Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Colbert's take on the HNIC theme


.

Labels: ,

12 Comments:

At 1:33 PM, June 11, 2008, Blogger Black Dog said...

ha

he's no jon stewart but he's a funny dude

 
At 1:58 PM, June 11, 2008, OpenID tersa said...

He's no Jon Stewart, but Stewart wasn't the inspiration for an OHL team's mascot, and wasn't mentioning that team weekly on his show. :)

 
At 2:12 PM, June 11, 2008, Anonymous Slater said...

I'll bet Dolores Claman is kicking herself for selling her rights to CTV. She could have had the chance to sue the Colbert Report for unauthorized use of her jingle. The Colbert Report!

 
At 3:50 PM, June 11, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Claman was suing to protect her copyright, not to get rich.

Coincidentally, the contract with CBC expired and she sold the song to the highest bidder.
The same thing those of us with jobs do every day - we exchange our time for money - presumably with the employer willing to pay the most for what we produce.

Claman is not greedy. She sold what was rightfully hers.
CTV is not greedy. It made a business decision.
CBC made a business decision.

What is it about Canadians and hating success when it's measured in money? Do we only appreciate people when they're running on one leg or overcoming massive drinking problems to win a silver mug? What a nation of myopians we are.

 
At 4:26 PM, June 11, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...


The same thing those of us with jobs do every day - we exchange our time for money - presumably with the employer willing to pay the most for what we produce.


Yeah it's the same if we continue to get paid for work we did last week, or 40 years ago.

 
At 5:40 PM, June 11, 2008, Blogger itchit said...

@anonymous -"Do we only appreciate people when they're running on one leg"
A guy gets diagnosed with cancer in his knee, gets his leg amputated and instead of feeling sorry for himself he decides to run a marathon every day across Canada. He embraces unbelievable pain and exhaustion in order to raise money for people he'll never even meet. He's forced to stop because of a cancerous lump the size of a lemon in each lung, and dies a year later.
Call me myopic all you want but I can appreciate what that guy did.

p.s. - how in the world does that compare to Dolores Claman?

 
At 7:08 PM, June 11, 2008, Anonymous slater said...

@anonymous:

Copyright law is meant to encourage and reward artists for creating "culture", but the law has always placed limits on how and for how long an artist can control and capitalize on their work. These limits go back to the first copyright law, the Statute of Anne, because in the end our culture should belong to *us*. That's what public domain is all about. Sadly these limits have been continuously eroded as content has become big business in the last 20 or so years.

Dolores Clamen is free to exploit Canada's lax copyright laws and the loopholes in her original contract with the CBC to maximize her personal gain if she so chooses, but that doesn't make it the morally "right" thing to do, especially for a 40-year-old "jingle" that is only culturally valuable by association. She can and should be criticized for her actions, because there's a big difference between fairness and greed.

Anyway, it does provide a great opportunity for us to reevaluate Canada's copyright law and how is does and does not serve the public good, especially at a time when big media (RIAA, MPAA, etc) are aggressively trying to move our copyright law significantly in the other direction.

 
At 11:30 PM, June 11, 2008, Blogger Jawsh said...

funny stuff, thanks mirtle.

 
At 12:59 AM, June 12, 2008, Anonymous NHL Observer said...

Slater:

Your Comment is what makes Stephen Colbert waving a hot dog with a gun in his mouth funny. The HNIC song did not stop being part of Canada's culture the other day. It will always be part of Canadian culture. The song just changed sponsors. You'll have to catch it on a different night, on a different channel. It's still uniquely Canadian. It's still associated with what is good and fun about hockey. Shame on the CBC for trying to play hardball with an institution that they could have kept in perpetuity, with a little foresight.

"Dolores Clamen is free to exploit Canada's lax copyright laws and the loopholes in her original contract with the CBC to maximize her personal gain if she so chooses, but that doesn't make it the morally "right" thing to do, especially for a 40-year-old "jingle" that is only culturally valuable by association. She can and should be criticized for her actions, because there's a big difference between fairness and greed."

 
At 1:25 AM, June 12, 2008, Blogger eyebleaf said...

that was pretty dope. thanks james.

 
At 10:09 AM, June 12, 2008, Blogger Doogie said...

Yeah it's the same if we continue to get paid for work we did last week, or 40 years ago.

I've seen this argument a few times, and it hasn't gotten any less retarded. Copyright law exists to protect creators from having their ideas used without credit and to allow them to be compensated for contributing something more to society than simple labour, as a means of encouraging more of the same. I'm not sure I understand this sudden movement to have copyright law changed -- conveniently to 40 years from 99 or whatever it is now -- but it's exceedingly self-serving and short-sighted. It's like a software or music pirate bitching about copy protection. It's not faaaiiiiir.

Dolores Clamen is free to exploit Canada's lax copyright laws and the loopholes in her original contract with the CBC to maximize her personal gain if she so chooses, but that doesn't make it the morally "right" thing to do, especially for a 40-year-old "jingle" that is only culturally valuable by association. She can and should be criticized for her actions, because there's a big difference between fairness and greed.

Wait, you're saying that songs can become more famous or significant when coupled with a pre-existing entertainment property than they would otherwise? Shocking! Look, she wrote a song that found its way into the cultural pantheon of the nation. It doesn't matter how it got there, it did, and I have no problem with her taking financial advantage of that fact within the bounds of the law. There isn't a person in here who wouldn't if it were them, and don't try to bullshit me otherwise. All this pearl-clutching self-righteousness is getting entirely out of hand.

 
At 5:39 AM, June 14, 2008, Anonymous Vandelay5000 said...

With all the comments about copyright, it's sadly appropriate that the YouTube clip has been removed due to a copyright claim by Viacom (owners of Comedy Central, The Colbert Report's network)

But you can still find it online at comedynetwork.ca if you look for the 06/10/2008 episode. It is in Clip 2 of 4 at the 3:32 mark.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


.

Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker