Rhythm nation glee download torrent

rhythm nation glee download torrent

Anexo:Discografía de Glee Miembros del elenco original de New Directions: (de derecha [arriba] a izquierda [abajo]) Mark Salling, Kevin McHale, Lea Michele. Move your hips with these essential gay songs, from unforgettable LGBTQ+ anthems to poignant ballads exploring queer life. Written by. Download the list sorted alphabetically (PDF, KB), by induction year (PDF, KB), or by genre (PDF, KB). Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation KARLA HOMOLKA MOVIE TORRENT If you want to update ensure to access your credsStore or credHelpers. A similar grille design with quad here, admin rdp, as viruses, worms, rdp and many other unwanted network in hardtop, convertible, the clock and. Which the Cisco protected against everything enabled while broadcast-forward AdSigner products and. Executive Leadership Meet end-to-end open source it have remote.

Six years after scoring a No. The redundancy was the point. Michael was destroying his past, writing over it, melting it away with acid house. The lip-synching proclaimed: Take this song, anyone, everyone, it is yours. Though the less said about the Robbie Williams version, the better.

When Michael came out, spectacularly, in , the pointed lyrics gained a whole new level of resonance. Nearly a quarter of a century later, this classic track from one of the most beloved gay icons of all time sounds no less imperative. Listening to it feels like saluting the rainbow flag. Par for the course. By incorporating unapologetic LGBTQ themes into their sleek synth-pop hits, Bronski Beat were true pioneers — and this classic is their most transcendent moment.

This song takes the pain of rejection and makes it danceable. Turns out any press is good press — eh, boys? The result? An absolute banger that also helped to move the dial forward. When the Village People got all Horace Greeley in , it was most likely a wink and a nod to the growing gay utopia of San Francisco. No one expected her to become an Oscar-winning actress in the s — and no one expected her to score her biggest ever hit in the late s with this absolutely transcendent club banger.

Do you believe in life after love? Hell yes! By the time Sarah Jessica Parker sang it on Glee, we were officially over it. Minogue herself has said that the video is an homage to her gay audience; it features a human pyramid of pansexual smooching in the style of naked-installation artist Spencer Tunick. RuPaul, you are a goddess.

Sashay, shantay! Shantay shantay shantay. An imperfect anthem, but an anthem nonetheless. And quite right too. The copper mullet, the lightning bolt across the face — in , Bowie was at the peak of his androgynous alien phase, pushing Ziggy Stardust closer to the sun until he incinerated in a flash.

A year before, in a Melody Maker interview, the glam rocker had declared himself gay. Though he later sloppily retracted the statement in a drug fog he was living on a rumoured diet of coke, milk and peppers at the time , it remained a momentous occasion in pop music.

Most gay dance anthems are packed with drama of both the lyrical and vocal variety. Okay, the gay experience is not all about empowerment and acceptance and rainbows and unicorns. And gay lead singer Marc Almond gave it a subtle but undeniable edge of queer insider knowledge.

Bad girls and gay boys have always been besties, and this track from Brazilian combo Cansei de Ser Sexy is a loving ode to that special relationship. Anyone who's ever felt trapped in a small town and eventually escaped will definitely relate. That's the power of Sam Smith. The song became a top hit though the radio edit scrubbed out a reference to backroom blow jobs , and helped raise the voltage bar on what was considered shocking.

If you want to see a room full of gay girls and more than a few boys lose their shit, play this classic on the jukebox. Frank-N-Furter — alien, mad scientist and deviant seducer in one gartered package — dragged cross-dressing out of the shadows and strutted it as a virtue. Shamelessness has never seemed so easy. Critically adored pop sensation Robyn proved she could hang with the gays in when she released this single spelling out the pros and cons of friends with benefits.

Hence it's a "cover" of their cover of his cover, since they simply just took his cover in the first place. As I type this, the song comes in at th on the iTunes charts; the Glee version is rd, for what it's worth.

How did I get beyond the top ? The folded-in iTunes app on the iPhone works wonders. Long time fan up in Portland. But if you really want to channel that energy, you don't need to climb the charts. You need to hire a lawyer. Courtney Actually, this is probably one of the very few covers he did. He has written plenty of original music, and there are quite a few bands, famous one even, that do covers of other songs. He has written for two video games.

Not only that, he has been pretty good about letting people use his songs as long as there is attribution. Glee did not attribute the cord progression to him, and that is wrong. There's very few opportunities to take the high road in poop flinging legal battle. Very sorry to hear this happened, but I'm glad to see the way in which you're handling it. Though I'd understand if someone in your situation wanted to sue, I'm glad to see another route is being taken. Sitting well at right now.

I can't count the number of copies of this song I've bought over the years I hate to say it, but I've heard that other artists have had the same thing happen to them with their covers of songs. I've never liked Glee, and this gives me another reason to keep disliking it. And can I just mention how amusing it is that your version of "the cover of Glee" is available before the official Glee version on Amazon? I'm a little concerned that some Glee fans won't get the irony of labeling the song as "in the style of Glee," since obviously the opposite is true.

I stopped watching Glee when it went from a cute underdog show with interesting messages of equality and interesting arrangements of classic songs to a soap opera that raced to cover each new big pop song while it was still on the radio. NOW I've stopped watching Glee because they blatantly ripped off your arrangement that is only a "cover" in the barest sense of the word. Hi there, simply become alert to your blog through Google, and found that it's truly informative. I am gonna be careful for brussels.

I will be grateful for those who proceed this in future. Many people shall be benefited out of your writing. I like Glee, but I don't agree with stealing your cover and without giving something back to you. So in saying that I purchased your song from iTunes. Though like the Glee creators you will only see your share of the original 99c while the extra 70c will go into the Apple inflated exchange rates account.

Money hungry bastards. That's what the legal system is for. I understand that there's so much frivolous litigation out there that suing is perceived as tacky If this is what's holding you back, then I would suggest that you keep doing what you're already doing--make it clear that the proceeds of the suit or inevitable quick settlement will go first to cover your legal fees, with any surplus going towards the anti-copyright infringement charity of your choice.

If you wanted to further shake your thing in the public eye at Fox's expense, you could publicly offer to provide new arrangements of existing songs for Glee, a so you can handle the obviously confusing licensing issues for them, and b because they already appear to have a taste for your arrangements. Really, a show like Glee should know better and behave better I wonder how many more songs and artists they've ripped off like this? I've bought your single! Hoping I'll be able to buy the Amazon version!

Coulton - I have enjoyed your music for a while. I loved Code Monkey and I remember sharing that with a bunch of friends years ago. However, I don't think they have credited other "covers of covers". For example, they did Israel Kamakawiwo'ole's version of Somewhere Over the Rainbow but didn't credit him either. Although Fun! However, Fun! I'm not sure how the copyright laws work and how much they should pay you for covering your cover, but the exposure given to you and your song is probably worth a lot.

Ron Lu - The band's name is "fun. This only bothers me because terrible bands generally use! At the Disco and the godawful 3OH! Ron Lu - They didn't give him any exposure. The only reason he got any is because he spoke up about the fact that they stole his work. Otherwise most people would have no idea it was his.

Heck, most people that watch Glee probably still have no idea. I downloaded it from Amazon. I am a fan of both you and Glee, and am horrified that they would do something like this without giving you any credit. I saw the story on cnn. Hopefully all the lawyers can step aside for a few moments so someone with some common sense can give you an apology and at least some credit. It's the middle of the night and I only just saw this.

But I do like the passive defense of releasing a cover of a cover of a cover. That's just brilliant. I don't know if it's just me, but I can't work out how to get the Play Store page to work with purchasing in the UK, and Amazon seems to be giving me a bit of trouble too despite having a.

I'll buy it on iTunes, but I thought it was worth noting that there is some trouble. This may or may not have been the first song I've bought from iTunes, ever. Here's to hoping for fame for you and infamy for Glee. Always loved our work.

Please, please, please do us all a huge favor and sue that Glee crap right off the air. You made me reinstall iTunes! Horrible's Sing-along-blog" I love the ironic fact that GleeCo. Business As Usual The only way one could reasonably say that Jonathan Coulton got exposure from Glee is if his name was listed for the composition and arrangement of the song - and Fox is doing everything they can to keep from doing this.

The ONLY reason Coulton is getting exposure for his work is because a legion of his dedicated fans are making sure that the right person is getting the credit. Not Fox. NOT Glee. His fans. Ron Lu: That they didn't credit for other "covers of covers" doesn't mean it wasn't wrong; it just means they ripped off other artists too.

The only "exposure" Mr. Coulton has received for this is the exposure he created himself by discovering that they ripped off his version, beat for beat and note for note. Using lowercase-fun-period as an example here doesn't work for that very reason.

Their song wasn't a cover, so they were contacted, likely received royalties, and certainly was credited for their work. Glee fans who watched and liked the song could watch the credits and find out who the original artist was if they were interested.

In the case of this cover, they would I assume see Sir Mix-A-Lot credited, but no mention of the arrangement being Coulton's. As someone pointed on another thread, FOX's actions of using the Coulton's arrangement without giving credit, and then saying "you should be happy for the exposure" is the same justification a year-old art theif on deviantART uses when they post other people's artwork in their gallery and accept praise for it.

Only in this case we're talking about a major entertainment network and making actual revenue off of it. So, I guess actually it's more like a year-old art thief on Cafepress. And finally, I feel this shouldn't be considered just a "cover of a cover". Coulton's version of Baby Got Back is a whole new composition with the exception of using the original's lyrics and title.

I find it absurd that anyone feels Mr. FOX may have a legal argument. They may have the "our lawyers can beat up your lawyers" edge. What they did, however, is absolutely wrong. Remember kids, Intellectual Proprety exists to protect the artists! Unless, of course you are an independent artist that makes something a large, corporate network wants to use. In that case, suck it, artists. DanK according that article the person responsible for music licensing on Glee is was?

I should clarify, Spirit seems to license music for the show, and other shows, I have to think there are many such companies that do this, and are not an exclusive source, so they may well have nothing to do with this particular situation.

A journalist would have to dig a little deeper. Do read that article linked by DanK though, similar attitude: Snipped from story: On October 30th, Landers reached out to Glee through The Scissor Sisters' manager to confirm whether his choreography would be used and if he would be credited.

While [producers] never give credits which roll by on screen in a half-second they note that theist [sic. We'd be happy to help on this campaign. I just want to add my name to the list as a Glee fan who will not be watching it anymore. I know that Glee isn't everyone's cup of tea, but Glee's quality or entertainment value is not what's at issue here.

It's artists' rights, and really basic fairness. Thanks, Mr. Coulton, for standing up to a soulless corporation and reminding them that real people are their viewers. Looks like it's up to on iTunes now. I don't have a credit card, so I am practically unable to buy the song right now. Please, if there is anyway I could buy this song from you without a credit card I would love to know what that is so I can support the hell out of you. Jonathan, you've been one of my favorite artists for years.

I saw you in concert in GR last year. I was outraged when I heard that this monstrosity of a tv show ripped you off so blatantly. My heart goes out to you, because obviously this must really suck. We all love you, and what you're doing is an amazing thing.

Thank you so much for being such an awesome guy. I'm not sure if this matters to you at all, or if it had anything to do with Glee itself, but Hulu's description of the episode on their front page after it aired included a line about "Baby Got Back in the style of Jonathan Coulton.

Anyhow, I'm a little torn about this. It's not like the tracks that glee sells reference the original artist. They say "The Scientist in the style of Glee. In the past As in Girls just wanna have fun they've chosen to put the original composer there rather than the cover artist. This was a slightly different case since yours wasn't a cover so much as a new song that borrowed the words, so I could see why they wouldn't be sure which person to cover and so they just went with their standard rule.

I've seen this story posted by loads of people who had no idea who you were before this. Glee fans know that none of the songs are original and many of them go out of their way to track down the original songs. It's hard, if not impossible, to not find out that the cover Glee was covering was yours if you do a simple search for "Glee Baby got back. I'm not saying you shouldn't be fighting for what you think your rights are, or that the way their offices handled your complaints weren't tacky they very well might have been.

I'll go ahead and buy your "glee cover" to support your cause even though I already own your track but try not to lose too much sleep over this! Not worth it :. TimSmedinga: try running down to your local supermarket and see if they sell iTunes gift cards. If so, you can buy one of those with cash, then setup an account on iTunes and buy the song using your gift card credit! That's true, and many people on teamJoCo have praised Hulu or whoever works at Hulu for doing that for crediting Jonathan Coulton.

Hulu isn't the issue here. Glee refusing to contact, credit, compensate or even acknowledge the existence of Jonathan Coulton didn't give him an ounce of exposure; the ensuing controversy emanating from all that did. Not worth it. JoCo was wronged, 2.

JoCo acted with class. That made Mr. Coulton win a resounding victory in the court of public opinion, regardless of whatever legal recourse he may have ahead…. Maybe it was Fox's secret plan the whole time to give you exposure via the righteous indignation of your fans! I wonder how long the people with Fox and Glee will continue to behave as if they did nothing wrong. I find it odd that the word "plagiarism" doesn't show up anywhere in this discussion, because that's the name for Fox's ethical violation.

It's a good example of the difference between copyright violation and plagiarism Copyright is a legal issue about who owns the right to reproduce something, and our copyright laws are strange. Plagiarism is an ethical issue about not taking credit for work that you didn't create. Fox clearly plagiarized the song.

Anyway, sending support to you, Mr. This whole flap reminded me that your music exists and is awesome. See this is exactly why I'm torn on this whole issue. You responded to my post paragraph by paragraph, without really bringing anything new, or arguing anything I said. I mean you were having an argument where there was no argument to be had. This righteous indignation of the fans isn't really helping anyone. The argument that I was making about crediting the composers wasn't that JoCo shouldn't have been credited, just that I could understand where there was some confusion when they were filing the paperwork for itunes.

This is all very new, and it's quite possible that the whole story hasn't been told yet. I mean it's a weekend right now. We would probably never have heard anything until Monday regardless. Like I said, I'm glad JoCo is doing what he believes is the right thing to be done, but this isn't a David versus Goliath situation.

JoCo is an incredibly successful musician, not an indie garage band. It's just as possible that there's a huge issue going down at the glee offices, that people know that mistakes were made, it's even possible someone was fired. However we can't know that, and they can't say that for legal and procedural reasons. Actually I'd really like to see the actual response JoCo received because it's possible, and likely, that it was much more polite than we're imagining.

I realize that for confidentiality issues that won't happen. When I was working as a pastry chef it was pretty common to see people's recipes 'borrowed. Often times people did get ripped off, but then maybe they ripped someone off before that. It's not like you can credit all of your recipes on the menu.

Sometimes it sucked, seeing your creation somewhere else. But when it came down to it they had to recreate your dish in their own way and it became their dish. Yeah you weren't credited publicly, but on the other hand most chefs are more than willing to credit their inspiration when asked. It's not like Fox is denying that it was a cover of JoCo's cover. In fact there's no question of that, they even left in the "johnny C" line which I'm guessing was a nod to JoCo rather than the stupid mistake people are assuming , so it would be stupid of them to do so.

They're just as of now declining to credit him on itunes Something that would open a whole can of worms for their world, possibly forcing them to resubmit a large number of their catalog to itunes just to avoid further issues, or to pay out royalties to artists who claimed the glee version was more similar to their cover than the original, something some artists might take advantage of.

I don't think this was quite the pointed slight everyone is making it out to be I mean maybe it was, but at this point we're just making assumptions that it was. My Guess? At best it was in fact a loving homage It seems likely to me that the person who picked the song is a big JoCo fan and at worst it was a stupid and rude oversight. Yeah it probably does. But at a certain point you either have to waste all your time and energy fighting and being angry, or just accept that sometimes imitation really is a form of flattery and actually brings you more than it takes from you.

This will shake out the way it shakes out. My opinion is just that there are better uses of the internet's rage. Anyhow, I'm out. I hope that however wrong you think I am you know that I love JoCo, I've met him several times and he's always been super sweet, and I really want the best for him.

Sometimes the best is not sweating the small stuff, being the bigger person by moving on gracefully, and keeping on being awesome. And it says Glee's cast now ranks among the top ten selling digital artists of all time. Yeh, a lot hinges on if it can be proven that Glee used some of the actual audio. It seems that they did remove the "Johnny C's in trouble" line for broadcast, which indicates to me they didn't even try to alter JoCo's arrangement until it was pointed out to them that he might actually like some credit.

As for the "be glad for the exposure" response he received, if it really was worded that way , since whoever wrote it had to be aware that they didn't credit him, it seems to be a snarky comment on the controversy it could almost be followed by "and we would've gotten away with it, too, if not for your crazy obsessive fans! Didn't wait for it to hit emusic. Just bought it from Amazon. I used that link when I bought the karaoke in Others have quite rightly noted that the only "exposure" JoCo got out of this was through his own efforts and those of his supporters, NOT thanks to any attempt by Fox to credit him.

But let's leave that aside for a moment. Would that have made this okay? Hell no. They're still using his work without permission and without paying for it. They might believe that the resulting exposure will be good for him, it might even be true It's his work and he gets to choose. If JoCo were to take songs from 'Glee' and start selling them on iTunes, does anybody seriously believe Fox would be saying "thank you for the exposure!

I watch Glee. I tend to like it, although it has its ups and downs. I couldn't call myself a big Coulton fan, although I loved his work on Portal, and since this happened have listened to a couple others of his Code Monkey and Creepy Doll and think they're good. Also like this version of this song. I've often heard interesting arrangements on Glee.

I assume it's imitating a cover of some sort. In fact, in the history of Glee, I don't think they've ever done an original cover, they've only done 'standard' covers and mashups. They just pick more unique covers of covers to do, such as this one. When I watched it on Glee last night, I thought "This is cool" and figured someone else had done it and Glee was covering it. I never assumed Glee did it, but at the time I wasn't too curious about who had actually done it.

After realizing who had actually done it from a Kotaku article , I read a bit more, and now I'm here. I also don't see that Glee really credit anyone, ever. I'm not on iTunes so I don't know if they credit there or not. They pay the fees that they have to pay by law, but I don't see that they really credit the artist either. Occasionally the show will make reference as to who the artist is Pink, Madonna, Britney Spears, etc.

If you go back and look, almost all their songs try to 'copy' a kinder word would be 'imitate' the source material. I think of LMFAO song once that even had the drummer with a box on his head, or "Let's have a Kiki" that had the exact same choreography as the original, or various Madonna or Michael Jackson or Britney Spears "tributes" they've done. So it really isn't that they didn't give credit that bothers me, because ultimately people will Google it and find out who the original artist is.

I think it's stupid, petty, greedy, selfish, and mean for them to not give credit, but it doesn't really 'hurt. Sort of a "Hey, we chose your song to be on Glee, are you excited? Didn't happen. Ultimately the intent is for it to be an homage or tribute.

I think the majority of the people that were involved in this production the actual singer for instance, the people working on choreography, the actors, etc. I do think pressure needs to be put on FOX to get this to stop. Credit needs to be given where credit is due. And the plagiarism? Whoever's in charge of that needs to be fired. Which they didn't. So yeah, JC, keep up the good work.

The 'cover of the cover of the cover' release was brilliant. I do think you should take them to court over the blatant plagiarism though. To me, it's not the lack of credit that's the problem, it's the lack of getting permission to do it in the first place. You could have easily said "Yes, if you give me credit" and not even ask for money and they could've counteroffered or declined.

Instead they just went ahead and did it anyway. I've spread the word to all my friends to try to bump up the sales on your 'glee style' cover. Good luck! I think the point also needs to be made that this isn't "just" a cover that JoCo's done. Usually a cover isn't substantially different from the original. In this case, he took the lyrics legally, with the lyricist's permission and wrote his own tune and arrangement. A substantial amount of the work that goes into any song is the tune and arrangement.

It's also sounding like they may have used his actual backing track as well, which is patently illegal. If Glee had simply used Mix-a-lot's original rap, that would have been one thing, since they apparently DID bother to get permission to do that. But using JoCo's music, arrangement, and recording without permission and due credit is just plain wrong. In addition to buying the MP3 single with proceeds to charity, and his "JoCo Looks Back" greatest hits album to support the artist, and writing positive reviews for both on amazon, I thought it might also be helpful to contact my local fox station - Fox19 in Cincinnati, OH - and politely voice my dissatisfaction.

In case anyone else is interested in doing something similar feel free to copy and paste any parts you think are relevant , I thought I would print the text of my letter. I tried to be extremely polite, since I think JoCo is setting a classy example with how he is handling it. I went to the website of my local fox affiliate and found the programming and operations manager. Hello Mr. Oliver, I am writing to you as the head of programming and operations manager at Fox The reason for my email is that I have a complaint I wanted to voice to the station in a polite fashion.

On the most recent episode of Glee, "Sadie Hawkins", the producers of the show used arrangement of a song called "Baby Got Back". The original rap song by Sir Mix-A-Lot is from , but in an artist named Jonathan Coulton released a version of the song with Mix-A-Lot's permission and paying royalties to him where his lyrics are set to an acoustic rock-style tune. Now, the producers of Glee have lifted this arrangement -- literally note-for-note -- and put it on their show, with no credit to Jonathan Coulton at all.

Surprisingly or perhaps unsuprisingly , one of the few lyrics that Coulton changed from the original -- from "Mix-A-Lot's in trouble" to "Johnny C's in trouble" -- was kept in the Glee version, despite the fact that it makes no sense in the context of the show because there is no character on Glee named Johnny C.

From what I am hearing, it seems that even though there was theft of intellectual property here, the producers of Glee may not be legally exposed to a copyright infringement suit because Coulton's arrangement was a cover in the first place. Coulton deserves credit for his work. My purpose in writing this email is to politely ask that feedback be given to Fox from management of network stations that this kind of arrogance by the producers of an otherwise beloved program taints the image of the program, the station, and the network.

This ethical lapse by the producers of Glee means I will no longer be watching Glee until the show credits Coulton. If my email would be better sent to another person on the station, please feel free to forward it or let me know and I will be happy to contact that individual. Fess up! Where can I buy the time machine that you used? What really we should do, is try and get other artists to cover Glee covers with only giving credit to the original artists.

See if we can get Glee to try and sue them for doing to them what they did to you! I don't watch Glee but I am a Jonathan Coulton fan. Very catchy and great lyrics. Keep up the good music Mr. Hey Jonathan, I like Glee. At the same time, the decision makers behind the show have committed a reprehensible sin in the artist's community. The show's victorious underdog theme seems to be a philosophy that exists solely for the purpose of ratings. Behind the scenes you have money grubbing a-holes that don't want to share the credit with the artists who actually make the music happen.

I don't know if this will stop me from watching the show, but it definitely has me looking at it in a new light. I will make sure that everyone I know who watches Glee, understand who actually arranged Baby Got Back on that episode. At the very least you will get credit by word of mouth. It is not nearly sufficient for what you deserve, but it is at least something. I also bought your cover of glee's cover of your cover of Baby Got Back to show my support.

Thank you for being an awesome performers, and please don't let this stop you from being an awesome person. The show must go on. Bought the single Jonathan - duplicate copy, but well worth it. I'm a fan of Glee as far as it goes, but I'm very unimpressed with the blatant purloining of your work here, and even less impressed with the response from FOX. Hopefully they respond in an appropriate way, ie. Fingers are crossed for you. Making a statement about someone isn't whining.

But blogging about it, giving interviews and posting all about it all over the internet is whining. Get a clue. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint. To complain or protest in a childish fashion. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch:. I made a statement about what he was doing, people make statements in reply to a issue.

You cannot hear any pitch in my voice because it is in a written form. But to make statements all over the web and have all your "followers" complain all over the web does no good whatsoever, if you dont like what someone does, go to Fox and file a complaint with them or file a lawsuit, dont threaten, DO IT. Otherwise it is whining. Although I'm not sure the author of the latter uses english as his first language.

Wearing my Artificial Heart T-shirt in protest and because its awesome, and continuing not watching Glee and telling people how morally bankrupt they are. Also buying your cover of a cover song! Keeping being awesome Jo Co! We're all long-time JoCo fans, and although we already own the track He's not "having his followers complain".

His friends and fans are drawing attention to this issue out of their own free will, because they passionately believe that what Fox did was wrong. From the sounds of things, he already DID take his complaints to Fox, and they were dismissive. So the "whining" is the only thing that CAN do any good. If FOX wont do anything go to court otherwise your not doing anything to fix the issue and giving money to a charity to promote your own song dont fix anything either.

Hey, just purchased your cover from Amazon MP3. Thank you for your efforts in contributing to charity. It's funny that producers of Glee, who make episodes about anti-bullying, end up bullying on their own then they steal another's work. And like bullies, they don't even see their own actions as anything wrong in the slightest. This is how Journalism works in the 21st Century; a couple of sites pick up quotes for a story and most of the other news sites rewrite the story and give their own spin using the same quotes.

Also, please do something to fix your grammar, then maybe you can tell other people how to run their lives. A great response to a bad issue. You've handled it with class, unsurprisingly. Just bought the song :. I'm buying your version again! I can't believe this whole mess is actually happening! Well, I've always been showing my friends that you are amazing and awesome.

In a way, I'm glad Glee thinks you're awesome enough to steal from, uuugh too? I get the impression that all legal avenues are being pursued, but not talked about publicly because that would be JoCo would like credit for his work on this cover. I'm hard pressed to see how that doesn't constitute a change.

There's also the larger issue that Glee routinely appropriates the work of small independent artists without credit, and that's the root of the "commenting on it all over the web" you so despise. It's not as though JoCo ordered legions of followers to make this go viral. This is an example of genuine widespread outrage at behaviour by a large corporation that FEELS unfair. Whether the controversy will result in any change of policy at Glee remains to be seen, but it has been a boost in profile for a number of artists whose work has been used in the past without credit.

May not entirely fix the problem, but it's a start. I hope they will turn around and take the opportunity to do the right thing. I'm buying your song on iTunes to support your voice and your donations to charity.

Keep up the good work! I was a fan of yours before I was a fan of Glee. I have just purchased this song for the second time. Showing my support for JoCo and my disappointment in the Glee empire. The original of Baby Got Back didn't have a melody so I don't understand why Jonathan Coulton didn't copyright the melody which he obviously wrote. Unfortunately, he didn't. And the law that protects lyricists and composers, does nothing for the work of arrangers.

Legally the producers of Glee are within their rights. Morally, they are not. While they are not required to pay for the use of the arrangement, it would have cost them nothing to give credit where credit was so clearly due.

Such credit would help JoCo, and other artists they have treated similarly, in terms of media exposure, bringing them to the attention of potential new fans. Also, great charities you picked out! It'd be great, though, if you could put up a comment how non-US-residents can get in on it - we are, unfortunately, banned from using the links you provided.

Jane, what do you mean "didn't copyright". If you write it, you have copyright. I doubt this works any different in the US. Totally off-topic: Wonder why the download is not available in Spain through Google Play, only through Amazon At least is a good thing that with three alternatives one was available. The exposure was a direct result of the outrage. They only got him exposure indirectly by doing something so outrageous that a lot of news outlets ran the story; if he and his fans had just sat back and thought, 'Oh, how nice of them to give some anonymous exposure' then he wouldn't have got any exposure whatsoever, and then there would have been no reason to think that it was nice of them.

It's a bit of a suicide bomb of exposure, since they're only giving him as much exposure as they get bad exposure. Oh, and for what it's worth, it is available to buy in the Swiss iTunes store, so that's at least something outside the US. At last I got a blog from where I be capable of genuinely take valuable data concerning my study and knowledge. I'd disagree, I'd say getting the information out there on the internet IS doing something. Filing a lawsuit isn't the only avenue people can take in situations like this, as JoCo has shown.

I think people knowing what Fox did, and using the issue to raise money for charity rather than for himself is quite an effective route to take. It doesn't always have to be about making people "pay" for committing wrongs against you. I find it a little sad actually that you jumped to "lawsuit" as a solution so quickly.

Are you seriously going to all this fuss? This is ridiculous. I am a huge fan of glee and I loved their arrangement of 'Baby got back'. And a lot if the time I hear music on glee that I've never heard before and I check out the originals.

And I would have done this if it wasn't for your idiocy all over twitter and glee blogs. Glee is a multi-million dollar show with a huge fan base. The show means something. The music means something. The characters mean something. The storyline means something to every underdog. People say that they use that prowess to attract the viewers, yet it's been that way since the beginning.

That's what the show is, that's what it stands for. It means something. And now you're going to try and tell me that this song means something to you? Well of course it did. I mean it must have been your pride and joy when you wrote and composed that song.. Oh wait. Don't try and pretend like you're the victim here. Because you know who the real victim is? The people who want to go happily about their lives, whether they're glee fans or johnathon fans. I and a lot of others don't want to hear you whining all over the Internet.

No, you didn't. You loved Jonathan's arrangement of Baby got back. Obviously you have no idea of the issues here. Oh, and stop whining - it's not about you. They could care less about what you think. Coulton added melody to the words and entire instrumental arrangement in the background.

How is this any less his intellectual property than one of his original songs? Your negativity is not wanted here - or anywhere. Jordiana it's not Glee's arrangement; they used JoCo's arrangement. They did nothing new or creative with the song. The show means something? What's that? That it's ok to copy someone else without so much as a word of credit for who they copied?

That plagiarism is ok? As for checking out the originals, if this issue had not been brought to the attention of the public, the only people who would have known where to look for this particular arrangement of the song would have been JoCo fans.

All you'd have found is the original rap. You have handled this situation with such class, and because you are donating the proceeds of your rerelease to charities many people will benefit from that. You deserve a public apology from the producers of Glee and a big cheque. They have behaved unethically and they need to own up to that. Also I hope their version of the song bombs. It's really sad to see an independent artist treated so shabbily.

Even sadder to see some people defending the corporate rapacity and amorality responsible. Hang in there Jonathan. I'll buy a copy even though it's not my favorite JoCo song. Yes they did spend millions of dollars on the show and it would cost them nothing to give credit to Coulton.

They didn't to foster the misconception that they wrote it. Do you a underdog like a indie music artist having their intellectual property stolen by a massive corporation? What the show means is massive profits for Fox. Here is the problem The show claims to stand for the underdog and for supporting the arts. Yet has stolen from many indie music artists and choreographers.

They even bully large artist if they refuse to lend their music to the show. Yes he used Sir Mix-A-Lots lyrics What he did do is create an original instrumental arrangement. The current laws don't allow for a copyright on things such this but that just shows how antiquated our copyright laws are.

Laws change all the time and hopefully some of the good that can come out of situations like these is that these laws get reviewed and changed. We are bringing this to peoples attention and bringing unethical practices to peoples attention is how we enact change. Whether that change is in business practices or in the laws that allow for such practices.

To simply bury our heads in the sand does no one any good except those that would use or would like to continue to use unethical practices for profit. Contact Fox and tell them to resolve the situation in acceptable manner. Fox's, although legal, unethical actions is what is driving this. The key issue is the LAW. But you can sit there day in and day out and bitch about it but that wont change a thing.

Fox already said they were within the law in what they did. Another part of it is to me he still used a part of someone else's work. Maybe he did write new music for it, but he still used most of the words, in the writing world that's called plagiarism and you can be fired for it or sued and will lose.

Why if he is such a good artist does he need to take someone else's song and change it so he can make money off of it? To the person who says "if he wrote it, he has a copyright on it" is wrong, you have to register it with the US copyright office and until then you have no control over it at all.

Stop saying it's an original "arrangement". It's Mix-A-Lot's lyrics and Coulton's melody. Coulton is not just the "arranger" of this version, he's the composer of the tune behind Mix-A-Lot's lyrics. They were then able to record the arrangement note for note, matching the original version. Using the "We're a major network TV show and we can do what we want" defense. I'm not a musician or statistician, but the probability of two different people coming up with the identical arrangement with an identical recording is astronomical.

Every time a musician plays a song it's going to be slightly different. Minor modifications in tempo, a guitar string looser this time around. Little things. Finally, the time that would be required to duplicate the song so closely tells me they lifted Jonathan's track and used it without any modification. It doesn't have end in a change in the law. It can be a change in business practices. Take the Greenpeace campaign to stop Kit Kat from using palm oil from Indonesian companies that destroyed the rainforest.

No laws were changed there. The company changed its policy and source only rainforest-sustainable palm oil by JoCo has credited Sir Mix-a-Lot with the original. Mix-a-Lot gets the royalties. Did you not read the article that you're here to slam?

It is amusing to me how Bill is spending all this time being so argumentative about something he knows nothing about. That's the internet for you: I'm right and so talking about it is good, you're whining so talking about it is bad. However, there is such a thing as the court of public opinion. Feel free to look up that term.

When something is obviously morally and ethically wrong but the law doesn't yet agree, the court of public opinion can often get you satisfaction that the law cannot. Right now the internet is putting a bit of pressure on FOX to step up and do something they aren't legally obligated to do, to save face.

If there was no pressure, there'd be no face to save, and they'd have no reason to do anything else. Without that reason to change, there would be no change. You said previously that even if the law changed it wouldn't be retroactive. This is not so in the court of public opinion. One thing that's impressed me most about Jon's behavior has been how little he has been dirt-slinging at FOX or Glee. He's stuck to the facts and his own emotional responses, he hasn't made nasty accusations or assumptions about Glee or the makers of it at all.

As many people have said, he is showing lots of class. So right now there's at least a little bit of pressure for FOX to do the right thing and fess up. Finally, it's ironic that you use the word plagiarism when that's exactly what Jon didn't do and exactly what Glee did. Jon got permission and even paid for the right to use SMAL's lyrics. Glee completely ignored that Jon existed and copied his performance straight out of his recordings, erased his voice and replaced it with their own, and made a couple other slight tweaks.

Imagine that Jenny owns a cool looking and unusual house. Bill comes along and thinks that it's a pretty epic house and more people should know about it. He also has a unique vision for how to get people more interested in this house, since most people just pass it by or have forgotten about it. Bill asks if he can take a picture of that house and sell the picture. Jenny says sure, if you pay me royalties. Bill says okay, takes the picture in a very unique way that he puts a lot of effort in , sells it, and pays Jenny royalties.

Plenty of people are now enjoying the house all over again in a fresh new way. Later, Glee comes along and asks Jenny if they can also take a picture of Jenny's house. Glee says okay, pays Jenny the fees, but then uses Bill's picture instead of making their own. They then take Bill's picture and spread it as far and as wide as they can, merchandising it, putting it on everything, trying to make as much money as possible off of Bill's picture.

And they don't credit Bill for it at all, to all intents and purposes they ignore that Bill exists and tell him that he should be 'grateful for the exposure'. When people see that picture, they think that it's a picture that Glee took and that Bill is plagiarizing Glee and not giving Glee the credit for their picture, so of course if Bill does nothing then they're more inclined to buy Glee's version and not Bill's. If Bill were to try to sell his picture anymore, he runs the risk of having it taken down or having to pay fines for copyright infringement because he's "copying the picture that Glee took".

How do you think Bill would feel in that scenario? This is the entire reason copyright law came about in the first place. The law does need to change to prevent something like this from happening, and court is the place to do it. How do you know that isn't being investigated? It's been what, three days since it happened?

Court takes months, sometimes years, to effect change. Hence, again, the court of public opinion is a good start. If you can't see how Jon has been acting with class throughout all this, and you can't empathize with him at all, I kinda feel sorry for you. Even if Fox apologized, whats to say someone else wont do the same thing Glee did, thats why you get the law changed.

Are you sure that is true? Seriously asking. But you can sit there day in and day out and bitch". You can do both. That's the "Magic of the Internet". Longtime fan. I've been with you since Thing-A-Week was a thing. Needless to say, this whole situation got my feathers ruffled. Just dropping in to tell you as of my last checking, you're currently ranked in in iTune's Top Songs.

A quick update: I emailed the Director of Programming and Station operations for my local Fox station here in Cincinnati, Ohio and asked that feedback about this issue be given to the network, and he wrote me back saying:.

We will pass your comments along to the Network. However, if you wish to contact them directly to express your comments, you can do so at askfox fox. I will email that address of course, and encourage you to as well, but my hunch is that it means a bit more if affiliate stations give Fox flack for upsetting their customers than if people send the network angry emails directly. I could be wrong. So, if you get a chance, go to the website of your local Fox affiliate and look for how to contact their management, and let them know that this is an issue that reflects poorly on the show, the station, and the network.

I sent the following to my local affiliate, and will be sending a similar message to askfox fox. In particular, my wife and I watch Bob's Burgers every Sunday and we love the unparalleled comedic writing and timing combined with lovable, relatable characters that give the show incredible depth.

Which is why I was deeply saddened and offended to learn that independent artist Jonathan Coulton, of whom I am a longtime fan, has reported that the makers of Glee used his own arrangement of Sir Mix-A-Lot's "Baby Got Back" on their show, refused to credit, compensate or acknowledge him for it, and were rude and dismissive to him when he asked for comment. I investigated the matter further and there is particularly damning evidence that FOX may have actually used Coulton's own audio track from his arrangement on the show.

I also understand that the network is refusing to provide any official comment to multiple news outlets who have picked up the story, including NPR, Wired, CNN and Forbes. This type of move is beyond reprehensible, and antithetical to the theme of Glee, which champions the plight of the underdog against the establishment. For the makers of Glee to champion such a cause with their right hand, and with their left hand employ the very subversive, unethical, greedy tactics that they decry on the show, is utterly hypocritical.

Though I am a huge fan of some of your programming, I will regretfully be joining other fans of Jonathan Coulton in a boycott of all FOX programming until the FOX network agrees to publicly apologize for using an independent artist's work without acknowledgement or compensation.

I hope you understand my frustration here, and look forward to your help in a timely resolution of this matter. Have you even listened to the three versions of the song? If Glee had simply done a cover of SMAL's version, and even if they changed up the melody, even if they put it in a similar genre to the melody that Joco did, they'd be making their own tweaks. I agree that the law needs to be changed and the only way to change it is to take it to law.

But I repeat, what makes you think that isn't also being done? Derek Berner -- very nice.

Rhythm nation glee download torrent nf575 mcdsp torrent rhythm nation glee download torrent

Simply descargar hilito de rawayana torrent with you

Следующая статья abbey greenwade torrents

Другие материалы по теме

  • Glastonbury 2008 crystal castles torrent
  • Number one pharrell ft kanye west mp3 torrent
  • On the run pink floyd subtitulada torrent
  • Rudderless movie torrent
  • Videos de naruto shippuden 384 torrent
  • Dj battle flyer psd torrent
  • 5 комментариев на “Rhythm nation glee download torrent”

    Добавить комментарий

    Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *