Korn ripping off Devo

[JMiller]

I see Korn's new album is called Evolution, and they've got some
crappy "trailer" for a fake movie about de-evolution on a website
called www.evolutiondevolution.com. Funny, but Devo's name isn't
mentioned once.

Why would a band rip off an entire concept that was done so much
better 30 years ago?

Or are they actually ripping it off? Devo advertises the site on
clubdevo.com now, claiming that they're getting ripped off. It makes
me wonder if this wasn't cooked up between our pal Jihad Jerry and
Korn in order to make a big publicity stink with Korn pitted against
Devo in a "war" that sells lots of Korn albums and makes Devo's price
go up.

[Gary Childs]

Post by JMiller
Why would a band rip off an entire concept that was done so much
better 30 years ago?

Because they can't come up with their own ideas.

Post by JMiller
Or are they actually ripping it off?

Yes they are, or maybe they think they came up with the concept themselves.

Post by JMiller
Devo advertises the site on clubdevo.com now

Devo isn't advertising it. They are just showing how they were getting
ripped off.

Post by JMiller
It makes
me wonder if this wasn't cooked up between our pal Jihad Jerry and
Korn in order to make a big publicity stink with Korn pitted against
Devo in a "war" that sells lots of Korn albums and makes Devo's price
go up.

Nope. I knew about it before Jerry did. He found out later, and left the
quote:
"We denounce this as imposters playing with fire." - Gerald V. Casale/DEVO
It's the kind of inside stuff you get to find out as a member of Spudtalk.
It would be a pretty poor publicity stunt. Devo is too obscure for anyone to
care, and I can't see why a band would want a reputation as plagerizers.
Besides, Korn dosen't need help selling CDs. They are massively popular,
while Devo is mostly forgotten, which might be why they can get away with
stealing their ideas.

[n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net]

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
Why would a band rip off an entire concept that was done so much
better 30 years ago?

Because they can't come up with their own ideas.

Post by JMiller
Or are they actually ripping it off?

Yes they are, or maybe they think they came up with the concept themselves.

The concept of devolution predates Devo by at least 20 years:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution) and
probably much longer.

[JMiller]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
Why would a band rip off an entire concept that was done so much
better 30 years ago?

Because they can't come up with their own ideas.

Post by JMiller
Or are they actually ripping it off?

Yes they are, or maybe they think they came up with the concept themselves.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution) and
probably much longer.

The concept of "devolution" has been around for a long time. Shadduck
used it in his "Jocko Homo" pamphlet. There was even a comic book in
the 50's where one of the villains had a "devolution" machine.
However, there was never a discussion of devolution in the world at
large until Devo came along. Before then, it was only discussed by
rogue scientists, who turned out to be not so rogue after all.

Regardless, Korn is hosing Devo.

[Gary Childs]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution) and
probably much longer.

The idea of a rock band that uses devolution as it's concept was uniquely
Devo's until Korn plagiarized them.
The expression "a rolling stone gathers no moss" predates the group: The
Rolling Stones, but if you tried to form a rock band called "The Rolling
Stones", the real group would sue you.
The U2 submarine was around before the group of the same name, but if you
tried to use that as an excuse to justify your own band called "U2", you
would be shut down pretty quickly.
If I started a band called "Korn", I'm sure the band of the same name would
sue me. Spelling corn with a "K" is not even original. There's a 1967 song
by Captain Beefheart called "Kandy Korn".
It's just a case of a big corporate rock band stealing the work of an
obscure innovator.
Korn should at least give Devo some credit.

[n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net]

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution) and
probably much longer.

The idea of a rock band that uses devolution as it's concept was uniquely
Devo's until Korn plagiarized them.
The expression "a rolling stone gathers no moss" predates the group: The
Rolling Stones, but if you tried to form a rock band called "The Rolling
Stones", the real group would sue you.

You successfully argued against your own point. If Korn were to
rename themselves to Devo, or cover Devo's songs without
permission etc, they'd be in legal trouble. But Devo has no
copyrights on devolution as a concept, as a word, or on using it
as a conceptual basis for a rock band.

[Gary Childs]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
But Devo has no
copyrights on devolution as a concept, as a word, or on using it
as a conceptual basis for a rock band.

They could prove they used devolution as the conceptual basis for a rock
band, because it's a fact.

[n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net]

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
But Devo has no
copyrights on devolution as a concept, as a word, or on using it
as a conceptual basis for a rock band.

They could prove they used devolution as the conceptual basis for a rock
band, because it's a fact.

So what? That still doesn't make Korn guilty of anything, other
than rudeness.

[Gary Childs]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
So what? That still doesn't make Korn guilty of anything, other
than rudeness.

Theft of intellectual property.

[JMiller]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:32:07 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
So what? That still doesn't make Korn guilty of anything, other
than rudeness.

Theft of intellectual property.

They're not stealing any intellectual property. If they were
performing Devo songs and calling them their own, then it's theft.
Otherwise, Devo has no legal leg to stand on. Bad form, definitely.
Not illegal.

[Gary Childs]

Post by JMiller
They're not stealing any intellectual property. If they were
performing Devo songs and calling them their own, then it's theft.

Intellectual property can also be theft of concepts in relation to the
particular form or manner in which ideas or information are expressed or
manifested.

[WJB]

Will they next create a warmup band called "Kron"?

Just wondering.... :)

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
They're not stealing any intellectual property. If they were
performing Devo songs and calling them their own, then it's theft.

Intellectual property can also be theft of concepts in relation to the
particular form or manner in which ideas or information are expressed or
manifested.

[n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net]

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
They're not stealing any intellectual property. If they were
performing Devo songs and calling them their own, then it's theft.

Intellectual property can also be theft of concepts in relation to the
particular form or manner in which ideas or information are expressed or
manifested.

Again, neither devolution as a concept nor the word itself
are copyrighted by Devo. Analogies are numerous, e.g.
there are thousands of Christian bands, yet none of them
have exclusive rights over using Christianity as a conceptual
basis for a band.

[Gary Childs]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
Again, neither devolution as a concept nor the word itself
are copyrighted by Devo.

The band (whose name is copyrighted) has made a career since the 1970's as
Devo: the devolution band. Their copyrighted film: "The Truth About
De-Evolution", which won an award in 1976, features a faux scientist in a
white lab coat explaining the theory of devolution. The band Korn's film:
"Devolution Nature's U-Turn" features a faux scientist in a white lab coat
explaining the theory of devolution. Do you see how that might be looked
upon as plagiarism?

It's very telling that your argument keeps flip-flopping between "Devo
didn't come up with the idea" then to "Devo didn't copyright it". The first
argument denies the obvious influence of Devo on "Devolution Nature's
U-Turn" which is disingenuous at the very least, and clearly either
dishonest, or completely oblivious and lacking in understanding to what Devo
created and fine-tuned. The spin that Devo put on devolution is original and
unlike any of the ways it was ever presented to the world before. The second
argument seems to be that Korn can steal anything they want, as long as it's
not legally tied down. This paints Korn as professional plagiarists who lack
the ability to create there own themes and spend their time passing off
other's creations as their own. Korn should at least give a tip of the
dreads to Devo.

[n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net]

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
Again, neither devolution as a concept nor the word itself
are copyrighted by Devo.

The band (whose name is copyrighted) has made a career since the 1970's as
Devo: the devolution band. Their copyrighted film: "The Truth About
De-Evolution", which won an award in 1976, features a faux scientist in a
"Devolution Nature's U-Turn" features a faux scientist in a white lab coat
explaining the theory of devolution. Do you see how that might be looked
upon as plagiarism?

No, because the concept wasn't theirs. In 1924 another
doctor, maybe even in a white lab coat explained the same
theory.

Post by Gary Childs
It's very telling that your argument keeps flip-flopping between "Devo
didn't come up with the idea" then to "Devo didn't copyright it".

I'm not flip-flopping on anything. Both statements are correct.

Post by Gary Childs
The first
argument denies the obvious influence of Devo on "Devolution Nature's
U-Turn" which is disingenuous at the very least, and clearly either
dishonest, or completely oblivious and lacking in understanding to what Devo
created and fine-tuned. The spin that Devo put on devolution is original and
unlike any of the ways it was ever presented to the world before. The second
argument seems to be that Korn can steal anything they want, as long as it's
not legally tied down. This paints Korn as professional plagiarists who lack
the ability to create there own themes and spend their time passing off
other's creations as their own. Korn should at least give a tip of the
dreads to Devo.

I agree with that last part, and it's downright rude for them to
not do so. But if Korn was guilty of any kind of copyright
infringement/plaguerism etc I guarantee the lawsuit(s) would
already be flying by now.

[Gary Childs]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
No, because the concept wasn't theirs. In 1924 another
doctor, maybe even in a white lab coat explained the same
theory.

A pretend doctor appearing in a tongue-in-cheek film created by a rock band?
Devo did that first and Korn ripped it off. Devo turned devolution into an
art project - a film by a rock band.
The version of devolution that Korn presents bears no resemblance to earlier
forms of scientific or pseudo-scientific devolution. They are borrowing
heavily from Devo's take on it, and they should really give them some credit
to them.

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
I'm not flip-flopping on anything. Both statements are correct.

No, they contradict each other. If you don't believe it's their concept, why
would you even bring up the idea about them copyrighting it.

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
I agree with that last part, and it's downright rude for them to
not do so.

It's a pretty low and shoddy thing to do, and it damages any credibility
that Korn might have as creators.

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
But if Korn was guilty of any kind of copyright
infringement/plaguerism etc I guarantee the lawsuit(s) would
already be flying by now.

Not necessarily. Korn have more money, better lawyers, and I don't think
Devo would bother to sue them. It's not about money; it's about principles,
and maybe Korn have none.

[Wayne Weedon]

Been watching this little story on here, Spudtalk and the two respective
myspace pages.

Although amusing it's all getting a little childish but then it was
interesting to note that just about every KoRn fan that made comment is
under 20, so what could we expect ;)

I know I'm an old fart (41) in their eyes! But then I was already a
veteran Devo fan by their age. I guess we can say Devo fans are quite
consistent or persistent! I chose my fav band at a time when there were
far more "trendy" bands to follow. The sum of the intellect of those
trendy bands still fell short of our boys, and I still think I made a
wise choice.

It's also likely when they make it into their 40's Korn will be a very
vague memory. I woder of they'll still be dropping their c's from Fuck
and Dick then <g>

Now is a better time than ever for Jerry to get that film made eh.

Wayne....

[n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net]

Post by Wayne Weedon
Been watching this little story on here, Spudtalk and the two respective
myspace pages.
Although amusing it's all getting a little childish but then it was
interesting to note that just about every KoRn fan that made comment is
under 20, so what could we expect ;)
I know I'm an old fart (41) in their eyes! But then I was already a
veteran Devo fan by their age. I guess we can say Devo fans are quite
consistent or persistent! I chose my fav band at a time when there were
far more "trendy" bands to follow. The sum of the intellect of those
trendy bands still fell short of our boys, and I still think I made a
wise choice.
It's also likely when they make it into their 40's Korn will be a very
vague memory. I woder of they'll still be dropping their c's from Fuck
and Dick then <g>
Now is a better time than ever for Jerry to get that film made eh.

It's ridiculous to expect 16 year-olds to follow a group of
50-somethings who're still milking 30 year-old music.

Mark said it best himself: "When you're 20, it's great. When
you're 30, it's "Spinal Tap". When you're 40, it's pathetic."

I wonder what it is when you're 60?

[Frªnk Pªnu©©I‬]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
Mark said it best himself: "When you're 20, it's great. When
you're 30, it's "Spinal Tap". When you're 40, it's pathetic."
I wonder what it is when you're 60?

Easy spare money from gasping boomer concert-goers, with no need for
DEVO to write new material?

It's hard to ignore that 5000 copies of RECOMBO couldn't be sold out.
DEVO is great, but it ain't super-profitable. MM got real about it. He
took his DEVO inside, tamed it, and leases it out to the highest bidders.

As far as KORN's deal, it's annoying but not actionable. It would be
nice if the ripoff was actually entertaining.

How many remember THE NETWORK? Not many, I betcha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Network


____________________
www.frankpanucci.com
http://reperkussionz.blogspot.com/

[Gary Childs]

Post by Frªnk Pªnu©©I‬
As far as KORN's deal, it's annoying but not actionable.

Anything is actionable. The lawyers will gladly take your money.
Not everything is winnable though.
I only hope that Devo wins recognition for their work.
If the roles were reversed and Devo was the multimillion-dollar rock group,
and Korn was some just obscure band who had nicked Devo's work, you can bet
that the lawyers would have been unleashed.

[Gary Childs]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
It's ridiculous to expect 16 year-olds to follow a group of
50-somethings who're still milking 30 year-old music.

Tell that to The Rolling Stones.
Devo has teenage fans, by the way, and they are a hell of a lot brighter
than the teenage Korn fans.

[JMiller]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:13:35 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
It's ridiculous to expect 16 year-olds to follow a group of
50-somethings who're still milking 30 year-old music.

Tell that to The Rolling Stones.
Devo has teenage fans, by the way, and they are a hell of a lot brighter
than the teenage Korn fans.

When was the last time the Stones had a hit song? Teenagers like
"Satisfaction," not their new album.

[Gary Childs]

Post by JMiller
When was the last time the Stones had a hit song? Teenagers like
"Satisfaction," not their new album.

I think you lost the thread of what I was saying:

He said:
"It's ridiculous to expect 16 year-olds to follow a group of
50-somethings who're still milking 30 year-old music."

I said:
"Tell that to The Rolling Stones."

I'm not saying that The Rolling Stones had a recent hit.
I'm not even talking about what songs teens like.
I'm only saying that there are teenagers who like The Rolling Stones.

[n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net]

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
No, because the concept wasn't theirs. In 1924 another
doctor, maybe even in a white lab coat explained the same
theory.

A pretend doctor appearing in a tongue-in-cheek film created by a rock band?
Devo did that first and Korn ripped it off.

Oh come on, I can name a dozen other pretend doctors in
tongue-in-cheek films and videos, everyone from Thomas
Dolby to Kid Rock. Nary a lawsuit to be found.

[Gary Childs]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
Oh come on, I can name a dozen other pretend doctors in
tongue-in-cheek films and videos, everyone from Thomas
Dolby to Kid Rock. Nary a lawsuit to be found.

How about a pretend doctor explaining devolution in a tongue-in-cheek film
created by a rock band?
That kind of narrows the field.

If you don't think they have a case, consider the fact that the cable
channel "Spike TV" was sued by director Spike Lee over the use of the word
"Spike". Did Spike Lee have a copyright on the word "Spike"? No. Can anyone
have a copyright on the word "Spike"? No.
Spike TV paid him an out of court settlement.

[n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net]

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
Oh come on, I can name a dozen other pretend doctors in
tongue-in-cheek films and videos, everyone from Thomas
Dolby to Kid Rock. Nary a lawsuit to be found.

How about a pretend doctor explaining devolution in a tongue-in-cheek film
created by a rock band?
That kind of narrows the field.
If you don't think they have a case, consider the fact that the cable
channel "Spike TV" was sued by director Spike Lee over the use of the word
"Spike". Did Spike Lee have a copyright on the word "Spike"? No. Can anyone
have a copyright on the word "Spike"? No.
Spike TV paid him an out of court settlement.

That's almost certainly because it would have cost SpikeTV
more to fight the lawsuit than to pay off Lee's extortion.

[Gary Childs]

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
That's almost certainly because it would have cost SpikeTV
more to fight the lawsuit than to pay off Lee's extortion.

Definitely.
A lawsuit can also be a way of casting shame, or bad publicity on someone.
There's always the court of public opinion to contend with.

[JMiller]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:43:02 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
That's almost certainly because it would have cost SpikeTV
more to fight the lawsuit than to pay off Lee's extortion.

Definitely.
A lawsuit can also be a way of casting shame, or bad publicity on someone.
There's always the court of public opinion to contend with.

Gary, it's people like you that are what's wrong with the world. Sue
sue sue even if you have no case, and let the court sort it out.

[Gary Childs]

Post by JMiller

Post by Gary Childs
A lawsuit can also be a way of casting shame, or bad publicity on someone.
There's always the court of public opinion to contend with.

it's people like you that are what's wrong with the world. Sue
sue sue even if you have no case, and let the court sort it out.

I'm merely pointing out the ways lawsuits can be used.
Don't shoot the messenger.

[lance hirsch]

The "someone" who gets the shame and bad publicity can be the ones bringing
the lawsuit. In this case Devo. Note the discussion on Spike Lee. It
didn't make Spike TV look bad - it made Spike Lee look bad. I recall
Microsoft trying the trademark "Windows" and suing companies that used the
word in a product name. They lost but it made them look bad (IMO).

Lance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...Bond reflected that good Americans were fine people and that most
of them seemed to come from Texas."
Casino Royale. Chapter VII

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
That's almost certainly because it would have cost SpikeTV
more to fight the lawsuit than to pay off Lee's extortion.

Definitely.
A lawsuit can also be a way of casting shame, or bad publicity on someone.
There's always the court of public opinion to contend with.

[Gary Childs]

Post by lance hirsch
The "someone" who gets the shame and bad publicity can be the ones
bringing the lawsuit.

Only if the case has no merit.

[JMiller]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:26:15 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
Oh come on, I can name a dozen other pretend doctors in
tongue-in-cheek films and videos, everyone from Thomas
Dolby to Kid Rock. Nary a lawsuit to be found.

How about a pretend doctor explaining devolution in a tongue-in-cheek film
created by a rock band?
That kind of narrows the field.
If you don't think they have a case, consider the fact that the cable
channel "Spike TV" was sued by director Spike Lee over the use of the word
"Spike". Did Spike Lee have a copyright on the word "Spike"? No. Can anyone
have a copyright on the word "Spike"? No.
Spike TV paid him an out of court settlement.

They most certainly did not!! The case was thrown out.

[Gary Childs]

Post by JMiller
They most certainly did not!! The case was thrown out.

The lawsuit was settled on July 8, 2003 according to Wikipedia.
It wasn't thrown out, but I'm not sure about the details of the settlement.

[JMiller]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:26:15 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
Oh come on, I can name a dozen other pretend doctors in
tongue-in-cheek films and videos, everyone from Thomas
Dolby to Kid Rock. Nary a lawsuit to be found.

How about a pretend doctor explaining devolution in a tongue-in-cheek film
created by a rock band?
That kind of narrows the field.
If you don't think they have a case, consider the fact that the cable
channel "Spike TV" was sued by director Spike Lee over the use of the word
"Spike". Did Spike Lee have a copyright on the word "Spike"? No. Can anyone
have a copyright on the word "Spike"? No.
Spike TV paid him an out of court settlement.

Oh dang, I just read on Wikipedia that I was wrong. I had always
heard they threw out the lawsuit. Apparently there was a settlement.
Apologies for the post that I said they threw it out.

Anyway, it was a stupid fucking lawsuit brought by one of the world's
biggest shitheads, and anyone who supports such a court action is a
shithead, too. You are being ridiculous, Gary. No offense ;)

[Gary Childs]

Post by JMiller
Anyway, it was a stupid fucking lawsuit

Of course it was.

Post by JMiller
brought by one of the world's
biggest shitheads

I thought "Do The Right Thing" was good.

Post by JMiller
and anyone who supports such a court action is a
shithead, too.

I thought his suit was frivolous.

Post by JMiller
You are being ridiculous

In a ridiculous world, the non-ridiculous must appear ridiculous.

[JMiller]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:09:35 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

Post by n***@sbcglobal.invalid.net
Again, neither devolution as a concept nor the word itself
are copyrighted by Devo.

The band (whose name is copyrighted) has made a career since the 1970's as
Devo: the devolution band. Their copyrighted film: "The Truth About
De-Evolution", which won an award in 1976, features a faux scientist in a
"Devolution Nature's U-Turn" features a faux scientist in a white lab coat
explaining the theory of devolution. Do you see how that might be looked
upon as plagiarism?
It's very telling that your argument keeps flip-flopping between "Devo
didn't come up with the idea" then to "Devo didn't copyright it". The first
argument denies the obvious influence of Devo on "Devolution Nature's
U-Turn" which is disingenuous at the very least, and clearly either
dishonest, or completely oblivious and lacking in understanding to what Devo
created and fine-tuned. The spin that Devo put on devolution is original and
unlike any of the ways it was ever presented to the world before. The second
argument seems to be that Korn can steal anything they want, as long as it's
not legally tied down. This paints Korn as professional plagiarists who lack
the ability to create there own themes and spend their time passing off
other's creations as their own. Korn should at least give a tip of the
dreads to Devo.

Yes they should, but if they don't want to do it, they don't have to.

The only word that Devo came up with is "Devo." And the members
didn't even come up with it. Jerry's former friend Bob Lewis thought
of it and copyrighted it, and Devo had to pay a large settlement to
him over it once they parted ways.

See Gary, your problem is you are confusing an emotional argument with
a legal one. You can be full of righteous indignation if you want,
and it's well-placed in this case, but it doesn't hold up in court.
If it did, Devo would have already sued.

[Gary Childs]

Post by JMiller
The only word that Devo came up with is "Devo."

I'm not talking about just a word. I'm talking about concepts, content,
style, and elements of Devo's work that were used by Korn. "The Truth About
De-evolution" is a copyrighted work.

Post by JMiller
Jerry's former friend Bob Lewis thought
of it and copyrighted it

He copyrighted it before Jerry could when he felt was was being pushed out
of the organization. He was not the sole creator.

Post by JMiller
Devo would have already sued.

It would be like a mom & pop store trying to take down Walmart.

[JMiller]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:11:47 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
The only word that Devo came up with is "Devo."

I'm not talking about just a word. I'm talking about concepts, content,
style, and elements of Devo's work that were used by Korn. "The Truth About
De-evolution" is a copyrighted work.

Oh, forget it. You've obviously got your mind made up, and not one
single bit of legal logic will ever make any sense to you.
Unbelievable.

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
Jerry's former friend Bob Lewis thought
of it and copyrighted it

He copyrighted it before Jerry could when he felt was was being pushed out
of the organization. He was not the sole creator.

You may be right about that. However, he was one of the two that did,
and Jerry squeezed him out and Bob sued and won.

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
Devo would have already sued.

It would be like a mom & pop store trying to take down Walmart.

Nonsense. Mark's one of the richest soundtrack writers in Hollywood.
He has enough money to fight it if he wanted.

Anyway, I'm checking out of this. You're wrong and nothing will ever
convince you that you're wrong, so now there's no point. I've got
better things to do.

[Gary Childs]

not one single bit of legal logic will ever make any sense to you.

There's logic in the legal system? "Legal logic" sounds like an oxymoron,
like "military intelligence".

Mark's one of the richest soundtrack writers in Hollywood.
He has enough money to fight it if he wanted.

I don't think he has the money and power of Korn.

You're wrong and nothing will ever
convince you that you're wrong

Lawsuits with slimmer odds have been won.
It depends on the judge, the jury, the lawyers.
It's a crapshoot.

I've got better things to do.

No you don't.

[JMiller]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:02:05 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

not one single bit of legal logic will ever make any sense to you.

There's logic in the legal system? "Legal logic" sounds like an oxymoron,
like "military intelligence".

Mark's one of the richest soundtrack writers in Hollywood.
He has enough money to fight it if he wanted.

I don't think he has the money and power of Korn.

I think he has a hell of a lot more money and power than Korn. Mark
is a bigtime Hollywood player, and there's a lot more money in movies
and TV than recording albums. Why do you think bands try so hard to
get their songs placed in movies and commercials?

Post by Gary Childs

You're wrong and nothing will ever
convince you that you're wrong

Lawsuits with slimmer odds have been won.
It depends on the judge, the jury, the lawyers.
It's a crapshoot.

I've got better things to do.

No you don't.

OK, no I don't.

[Gary Childs]

Post by JMiller
I think he has a hell of a lot more money and power than Korn.

I don't think so. Korn has sold 30 million records, and has had 5
consecutive multi-platinum studio albums. They are much richer and have
vastly more power. They have one album that was 5x platinum!

Post by JMiller
Mark is a bigtime Hollywood player.

Not really. He's paid well as a film composer, but has little power to get
projects done. He is a hired hand. He usually does music for smaller budget
films, which pay a lot less than a movie like "Transformers".

Post by JMiller
and there's a lot more money in movies and TV than recording albums.

That depends on the group. Mark makes more money than he did with Devo, but
Korn makes vastly more dough than Mark.

Post by JMiller
Why do you think bands try so hard to get their songs placed in movies and
commercials?

That's true for a lot of bands. Groups that don't have great album sales
need the film money to survive. On top of having the massive sales of their
records, Korn also sells the use of their music to films and television.

Post by JMiller

I've got better things to do
No you don't.

OK, no I don't.

Told ya.

[JMiller]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:10:36 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
I think he has a hell of a lot more money and power than Korn.

I don't think so. Korn has sold 30 million records, and has had 5
consecutive multi-platinum studio albums. They are much richer and have
vastly more power. They have one album that was 5x platinum!

Post by JMiller
Mark is a bigtime Hollywood player.

Not really. He's paid well as a film composer, but has little power to get
projects done. He is a hired hand. He usually does music for smaller budget
films, which pay a lot less than a movie like "Transformers".

Well, without 1040's we'll never know.

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
and there's a lot more money in movies and TV than recording albums.

That depends on the group. Mark makes more money than he did with Devo, but
Korn makes vastly more dough than Mark.

Korn also has to split it 4 ways (5 for the older stuff).

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
Why do you think bands try so hard to get their songs placed in movies and
commercials?

That's true for a lot of bands. Groups that don't have great album sales
need the film money to survive. On top of having the massive sales of their
records, Korn also sells the use of their music to films and television.

Post by JMiller

I've got better things to do
No you don't.

OK, no I don't.

Told ya.

:P

[flamingkitties]

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
Mark is a bigtime Hollywood player.

Not really. He's paid well as a film composer, but has little power to get
projects done. He is a hired hand. He usually does music for smaller budget
films, which pay a lot less than a movie like "Transformers".

He's scored for large brand commercials (the recent Apple adverts now
play here with different actors, same score) and isn't he under the
employ of Disney regularly. How much do they get from leasing out the
Devo name to Disney's Dev2.0?

I'm trying not to take part in the Korn argument because the 14 year
olds are annoying and can't spell, and that's more annoying than someone
borrowing the same idea someone else borrowed 30 years ago.
(I'm pro Devo, obviously).

[Wayne Weedon]

Post by flamingkitties
He's scored for large brand commercials (the recent Apple adverts now
play here with different actors, same score) and isn't he under the
employ of Disney regularly. How much do they get from leasing out the
Devo name to Disney's Dev2.0?

As well as owning a fair bit of real estate as far as I'm aware. Both
in LA and Back in Akron.

Post by flamingkitties
I'm trying not to take part in the Korn argument because the 14 year
olds are annoying and can't spell, and that's more annoying than someone
borrowing the same idea someone else borrowed 30 years ago.
(I'm pro Devo, obviously).

LOL.. Someone else noticed too! I did make a point of looking at a lot
of the pro Korn profiles, to double check I was not making an incorrect
assumption. Sure enough average age is 14-15, although I did spot ONE
that made it to 22 already!

So there you have it, the "Korn army" consists almost exclusively of wet
behind the ears spotty youths who's balls have barely dropped.

Harry Enfields Kevin comes to mind here. Ugggggg!

Not worth any effort.

Wayne....

[JMiller]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:33:47 +0100, flamingkitties

Post by flamingkitties

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
Mark is a bigtime Hollywood player.

Not really. He's paid well as a film composer, but has little power to get
projects done. He is a hired hand. He usually does music for smaller budget
films, which pay a lot less than a movie like "Transformers".

He's scored for large brand commercials (the recent Apple adverts now
play here with different actors, same score) and isn't he under the
employ of Disney regularly. How much do they get from leasing out the
Devo name to Disney's Dev2.0?

I don't know, but let's not bring that up. It only sold 7000 copies.

Post by flamingkitties
I'm trying not to take part in the Korn argument because the 14 year
olds are annoying and can't spell, and that's more annoying than someone
borrowing the same idea someone else borrowed 30 years ago.
(I'm pro Devo, obviously).

LOL!

[Gary Childs]

He's scored for large brand commercials.

He dosen't make big rock star money doing music for ads.

isn't he under the employ of Disney regularly.

Does Disney do Rugrats?

How much do they get from leasing out the Devo name to Disney's Dev2.0?

Not much. It was a low budget project, and it was a flop.

and that's more annoying than someone borrowing the same idea someone else
borrowed 30 years ago.

It was just people singing Devo songs. It never really bothered me.
I just wish they hadn't changed the lyrics so much.

Devo's take on Devolution was unique and unlike the way it had ever been
presented before.
They presented it in a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic way as a band and in the
original film they made.
If there was another rock band the made a parody film about devolution
before Devo, I'm not aware of it.
Comparing earlier sources of the theme of devolution to Devo is like
comparing apples to oranges.
Comparing Devo's version of devolution to Korn's is like comparing delicious
apples to rotten apples.

[JMiller]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:21:07 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

He's scored for large brand commercials.

He dosen't make big rock star money doing music for ads.

isn't he under the employ of Disney regularly.

Does Disney do Rugrats?

How much do they get from leasing out the Devo name to Disney's Dev2.0?

Not much. It was a low budget project, and it was a flop.

and that's more annoying than someone borrowing the same idea someone else
borrowed 30 years ago.

It was just people singing Devo songs. It never really bothered me.
I just wish they hadn't changed the lyrics so much.
Devo's take on Devolution was unique and unlike the way it had ever been
presented before.
They presented it in a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic way as a band and in the
original film they made.
If there was another rock band the made a parody film about devolution
before Devo, I'm not aware of it.
Comparing earlier sources of the theme of devolution to Devo is like
comparing apples to oranges.
Comparing Devo's version of devolution to Korn's is like comparing delicious
apples to rotten apples.

That may be, but since Devo didn't own a copyright on the concept of
de-evolution, it's not actionable.

[Gary Childs]

Post by JMiller
since Devo didn't own a copyright on the concept of
de-evolution, it's not actionable.

The concept of the band may be copyrighted was far as being a musical act. A
case could be made that Korn's film is a knock-off of Devo's concept and
their film "The Truth About De-evolution".

[Pink Pussycat]

Post by Gary Childs
Does Disney do Rugrats?

Nope. Klasky-Csupo (too lazy to check correct spelling) is
the production company behind Rugrats. They put out the
Wipeouters album, IIRC.

Ob On Topic: I wonder what Thelonious Monk's estate thinkos
about the fact that his name's being used in this Korn film
thingie.

~Pink

[N***@gmail.com]

Post by JMiller
I've got
better things to do.

Like fighting with the 14-year-olds at the Korn board.

[JMiller]

Post by N***@gmail.com

Post by JMiller
I've got
better things to do.

Like fighting with the 14-year-olds at the Korn board.

Right!

[JMiller]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:45:47 -0400, "Gary Childs"

Post by Gary Childs

Post by JMiller
They're not stealing any intellectual property. If they were
performing Devo songs and calling them their own, then it's theft.

Intellectual property can also be theft of concepts in relation to the
particular form or manner in which ideas or information are expressed or
manifested.

Good luck proving Devo thought of it in court. Hell, they lost a suit
to Bob Lewis over that same thing already.

[Gary Childs]

Post by JMiller
Good luck proving Devo thought of it in court.

A really good lawyer might. Devo's been preaching about Devolution for over
30 years. It's their signature concept as a band.

Post by JMiller
Hell, they lost a suit to Bob Lewis over that same thing already.

Only because he copyrighted Devo behind their back.

[Rev. Richard Skull]

Post by JMiller
I see Korn's new album is called Evolution, and they've got some
crappy "trailer" for a fake movie about de-evolution on a website
calledwww.evolutiondevolution.com. Funny, but Devo's name isn't
mentioned once.
Why would a band rip off an entire concept that was done so much
better 30 years ago?
Or are they actually ripping it off? Devo advertises the site on
clubdevo.com now, claiming that they're getting ripped off. It makes
me wonder if this wasn't cooked up between our pal Jihad Jerry and
Korn in order to make a big publicity stink with Korn pitted against
Devo in a "war" that sells lots of Korn albums and makes Devo's price
go up.

Now see what you've done!

You've caused MORE postings on this newsgroup then we've had in the
last two years combined!

[Wayne Weedon]

Post by Rev. Richard Skull
Now see what you've done!
You've caused MORE postings on this newsgroup then we've had in the
last two years combined!

I was thinking that too! Spent since the mid 90's or so subscribed to
this newsgroup (1st post seems to be Aug 1997), and NEVER seen do much
dialogue!

Spudtalk seems a little more active.

Wayne....

[JMiller]

Post by Wayne Weedon

Post by Rev. Richard Skull
Now see what you've done!
You've caused MORE postings on this newsgroup then we've had in the
last two years combined!

I was thinking that too! Spent since the mid 90's or so subscribed to
this newsgroup (1st post seems to be Aug 1997), and NEVER seen do much
dialogue!
Spudtalk seems a little more active.

It gets active when they go on tour, and that's about it.

[Todd Spango]

Post by JMiller

Post by Wayne Weedon

Post by Rev. Richard Skull
Now see what you've done!
You've caused MORE postings on this newsgroup then we've had in the
last two years combined!

I was thinking that too! Spent since the mid 90's or so subscribed to
this newsgroup (1st post seems to be Aug 1997), and NEVER seen do much
dialogue!
Spudtalk seems a little more active.

It gets active when they go on tour, and that's about it.

It's a moribund trope. Hate to say it.

If stupid Korn (who have been around long enough to know who Devo is
and what the idea is) feels safe ripping them off, then the band
hasn't made it into the culture.

Which is sad, really.

The saddest part of it for me is how much Korn debases Devo's original
ideas. They created the mongoloid version of Devo's act.

Korn is the proof of the argument.

[Gary Childs]

Post by Todd Spango
The saddest part of it for me is how much Korn debases Devo's original
ideas. They created the mongoloid version of Devo's act.

The ironic thing is that for 30-plus-years music critics have been saying
how stupid the idea of de-evolution is, and how they couldn't believe that
Devo was touting the same idea over and over. Now they are being emulated
without any credit being given, and on top of that, they being attacked by
the consumers of the very knock-off of their creation. It's beyond pioneers
being scalped; it's pioneers being scalped then raped.

[JMiller]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:47:05 -0700, "Rev. Richard Skull"

Post by Rev. Richard Skull

Post by JMiller
I see Korn's new album is called Evolution, and they've got some
crappy "trailer" for a fake movie about de-evolution on a website
calledwww.evolutiondevolution.com. Funny, but Devo's name isn't
mentioned once.
Why would a band rip off an entire concept that was done so much
better 30 years ago?
Or are they actually ripping it off? Devo advertises the site on
clubdevo.com now, claiming that they're getting ripped off. It makes
me wonder if this wasn't cooked up between our pal Jihad Jerry and
Korn in order to make a big publicity stink with Korn pitted against
Devo in a "war" that sells lots of Korn albums and makes Devo's price
go up.

Now see what you've done!
You've caused MORE postings on this newsgroup then we've had in the
last two years combined!

Sorry, Rev.