Universal Music Has No Sense Of Humor, Takes Down Hilarious Twitter Profile Pun Parody Of Nirvana Song
from the get-over-yourself-UMG dept
Earlier today Techdirt writer Tim Geigner pointed me to a YouTube video that used Twitter user names to create a punnish version of the 80s hit “Tainted Love” retitled Tweeted Love. It’s pretty amusing:
Pure genius. https://t.co/JAofqaGXkx Watch before someone files a DMCA takedown.
— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) August 28, 2015
Oh goodness, I abhor the song, but this was so well done! https://t.co/Rzxen4n4aB
— Tim Chase (@gumnos) August 28, 2015
This just made my week. Amazing. https://t.co/DuQUZvUvsp
— J Herskowitz (@jherskowitz) August 28, 2015
This is brilliant. Watch it now before it disappears. https://t.co/XdZ4rDIgxC
— Brian Fitzpatrick (@therealfitz) August 28, 2015
OMG! That's amazing! https://t.co/VbzF95QSmG
— Nate Hoffelder (@thDigitalReader) August 28, 2015
This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time, I'm laughing uncontrollably, had to pause to calm down https://t.co/0gehTgj4q4
— Jordan S. Terry (@The_Analyst) August 28, 2015
@mmasnick Thanks for the mentions, Mike. YT says UMG are monetizing the video so hoping we'll be okay re ?.:)
— Jim Mortleman (@Jimjar) August 28, 2015
And it’s a hellishly stupid decision. The video was fantastic and didn’t take anything away from the song. It certainly wasn’t a replacement for the song and, if anything, was likely to draw a lot more interest to the song and remind people of its existence. I’m not a huge fan of the song, but have been humming it to myself all afternoon because of that video (which I ended up watching a few times).
Also, this seems like a pretty clear case of fair use — though I imagine some will disagree. The hilarious use of twitter user names to create alternative lyrics to the song is quite transformative. No one was watching this video as a replacement for the original song, but because the video itself sort of celebrated the song with alternative lyrics made up entirely of Twitter profile names where “Here we are now, entertain us” because “Huey Long Gnarl Emma Talus” (if you haven’t seen the actual video… it’s much funnier in the way it was presented). And now it’s all gone and you can’t see it.
All because of copyright law and UMG’s total lack of a sense of humor.
Even if you think the fair use case is bunk and that the video is infringing and UMG is totally, 100% in the right to do what it did, I’m curious how this helps UMG in any way, shape or form. It doesn’t help them get any more money, and it just makes people pissed off. How is that a smart business decision?
Update: Jim has now posted a silent version of the video so you can see what it looks like, though it’s really not the same effect (though you can try to line up the audio with it to try to replicate the effect):
Filed Under: contentid, copyright, jim mortleman, kurt cobain, music, nirvana, parody, puns, takedown, twitter profiles
Companies: google, twitter, umg, universal music, universal music group, youtube
Comments on “Universal Music Has No Sense Of Humor, Takes Down Hilarious Twitter Profile Pun Parody Of Nirvana Song”
"I accept your terms, enjoy your nothing."
So they were getting money from monetizing the video, and now they get nothing. Absolutely brilliant, I can see they’re really focused on making sure that the artists make as much money, and get as much exposure, as they can.
As always, watching their actions is like watching someone aim a gun at their foot, pull the trigger, and then start screaming about how painful it is and won’t someone punish that guy standing over over there who had the gall to tell them that they were making a mistake, and who is clearly at fault?!
Add another entry to the list of reasons to avoid the parasites at all costs. The sooner they die off the better.
I imagine Kurt’s murdered body or ashes spinning over this bit of stupidity.
Even Nirvana's bassist liked it!
Thanks for the write-up, Mike. Yes, it seems so stupid. Even Nirvana bassist Krist retweeted the video, so he obviously doesn’t have a problem with it. I’ll get on to UMG next week and see if we can’t sort this out with a bit of common sense. In the meantime, I’m posting a SILENT version of the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTYJvOCDzjc) that people can sync with a legitimate version of the audio, also freely available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg) and readily playable in another browser tab or synced using a site like youtubedoubler.com. Just an unnecessary PITA.
Re: Even Nirvana's bassist liked it!
Added the silent version to the post…
Re: Even Nirvana's bassist liked it!
Jim — We’ll make this more insane, but I have a request. I’m trying to use YouTubeDoubler to make this work, but yours needs to start at about 30.5 seconds in; the site only allows full seconds. Could you trim a smidge from it (or add an extra ~0.5 seconds of black at the beginning) so they match up? Here’s the best I can do with the ones currently up: http://youtubedoubler.com/gjLD
Re: Re: Even Nirvana's bassist liked it!
Just spotted this – thanks. Won’t have time to trim, render and upload another copy tonight (it’s 1.30am here in the UK) but will try to get a better-synced version up soon if I can’t get the takedown lifted. In the meantime, it’s possible on youtubedoubler to get a better sync by quickly pausing and unpausing the video that’s playing ahead until the two come into perfect sync.
Re: Re: Even Nirvana's bassist liked it!
Thanks for that. I think it works fine the way you have it set up.
Re: Even Nirvana's bassist liked it!
Nirvana’s bassist Krist or other band members have absolutely no say in this. They sold their rights to the song to the record company. They have at best advisory function regarding its marketing. If they behave too uppity, the record company may dump them and rescind their rights to perform any of their previous songs for the exclusive contract durations.
They would not be the first artists who have been shut down by their producers in that manner. It can be a real downer for your career if you may not perform the songs you have become known for.
Just posted:
Smells Like Tweet Spirit (SILENT, non-infringing-version)
https://youtu.be/bTYJvOCDzjc
Re: Re:
Sort of misnomer, since the original video wasn’t infringing either, UMG be damned.
Someone posts a video on the internet. Several comments say “Enjoy it before it is taken down.”
When your business is known for its over-aggressive copyright stance and not for the media it is supposed to be releasing, there is a problem.
Re: Re:
They’re just mad someone else did something more interesting with their content than they did.
http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbTYJvOCDzjc&start1=31&video2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhTWKbfoikeg&start2=0&authorName=snoopsagan
Sync link
Thanks to @pgregg, who provided a shortcut to a youtubedoubler syncing my silent version with the legitimate version. Kind of demonstrates the idiocy of the block, no? http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhTWKbfoikeg&start1=0&video2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbTYJvOCDzjc&start2=31&authorName=PG
Do you remember when Universal Music Group censored the Megaupload song.
Re: Re:
Oh wait, it’s blocked by “MediaWorks TV Limited”.
Re: Re: Re:
Odd. Wonder what their interest is? Will have to investigate fully next week.
Hilarious?
I guess that depends on your sense of humour. I couldn’t watch but about 30-40 seconds. A bunch of screen grabs flashing by left me underwelhmed, to say the least. But gush on internet, gush on.
Re: Hilarious?
Each to their own. You really need to get to the punned names rather than the instrumental intro to “get it”. We’re going for a “misheard lyrics” vibe, rather like the old Maxell tape ads, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAsmf1LGcpA
Re: Re: Hilarious?
They say that if you have to explain a joke it really isn’t funny
Re: Re: Re: Hilarious?
They say that if you have to explain a joke it really isn’t funny
It’s also possible that it’s very funny and some people just don’t get it at first.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hilarious?
The thing about sayings like that is that they exist because they are true.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hilarious?
But not always. I’ll be the first to admit that I watched the video and didn’t get it at first. It wasn’t until half way through that I finally “got it”, at which point I cracked up and started over from the beginning. Reminds me of those bad lip reading videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOQnk-hRVuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR4lLJu_-wE
Re: Re: Re:4 Hilarious?
yes, those are great, Pink Shark. Cheers – we’re shooting for a similar vibe with ours.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hilarious?
The thing about sayings like that is that they exist because they are true.
No, sorry, sayings don’t exist because they are true, they exist for any of a number of reasons, only one of which is being true. Some exist because they feel like they are true (but aren’t). Some because they are witty or memorable. And so on.
Re: Re: Re:4 Hilarious? Nah,
Whatever. But nothing sucks the funny out of something quite like the guy who made it having to explain why it’s funny.
That Redneck Avengers video is some funny shit, though.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hilarious?
Oh, I got it okay (merp merp), just didn’t do anything for me. However, I do appreciate the effort and detail that went into creating it.
What have you lost? Quantify it. Fair Question after you've long jeered at music industry unable to quantify losses.
Actually, you gained a piece to fill in here.
>>> “It certainly wasn’t a replacement for the song and, if anything, was likely to draw a lot more interest to the song and remind people of its existence.” — Yes. And I hate it. A particularly polarizing song, I’d say. It’s not all solely positive for the tune as YOU assert. THIS makes me like UMG and copyright, though, to spare us from endless stupid version of the worst crap.
>>> It doesn’t help them get any more money, and it just makes people pissed off.” — No, again, just YOUR assertion. Older people LIKE the songs of their youth in ways younger probably never will. To your generation, everything is a parody and little fervently believed; you have no abiding associations for tunes or anything, constantly seek the new even though haven’t “grokked”, for want of better word, the old. Your loss. But anyway, parody of favorite by some young punk likely annoys older listeners, so is a loss for them.
Re: Re:
out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
Re: What have you lost? Quantify it. Fair Question after you've long jeered at music industry unable to quantify losses.
Go yell at a cloud.
Re: What have you lost? Quantify it. Fair Question after you've long jeered at music industry unable to quantify losses.
The video has been taken by someone who does not own it, and the original owner is also denied access to it for his own legal purposes. I think this is a pretty cut-and-dried case of theft.
Re: FFS
Why do you all keep putting wind in the sails of the troll by replying to him?
Everyone who replies to the troll DESERVES a Report click
Re: Re: FFS
Umm, you just replied to him.
Re: Re: Re: FFS
Thanks again.
I’m wondering: will you ever figure out how this whole comment thing works?
Re: Re: FFS
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Re: What have you lost? Quantify it. Fair Question after you've long jeered at music industry unable to quantify losses.
Here is the village idiot singing the song of his people.
Re: What have you lost? Quantify it. Fair Question after you've long jeered at music industry unable to quantify losses.
Wow. You are indeed a little tyrant dipshit. Where to start?
What have you lost? Quantify it.
Really? Does everything need a monetary value in your petty, distorted mind? The AUTHOR didn’t bother putting a monetary value to it, he just released so people would enjoy it. How valuable is it when you want to reach everybody instead of limiting it by charging?
Yes. And I hate it. A particularly polarizing song, I’d say. It’s not all solely positive for the tune as YOU assert. THIS makes me like UMG and copyright, though, to spare us from endless stupid version of the worst crap.
YOU think it’s crap. And you may have any opinion you wish. But you CANNOT force your opinion on others. I hate rap. With passion. But I think it’s awesome that there are plenty of people that like it and that it is able to thrive. Because I know there are plenty of people that hate metal but I love it. Thankfully we as a society agreed that freedom of speech is awesome and so we must allow even what we don’t like. You see, you showed your despicable little tyrant here. If it’s not the way you like then it should be taken down. You piece of trash.
But anyway, parody of favorite by some young punk likely annoys older listeners, so is a loss for them.
So what? What if the old songs are offensive to the youngsters? Should we take them down because of it? And what is the loss again? Nobody is forcing you to watch the video and listen to the parody. Not to mention there is plenty of jokes about the younger people running amongst the older generation. And why should anybody care? I’ll ask again: SO WHAT?
I do hope you are doing it on purpose for the sake of trolling. If that’s how you truly think then you are indeed a despicable piece of trash. Lucky you free speech also allow such type of idiocy, no?
“Universal Music Has No Sense Of Humor”
What do you mean they have no sense of humour? They call themselves “Universal” Music and I still laugh every time I see the name.
Again, each to their own. A group of us works very hard on amusingly punning these songs using social network profiles and we’ve covered genres from the 60s to the 90s (so far) including blues, prog rock, rock, punk, electro and grunge. We make our choice of songs based on the potential for misheard lyrics, not the quality of the songs per se, and have deliberately varied the genres we parody. And they clearly have a broad appeal – our work has been lauded by the national press in the UK, France, Eire, a number of big blogs as well as being aired on one of BBC TV’s flagship new programmes here in the UK, Newsnight. As for young punks, I’m 46 and some of my fellow punsters are even older! 🙂
Re: Re:
Sorry, ‘news programmes’ not ‘new programmes’ that should’ve read… or even ‘programs’, as you say on your side of the pond. 🙂
Re: Re:
we’ve covered genres from the 60s to the 90s (so far) including blues, prog rock, rock, punk, electro and grunge.
Classical choral works could be funny too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scCTty3KDLk
Re: Re: Re:
Haha! Just got round to watching this nasch – brilliant! Laughing out loud. Yes, certainly scope for a classical one twittter-stylee, too.
except for one minor detail
parodies are protected under fair use clause… just ask Weird Al
Re: except for one minor detail
And what’s that got to do with anything?
Apparently nothing, until we can find a way to fix this ridiculous overreach. I wonder if UMG even knows what “universal” means; just a little ironic there. This is the opposite of that. It’s Non-existent, no longer being monetized, slapped away because ContentID allows them to bully anyone they feel like. They’re being allowed to ignore the law, and Google’s YouTube is enabling that with their broken, unfairly rigged ContentID system.
Fail, all around.
Subterranean Facebook Blues
Now we’ve discovered youtubedoubler.com, we can finally show folks our punny version of Bob Dylan’s “Subterranean Homesick Blues” (re-titled “Subterranean Facebook Clues”) on YouTube. (It was up on Vimeo for a while and managed to get about 50K hits, but we had to take it down on legal advice.) Slient version synced to legitimate audio can now be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/sub-fb-blues. Every cloud, as they say…
Re: Subterranean Facebook Blues
(‘Blues’ not ‘Clues’ – autocorrect!)