently had bought the rights to all their samples (learned something today) and Monster didn't.
 
2014-06-06 05:04:34 PM  

Eshy: Eshy:


BTW, your profile is one punctuation mark from being infinitely awesome itself...change the period after "Eating" to a colon....
 
2014-06-06 05:16:16 PM  

fearmongert: he was a Bhudist, and his music was to be shared and ENJOYED


See, RIAA?
 
2014-06-06 05:55:02 PM  

detached23: I do kind of wonder what the parameters of acceptable use are for sampling, if any.


None. Zero. Zilch. Not one microsecond, not one beat or note or lyric. If you're going to sample, you have to clear it with the original artist, and that costs money.

You listen to old NWA or Public Enemy or Beasties, count the samples. Each song rife with dozens of them. It was an expressive and varied and amazing time to live. After the DMCA came into effect, all that went away. Now we're lucky if hip hop/house tracks have one sample, tops.

I can't think of any other artform that was literally legalized into extinction.
 
2014-06-07 12:40:50 AM  
Damn right.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report