Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

OA529: The Weird Al Deep-Dive We Didn't Know We Desperately Needed (Patreon)

Published:
2021-09-27 05:33:58
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

Alright so... we got a lot of emails from our satire-related episode. Like a lot. And it all focused on the same one thing from a quick aside about Weird Al. Since then, a massive debate has taken place in the Facebook group over whether or not satirists like Weird Al would owe royalties. Andrew's previous segment said no; many commenters say yes. So are we issuing an Andrew was wrong? Find out the answer to that and MANY fascinating related issues in our much needed Weird Al deep-dive!

Appearances

None. Invite us on!

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Files

Comments

Anonymous

Man, this is again Andrew getting out of his area of expertise and really confusing things… Just one example: most of Weird Al’s work is generally considered satire, which is not even discussed in the episode, not parody. Think of parody as when you are making a statement about the copyrighted work itself, while satire is where you are using the copyrighted work to make a comment on another different topic or society at large. So “Fat” is satire of MJ’s song “Bad”, it uses Michael Jackson’s song in a way that satirizes obesity, but isn’t mocking the song or singer himself. “Smells like Nirvana”, however, is closer to parody, as it is making fun of how Kurt Cobain mumbled his lyrics. Most of Weird Al’s work falls closer to satire than parody. Parody is much more likely to be considered fair use than satire. Makes sense too when you think of it - no one would ever want to license for a parody. But satire is just using any copyrighted work to talk about something else. This all said, while I’m an attorney, I’m also not a IP attorney and not an expert in this area. But I did realize that what Andrew was talking about was very jumbled. The live performance of cover songs issue also was flubbed, or at least confused, as generally this is not covered under the 9.1 cent mechanical licensing system, but rather is a public performance license obtained generally by venues, not the artists. Most public performance licenses are issued by one of the performing rights organizations (PRO) such as BMI or ASACP. Unfortunately, this was a bit of a mess of an episode.

law
>>69086020

Sorry you found it a mess. Multiple musicians wrote in to say it matched their experience, and we certainly tried to bracket where our expertise was and was not. We do our best. One suggestion for the future: you might want to avoid unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric like “really confusing,” “jumbled,” “flubbed” (!), and “a bit of a mess” when your criticisms amount to little more than quibbles. In the future you might want to try something like “hey, could you discuss the difference between satire and parody, recognizing that you essentially summarized a semester-long 2L elective in 45 minutes?”

Anonymous

"... I hate Weird AL Yankovic" - Bill Barr