Jonathan Coulton says that Glee Stole his song

[devilof76]

Why did my post get deleted?

 

[devilof76]

Alright, then.

Are you saying that you believe that create has a definition other than what is in the dictionary???
If that is the case, then you aren't really speaking English when you use the word create.
If you don't use the word as it is truly defined, as in, in the dictionary, and I do, obviously we can never agree.

As I said before, if you can't apply or understand the information in the dictionary, you're not even going to be able to communicate with people who do agree on the definitions. However, slavish obedience to the definitions arrived at for the sake of the lowest common denominator is intellectually lazy. If you can't criticize the dictionary, you're not actually engaged in thought when you use it.

Well, ultimately, only God creates, because only God created something, where there was once absolutely nothing. THAT is creation. That is the concept of real creation, whether you believe in God or not. Creation is about making something where there was once nothing. That's creativity. Modification is not creation.

Even if God existed, creation ex nihilo is pure gibberish. It's impossible, even for an omnipotent being, and adherence to a definition of creativity based on so much irrational tripe only serves to obscure the true meaning of the word.

All real creation is a rearrangement of elements already in existence. And if that's not the case, is Sir Mix-A-Lot God? Because you've been arguing that his work was new. Did he create the song out of nothing? Or is he not a true creator either? How about you make up your mind?

 

[Blackthornone]

...If you can't criticize, or properly apply the information in a dictionary, you're not really thinking, are you?

AS you said, I was using the definition of the word from the dictionary, and you implied you didn't think the dictionary's definition was valid.

It seems you aren't properly applying the information in the dictionary.

You are trying to give the word a definition it does not actually have.

When I say something lacks or doesn't have as much creativity, I am using the dictionary's definition. That is what I am saying when I say what I say. You seem to think perhaps that I am saying that it is less creative according to YOUR definition, which might not actually be true.
According to the dictionary, you are using talent and creativity as the same concepts.

You are not using the words accurately. like I said, perhaps the real basis of our disagreement is what the word create means, and not whether or not there was innovation on the part of. mr. Coulton in making this song.
I say it wasn't original, and since creating in the dictionary means making something original, it logically lacked creativity.

If you don't agree to the dictionary definitions of words, because you prefer the vague meaning that you have developed throughout your life from interacting with people who don't really know the exact definitions of words, and believe that talent and creativity are the same thing as a result and take that to be the "true" meaning, then that isn't proper English.

You are basically using slang.

how is using a common misuse of a word, "thinking"?
Anyway, Mr. Coulton borrowed someone elses material, and then GLEE borrowed the material that Mr Coulton put out, derived from his borrowing.

I am saying that because "Baby Got Back by John Coulton" wasn't original material and therefore he lacks a completely solid moral or ethical foundation in objecting to someone else's use of it.
Because the song was only partially original, as far as I'm concerned, he has only a partial moral or ethical foundation to complain about others using it. If the song was entirely original, then his grounds would be entirely solid.

 

[devilof76]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Blackthornone]

Alright, then.



As I said before, if you can't apply or understand the information in the dictionary, you're not even going to be able to communicate with people who do agree on the definitions. However, slavish obedience to the definitions arrived at for the sake of the lowest common denominator is intellectually lazy. If you can't criticize the dictionary, you're not actually engaged in thought when you use it.



Even if God existed, creation ex nihilo is pure gibberish. It's impossible, even for an omnipotent being, and adherence to a definition of creativity based on so much irrational tripe only serves to obscure the true meaning of the word.

All real creation is a rearrangement of elements already in existence. And if that's not the case, is Sir Mix-A-Lot God? Because you've been arguing that his work was new. Did he create the song out of nothing? Or is he not a true creator either? How about you make up your mind?

According to the dictionary, Sir mix-A-lot created the song Baby Got Back, and according to the dictionary, because John Coulton borrowed the original to make his version, John Coulton did not CREATE his version.
That is my view on this matter.

 

[devilof76]

Then you make no sense. Who created Coulton's version?

 

[devilof76]

And there you have it...I guess no one created it. Coulton's version doesn't exist, therefore Glee didn't steal it, therefore, Coulton has no case.

Blackthornone is right again.

 

[Blackthornone]

Then you make no sense. Who created Coulton's version?

This version is an alteration of an already created thing. Coulton altered the creation that was the original. That's not creation. Coultons version was not "created'. Fabricated would be an appropriate word. To fabricate is to assemble or make with already created parts.
Coulton made the new version. He didn't CREATE it. Create is the wrong word.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/made
"made (md)
v.
Past tense and past participle of make.
adj.
1. Produced or manufactured by constructing, shaping, or forming. Often used in combination: handmade lace; ready-made suits.
2. Produced or created artificially: bought some made goods at the local store.
3. Having been invented; contrived: These made excuses of yours just won't wash.
"

I think people like to use the word "create" because it makes them feel better about themselves and what they make by glorifying the real nature of their accomplishments beyond what they really are.

Created sounds better than made, concocted, or fabricated, even though those other words are what was really done.

 

[Blackthornone]

And there you have it...I guess no one created it. Coulton's version doesn't exist, therefore Glee didn't steal it, therefore, Coulton has no case.

Blackthornone is right again.

I'm not discussing the legal aspects of this, because they could change tomorrow. Who knows what the law will be in the future?
I am talking about right and wrong, and the truth of what was done.
The law in many cases enforces right and wrong, but not ALWAYS, and because of this, it it not a reliable determinant of right and wrong.

Sir Mix-A-Lot created the song. Coulton just customized it to suit his own desires.

 

[devilof76]

I have never said that the law determines right and wrong.

An act of customization is a subset of creation. You have arbitrarily limited the verb to the act of invention, i.e. the creation of something new (and even that is arguable as his version post-dates the original). You have zero basis to determine which required a greater deal of thought, talent, work, or creativity in general. Sir Mix-A-Lot could have farted out the original song. Coulton may have toiled for weeks. You don't know. You are not the arbiter of which was more creative. You are not the measure of right and wrong for anyone other than yourself.

Coulton brought his version into existence via an act of creation and your verbose evasions don't change that. The song is his by right of causality, and hopefully the law will recognize that indisputable fact. There will be no justice if they defer to your nonsense and rule that he has no right to object to the theft of his work.

 

[karamazov80]

. . .the law determines right and wrong.

Quoted for posterity.

 

[siquisiri]

Whos Jonathan Coulton? lol.

 

[karamazov80]

Whos Jonathan Coulton? lol.

I keep thinking of this when I see this thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Joseph_Colton

 

[devilof76]

Quoted for posterity.

That's what I get for letting myself get sucked into this foolishness.

 

[Blackthornone]

I have never said that the law determines right and wrong.

An act of customization is a subset of creation. You have arbitrarily limited the verb to the act of invention, i.e. the creation of something new (and even that is arguable as his version post-dates the original). You have zero basis to determine which required a greater deal of thought, talent, work, or creativity in general. Sir Mix-A-Lot could have farted out the original song. Coulton may have toiled for weeks. You don't know. You are not the arbiter of which was more creative. You are not the measure of right and wrong for anyone other than yourself.

Coulton brought his version into existence via an act of creation and your verbose evasions don't change that. The song is his by right of causality, and hopefully the law will recognize that indisputable fact. There will be no justice if they defer to your nonsense and rule that he has no right to object to the theft of his work.

The dictionary defined what the word creativity means. I didn't.
Coulton is responsible only for those changes he made, and since he is not responsible for the song in it's ENTIRETY, the song is not his in its entirety. He created those things that were changes, but he did not create the whole song, and therefore he did not create the song. he only "created" the modifications. Saying that he created the song gives him credit for something he did not actually do.

 

[devilof76]

Without the changes he made, his version, which is distinct enough to have been covered, would not exist. He is not claiming credit for having created the original. He is claiming credit for his own. Please take your mangling of the logical process elsewhere. It's offensive.

(And just for ****s and giggles, do you look up every word you use before you use it? Did you learn English from a dictionary? Do you know that these are rhetorical questions, and that the last thing I want is for you to answer them?)

 

[Jen]

That's what I get for letting myself get sucked into this foolishness.

Yet you still can not turn away.

 

[Blackthornone]

Without the changes he made, his version, which is distinct enough to have been covered, would not exist. He is not claiming credit for having created the original. He is claiming credit for his own.

And just for ****s and giggles, do you look up every word you use before you use it? Did you learn English from a dictionary? Do you know that these are rhetorical questions, and that the last thing I want is for you to answer them?

I do not look up every word. I know what the word means. I only look up a word for the purpose of posting it's actual meaning so that someone else can see what it actually means when they are misusing it, and their misuse of the word is the reason for the disagreement.

The implication of his complaint is that he is entirely responsible for the whole song, since he is seeking to be the one who will entirely be compensated as a result of his complaint.
If Sir Mix-A-Lot was part of a joint complaint with him against GLEE, then that would be the most appropriate.

No one deserves to take credit for another song they rearranged to suit themselves, IMO. ONLY the original artist has the right to do that. If the laws says someone who covers a song can have total rights to that recording, then the law is wrong.

To me, getting legal permission to use a song is just an agreement not to sue the person who is getting permission. The person can make money off of it if that is in the agreement, but that doesn't make it the other persons song. The song is the property of the original musician, period. At any time that anyone uses any version or variation of the original song, it is the original artist who can make a claim, only. If people want exclusive rights to a song, then they should write it themselves.

 

[Frank]

^ This does not change the fact that Glee dishonestly profited off of someone else's work. At the very least, artists should be acknowledged for their contribution... whether the law ever catches up to that or not.

 

[Blackthornone]

^ This does not change the fact that Glee dishonestly profited off of someone else's work. At the very least, artists should be acknowledged for their contribution... whether the law ever catches up to that or not.

GLEE uses famous songs all the time from major artists. I wonder how they have done it for so long? I'm not sure they mention who the artist is before they sing every song. I definitely think that the makers of the GLEE should not be able to sell any of their renditions of other musicians songs they perform. The fact that it's on free TV makes me think it isn't that big of a deal for them to perform it on the show, but selling a copy of the song would be over the line.

By the way, I think this Johnathan Coulton version compared to the original is like the new Total Recall compared to the original Total Recall.
I don't think the lyrics fit the melody on Coulton's. I think it sounds ridiculous.