Christ, There's No Winning This One. The Beastie Boys Go To Battle With GoldieBlox Over The Song 'Girls.'
film / tv / lists / guides / news / love / celeb / video / think pieces / staff / podcasts / web culture / politics / dc / snl / netflix / marvel / cbr

UPDATED: Christ, There's No Winning This One. The Beastie Boys Go To Battle With GoldieBlox Over The Song 'Girls.'

By Joanna Robinson | Miscellaneous | November 25, 2013 | Comments ()

Screen Shot 2013-11-24 at 10.20.42 PM.png

In case you missed it last week, the phenomenal company GoldieBlox debuted their first official commercial. It went a little something like this:

That music, of course, is a parody of the Beastie Boys song “Girls” and the surviving members of the group, Mike D and Ad-Rock, are fighting the company over their usage of the song.

My sympathies, immediately, ally with GoldieBlox, a bootstrap company we’ve been following on this site since they were a mere glimmer in Kickstarter’s eye. Their concept and their presentation has been flawless since the beginning and personally I feel like they deserve all the support they can get. The Beastie Boys may or may not have the letter of the law on their side, but let’s remember the original lyrics of “Girls” that GoldieBlox changed for this commercial. Here we go:

Girls, to do the dishes
Girls, to clean up my room
Girls, to do the laundry
Girls, and in the bathroom

Girls, that’s all I really want is girls
Two at a time, I want girls

Charming, right? The song is catchy as hell and I’ve been known to bounce/sing along to it in the car myself, but those lyrics are not exactly worthy of the men the Beastie Boys have become. In fact, the boys themselves have apologized for and distanced themselves for these and other offensive lyrics of their youth. So why are they going to court here? Well that’s where things get murky morality-wise. The third member of the Beastie Boys who passed away in 2012, Adam Yauch, left instructions in his will that his music not be used in advertisements. And it’s hard to argue with a man’s final wishes. But, despite how morally valid (or legal) that claim may be, this still looks like the Beastie Boys vs. The Cool Progressive Girls Toy Company. No matter what the outcome, I think we all know who the real loser is here.

To cleanse your palate, I’ll leave you with one of Yauch’s more uplifting lyrics he wrote seven years after “Girls.” From “Sure Shot”:

I want to say a little something that’s long overdue / The disrespect to women has to got to be through / To all the mothers and sisters and the wives and friends / I want to offer my love and respect till the end

UPDATE: The Beastie Boys released this letter in response:

Like many of the millions of people who have seen your toy commercial “GoldieBlox, Rube Goldberg & the Beastie Boys,” we were very impressed by the creativity and the message behind your ad. We strongly support empowering young girls, breaking down gender stereotypes and igniting a passion for technology and engineering. As creative as it is, make no mistake, your video is an advertisement that is designed to sell a product, and long ago, we made a conscious decision not to permit our music and/or name to be used in product ads. When we tried to simply ask how and why our song “Girls” had been used in your ad without our permission, YOU sued US.

5 Shows After Dark: BRADY SMASH! | Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community and War by Nathaniel Philbrick

Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not

  • Daryl Lindsay

    Shut the thieves down Boys. Theft is theft.

  • pissants_doppelganger

    Theft is theft. And copyright infringement is copyright infringement...and legal issues are legal issues. And copyright infringement is not theft.

  • Bananapanda

    I assume Weird Al will be called as an expert witness, right?

  • Dean Gorby

    I am in the toy business at a small company, probably similar in size to Goldieblox (my profile pic is one of my toys: Batman Mr. Potato Head). The one thing I will add to this is the obvious point that this is a NO LOSE situation for Goldieblox. For companies our size, in this industry, any buzz is good and the fact that they were able to get this massive exposure, and even the attention of The Beasties, wow! I guarantee you they are loving every minute of this with no fear of any financial harm coming to them.

  • Lloyd_The_Bartender

    first you say : "Beastie Boys may or may not have the law on their side"
    then you say : "Adam Yauch left instructions IN HIS WILL that his music not be used in advertisements"

    Yeah, so last time I checked a will is, in fact, a legally binding document...

  • FromThePenumbra

    Copyright law and estate law are two mostly unrelated fields. Even if the will had explicitly said that no one could use the copyright held by the writer of the will for commercial purposes even under fair use, that provision would not be legally enforceable. There are mechanisms for ensuring that whoever receives the copyright on the death of the copyright holder doesn't use it for commercial purposes, for example, but that's not binding on GoldieBlox parodying the song under fair use. The only time that the will would come into play would be if whoever received the copyright in the will decided to use a song in an ad despite those instructions--then the new copyright holder would potentially be subject to damages or loss of the copyright or whatever other mechanisms are in place to ensure people use the copyright the way the writer of the will intended.

  • pissants_doppelganger

    Yeah, what that dude said better than I did.

  • pissants_doppelganger

    I believe those were more instructions for how his wife (who I understand controls his artistic output) should handle his intellectual property. If copyright ever stops getting extended in the country (and the Beastie Boys are still remembered and popular), you can probably bet that their music will be used in all sorts of advertisements completely unchanged 150 years from now. And no line in Adam Yauch's will can prevent that.

    Also, if this is proven to be protected under parody, that line in Adam Yauch's will won't prevent this situation from happening.

  • Salad_Is_Murder

    One thing everyone needs to keep in mind is that, whether they approve of the ad or the company or whatever, the Beastie Boys are pretty much obligated to file suit about this. Not defending your copyrighted material won't make you lose it, but it can certainly lead to more unauthorized uses of your materials.
    Honestly, I think they're in the right to bring it to the courts to have it arbitrated, that's how the system is supposed to work.

  • Target_Blonde

    GoldieBox must have seen this coming though since they filed a lawsuit against the Beastie Boys on 11/21/2013, seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief ( In the suit GoldieBox claims BB threatened them with copyright infringement after the video went viral. Small problem, BB's representatives are stating that ""There was no complaint filed, no demand letter (no demand, for that matter) when [GoldieBlox] sued Beastie Boys." (

    Egads, GoldieBox, what are you doing?

  • FromThePenumbra

    My understanding is that, if the Beastie Boys had filed a copyright infringement claim along with a cease and desist order, the ad would have been taken down pending a decision on the infringement claim. However, by seeking declaratory judgment first, GoldieBlox is ensuring that its ad will stay up while the courts decide on the matter, and if GoldieBlox wins the court will issue an injunction against the Beastie Boys preventing them from filing a claim. That means people can continue to view the ad, which is absolutely a priority for GoldieBlox. Saying that the Beastie Boys "threatened" with a copyright infringement claim may be an exaggeration, but it makes sense that GoldieBlox would seek declaratory judgment first.

    Take this with a grain of salt, obviously. I'm not an expert in copyright law, although I did taken an intellectual property course in law school and got an "A" in it.

  • Grazel

    Basically they realized they did something wrong and are trying to cover their assets by suing first. If they didn't know they were violating laws and contracts (like the will) they wouldn't have filed a lawsuit. If the BB had filed a complaint it would have been handled via the complaint per existing laws.

  • FromThePenumbra

    A will is not a contract. The will of the deceased member of the Beastie Boys is not binding on GoldieBlox. Even if GoldieBlox and the surviving members of the Beastie Boys had contracted to allow the use of the song by GoldieBlox, the Beastie Boys would be the ones who would be on the hook for not following the will, although the estate might also get an injunction against GoldieBlox to prevent them from using the song any further.

    As for a violation of copyright law, the Electronic Frontier Foundation article which has already been linked in the comments does a great job of explaining the actual legal reasoning that the courts will use and concludes that GoldieBlox probably does have a good argument that its ad is a parody and that its use of the song is thus protected as fair use.

  • Brian Merritt

    I really don't want GoldieBlox to be run by a bunch of assholes. I want to like them a lot. So hopefully this can get settled without too much hassle.

  • Jezzer

    I keep seeing a lot of "it should be allowed because the original song was really sexist" sentiment, and I think people have lost their fucking minds.

  • FromThePenumbra

    You're missing a critical piece of the argument, which is that they changed the lyrics to subvert the original message of the song. So, it's not just that the song was sexist and therefore not worth protecting, it's that the ad didn't use the original song, it used a version of the song with different lyrics that are in opposition to the original song. This is relevant because the extent to which use of a work is "transformative"--that is, whether the new version says or does basically the same thing or whether the new version is significantly different--is a factor in determining whether something is protected as fair use.

  • Jezzer

    And that has absolutely nothing to do with my point, which is how people are reacting to the story, not about fair use.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    does that argument hold if the original song was in itself satiric?

  • FromThePenumbra

    I'd say it does, yes. Fair use isn't limited to taking a completely serious work and satirizing it, but can also allow someone to take an already tongue-in-cheek work and repurpose it. Let's assume that the original song poked fun at traditional gender roles and male attitudes towards women. The GoldieBlox song is still transformative because it changes the lyrics of the song and presents a more uplifting message about the abilities of girls. My understanding is that it is true, however, that the less critical the new work is of the old work, or the more similar the purpose of each work, the harder it becomes to argue that the new work is transformative. That speaks to one of the other factors, "market harm," in the sense that if the new work has the same message as the old work or fulfills essentially the same purpose, it's more likely that the new work will eat into the revenue from the old work. The question for that factor is whether GoldieBlox's use of the new version of the song makes it less likely that the Beastie Boys could sell a song for a commercial or that GoldieBlox made it less likely that the Beastie Boys would be able to do so if they wanted to.

    It is questionable how satirical the original song actually was, but either way I think GoldieBlox has a good argument that its use of the song is protected as fair use.

  • Less Lee Moore

    Just got this press release in my inbox, interestingly enough:


    Like many of the millions of people who have seen your toy commercial "GoldieBlox, Rube Goldberg & the Beastie Boys," we were very impressed by the creativity and the message behind your ad.

    We strongly support empowering young girls, breaking down gender stereotypes and igniting a passion for technology and engineering.

    As creative as it is, make no mistake, your video is an advertisement that is designed to sell a product, and long ago, we made a conscious decision not to permit our music and/or name to be used in product ads. When we tried to simply ask how and why our song "Girls" had been used in your ad without our permission, YOU sued US.

  • Genevieve Burgess

    For those interested in reading about a similar (but not identical) case and how it turned out, here's the page on the 2 Live Crew "Pretty Woman" case which was ruled parody and therefore Fair Use by the Supreme Court. It is wikipedia, but it is accurate to what I studied in my copyright class and hits on the four major points involved in determining whether or not a performance can be deemed fair use. Those are:

    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    Now, no one of these things is absolute (the 2 Live Crew version of "Pretty Woman" was commercial use, after all) but these are the things the court takes into consideration.

    I don't know how this case will turn out. I like Goldie Blox, because I think there are still people who will only buy pink toys for girls (and also a lot of little girls who love pink) so I'm not offended that the toys are pastel colors, and the Beastie Boys have made huge contributions to music and culture over the years. Truly a no-win situation.

  • zeke_the_pig

    Why's Ad-Rock got a hat made out of MS Paint on his head?

  • Bert_McGurt

    He's just really excited to join the crew of the Belafonte.

  • Stephen Nein

    I've been only half paying attention to the issue. Have Diamond & Horovitz released a public statement on the matter? Until I see something that supposedly passed in front of them and they nodded at, I'll blame the asshats @ the record company. Leave me alone in my denial.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    They published an open letter specifying their opinions: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes....

  • Pawesl

    This is not parody. Its blatant theft.And there is absolutely no reason you should blame the Beastie Boys. The advertisers should have ASKED first. You can't just use someones music without their permission. Parody is something completely different than what is going on here.

  • Aaron Schulz

    its really not though, someone in this thread pointed out that the original girls song is essentially just saying women are sex toys, they re purposed it for being pro girls. Its just a bitch that its coming off the way it is

  • Grazel

    And if it was done outside of marketing a product the BB wouldn't have had an issue with it. Also Goldieblox are the ones who filed the lawsuit, after the BB asked them to stop using the song and gave their reasons why. But saying that makes Goldieblox look bad so most won't bring that up because it has to look like 'big bad male rappers' versus 'helpless female toy company'.

  • FromThePenumbra

    People keep saying that GoldieBlox did something wrong by filing an action for declaratory relief against the Beastie Boys, but that really is probably the best thing they could have done. That sort of action is basically GoldieBlox saying, "We think that the Beastie Boys are going to file a legal claim against us for using this music, and we want the court to decide the matter before that happens rather than wait for them to file an infringement claim." GoldieBlox isn't "suing" the Beastie Boys in the sense that we normally think of it--they aren't seeking damages, they are just asking for the court to say that they are in the clear and to issue an injunction preventing the Beastie Boys from suing GoldieBlox. The less-ideal alternatives would be to wait around for the Beastie Boys to file a lawsuit (uncertainty, potential for more costs down the road, potential requirement that the ad get taken down while the case was pending) or take down the ad to accommodate the Beastie Boys' wishes (and since GoldieBlox is arguing that the song in the ad is a parody, they don't see any reason they would be legally required to do so).

  • Aaron Schulz

    this is just a crap bag of a situation, both parties have fine reason to do what they are doing, but it does make the beastie boys look like massive douchbags without the part of their dead friends wishes.

  • Grazel

    They're also leaving out that Goldieblox were the ones who filed suit, after the Beastie Boys sent them a request to stop using the song and explained their reasons why.

  • Green Lantern


  • NateMan

    It does, and it's a shame that's the part getting left out of most news stories. They're all talking about how the Beastie Boys have filed suit; almost none of them mention it was part of a dead man's will.

  • Jiffylush

    "and the surviving members of the group"

    This made me sadder than I think it should have.

  • zeke_the_pig

    The level of sadness is entirely appropriate. MCA is still missed.

  • Guest


  • muscleman

    How about being really creative and forward thinking and COME UP WITH YOUR OWN MUSIC!!!!!!!!!!

  • ExUSA

    I think in this specific context, it makes sense for them to reappropriate "Girls" a catchy and horrendously sexist song. They've taken something part of the pop culture lexicon, that excluded "girls", and relegated them to a subservient position; and instead changed the meaning and context to empower "girls". I think it's brilliant.

  • melissa82

    Yes it is a lovely reworking. But they didn't get permissions nor did they pay to use the song -- and in the advertising world, to use this popular of a song from this established of a band, it would have cost the company a couple hundred thousand dollars minimum. Changing most of the lyrics doesn't matter, it uses the same tempo, chord progression, and melody. (I work in this field, parody or not - it's for advertising so it can't be this close without the band's permission and a significant payout)

  • NateMan

    I agree. I just wish it'd been gone about with permission. Or, as muscleman put it, they'd come up with their own.

  • Kate

    GoldieBlox is just more of the same, another gendered toy. It only reinforces stereotypes. Girls are praised for doing what the boys do, but they can't play with the boys toys, toys that in a sane world would be gender neutral. They need special, cuter versions with pretty pink ribbons and dolphins in tutu's. It's just the same message as usual. Girls are rewarded for doing stereotypically masculine things, but they must remain visibly feminine at all times.

    What would be groundbreaking is if a brand had a product that fit neatly into a gendered box, but they chose to market the product to both girls and boys without making a thing of it.

  • Rebecca Hachmyer


  • habshockeygrl

    I disagree. When I was a child I was a lego building fanatic, but my sister was the opposite princess pink loving girl. I didn't care if the colors were "girly" and I excelled at math and music and my sister did not and struggled quite a bit. I have to wonder if there were toys that encouraged the same reasoning and thinking but in a "girly" color set if my sister would have been more interested and therefore had better concepts of math and science. Also, I know they are marketing these to little girls but my 4 year old sons favorite colors are pink and purple and he is an avid builder so even though he's not the key demographic he is going to be very excited about getting GoldieBlox and I'm glad they choose to use "girly" colors.

  • Bravo. As much as I loved that first "We Are the Champions" ad (war paint on a growling kid just triggers an estrogen release, I guess), it's hard for me to take "engineering toys for girls" as a sign of progress. You're still reinforcing a norm and saying "This is your version of that, sweetie. Things for boys look that way, and things for girls look this way. Oooh, look - glitter!"

    I applaud GB's founder for looking around, realizing "hey, something's wrong with this picture" and setting out to do something about it. Maybe it is progressive to say that a little girl's taste for frilly pink stuff (which can still manifest, to the horror and dismay of her well-meaning parents) shouldn't limit her playtime options to Barbies and My First Food Processor. But wouldn't it be MORE progressive to simply teach our sons and daughters that they can shop in all of the aisles and play with any of the toys, without it making them any more or less what they are?

  • Three_nineteen

    You know, I would agree with this, except I have a niece who won't touch a toy unless it's either pink or purple.

  • Grazel

    Doesn't mean it has to be marketed as a girl's toy just because it's pink or purple. I've always loved purple but it was hard to find anything other than girl's toys (aka Barbie Dolls) that were purple (other than a Transformer or two though those were only dark purple). I noticed Nerf has a bow they market to girls, rather than just show girls and boys using Nerf toys together they made a bow with hearts and done up like a She-Ra prop and show only girls playing with it. Luckily a few toy companies have put out ads/catalogs of kid's toys showing a mix of boys and girls playing with the same toys. Lego has at least gone somewhat subtle with Lego Friends series, while it's seen as traditionally feminine (rounder pieces, brighter/pastel colors favored) and they do go a bit 'girly' on the packaging (lots of pinks and flowers), they don't sell it as a girl's toy (I even own one of the sets, mostly because it has dolphins).

  • RobynRobotron

    Please, Lego Friends is a travesty in the world of gender equality that goes beyond the color scheme. The sets aren't even marketed as building toys, and only really show them being played with like doll houses in the ads.

  • ljridley

    The thing I find so depressing is that it didn't used to be this way. When I was a kid (in the '70s) there was the Barbie aisle (or part of an aisle), but I don't remember the rest of them being so segregated. Legos and Lincoln Logs were marketed to KIDS, not boys, not girls, all of us.

  • Sarah Weissman

    I partially agree with you, except I can't think of toys like this NOT marketed for boys. Context matters, and now that girls will see themselves playing with these sorts of toys, they may be inspired to do so themselves. I was a little put off by the Goldieblox character, until I learned she was an actual storybook character. Until certain toys (AND types of education) are marketed more neutrally, marketing like this is important. Also, it breaks down the false dichotomy of girlie and feminine/intelligent and serious, which is also very important.

  • Jiffylush

    I agree with this but wasn't sure how to say it on the original post.

    If you don't want girls playing with "girlie" things then let them play with toys. Toys that are made for children to play with.

    The product seems to imply that if you want girls to play with engineering toys then you have to make engineering toys for girls.

    My kids are a little older now but we used to love playing with legos together (son and daughter), and I am still playing with the idea of getting one of them a mindstorm.

  • habshockeygrl

    I played with tons of tinker toys, legos, chem sets ect but my sister did not because she loved all things pink, princess and sparkly. Perhaps if they had had toys marketed for girls back then she would have played with them.

  • Sean

    Hmmm...perhaps they should have asked first? And while I understand the Beasties point of view...MCA has a daughter, now 15 yrs old. Maybe he would have supported this.

  • NateMan

    I think he probably would have. But sadly, we'll never know.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    I don't think he would have. No ads is no ads.

  • Sean

    And I support that. I really do. But the ad was brilliant.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    I think they are following the "easier to ask for forgiveness than get permission" tactic. Which is a pretty solid tactic.

  • muchsarcasm

    I think the commercial is wonderful and anything that encourages girls to design, build, and be creative is great. The problem is The Beastie Boys are probably in the right legally. I'm rooting for GoldieBlox for many reasons, not the least of which is that (in my opinion) The Beastie Boys were talentless shmoes.

  • bbmcrae

    So, you're wrong, but you're sticking with it, is what you're saying?

  • Green Lantern

    Wow. Your opinion on the Beastie's talent is bad, and you should feel bad.

    Other than that I too reluctantly agree...the ad is great (I didn't take time to watch it when it was plastered around last week), but the songwriters have a legal right to say what is/isn't done with their material. I think the law would side with the Beastie Boys.

  • muchsarcasm

    I feel great, but thank you for the kind input. Please assess my opinions on the following items:
    Sleep - positive
    Night Court - positive
    Toe fungus - negative
    Cake (food) - positive
    Cake (band) - slightly positive
    Pants - negative

  • pissants_doppelganger

    Can we forget that it's Goldieblox and that MCA died last year for a minute? That's only clouding the issue. Damn, if only someone who runs/founded this site went to law school...or was married to a lawyer or something! Perhaps then we could get an analysis of whether this qualifies as a parody (probable), is considered fair use in some other way (eh?), or is definitely not fair use (improbable).

    Seriously, though, do Beastie Boys have a legal leg to stand on here? The original song was quite demeaning to women and here the lyrics have been rewritten (not to mention sung by an actual little girl) in the opposite manner. How would that not be considered parody?

  • JoannaRobinson

    If this case weren't about the Beastie Boys and GoldieBlox then it wouldn't be on this site. Which is a pop culture site, not a legal site. Run by a lawyer? Sure. But incisive legal analysis is not in our mission statement.

  • pissants_doppelganger

    You're probably right about that. By the way, how did that tornado video the other day fit into this pop culture site?

  • JJ

    Except when Genevieve is writing salient Think Pieces on the impact of copyright issues within the pop culture world?

  • JoannaRobinson

    How do Genny's excellent pieces have anything to do with legal analysis being in our mission statement? False equivalency, friend.

  • JJ

    No, I'm saying that this subject is already something that the site does and has addressed in the past. As well, the site is willing to explore things outside of the "mission statement" which is why some of us read in the first place.

    tl;dr bring back Quizlaw.

  • EFF has a good analysis on the parody and fair use matter - Worth reading.

  • Oh, Beasties...

  • Carey Adams

    Ugh, no one wins here. It's clearly an adorable commercial, but man... you have to respect MCA's wishes on this, don't you?

  • Ben

    Wouldn't this be pretty clearly covered under fair use as a parody though? In the same way weird al doesn't actually need permission of the people he's parodying?

  • L.O.V.E.

    You want fair use and parody.

    I got your fair use and parody!

  • L.O.V.E.

    But this wasn't a non-commercial use.

    A business stole a song from an artist to sell a product.

    People's gut reaction is to side with the "little girl" company, but
    1) it would be ironic if they use those type of paternalistic sympathies to fight the copyright infringement claim and
    2) this case could have far ranger implications to instances where most people will want to side with the artist.

    You side with the toy company this time, but how about when some car company steals a Nirvana song to shill some Hummer-like gas guzzling behemoth?

  • Ben

    I didn't side with a toy company on a gut reaction, I sided a logical interpretation of intellectual property laws and with with fair use and parody exemptions regardless of who uses it. I don't give half a dick if some company wants parody a Nirvana song to sell their big 4x4's or something. If it falls under fair use it falls under fair use.

    Regardless of the intent or use of the song, the re-written lyrics are pretty clearly a parody of the original and should stand on their own as a work of parody/satire.

  • JJ

    Commercial activity can still fall under fair use. And GoldieBlox is fighting this a parody in California courts.

    P.S. "Girls" is based on a sample from Bo Diddley. In addition, the Beastie Boys are STILL getting sued for copyright infringement over sampling done in Paul's Boutique and Licensed to Ill. Is that "stealing" too by your definition?

  • L.O.V.E.

    It "can" still be fair use, but it is a much more difficult threshold. Its not that they are simply using the BB song for a parody, and then profiting by selling copies of the song (like what Weird Al does), but they are using the parody to sell a product.

    Also, they are not merely "sampling" the beat, but the "Girls" chant, etc.

    To a certain extent, the parody is "transformative", but BB songs were ironic, sarcastic and played on the notions of what rap was supposed to sound like. An argument can me made that in this current climate, the original BB song is seen in a different light than when it was originally published. It is now viewed as a parody of rap culture and expectations of the sexes. The new song doesn't really transform the old.

    Also, the BB song is not a factual work, but a wholly creative work. Courts give greater copyright protections in those instances (as opposed to taking excerpts from a textbook).

    Finally, as to your reference about the BB getting sued for copyright infringement (for songs that had independent artistic merit and weren't used to sell products), they had a stronger case for fair use than this toy company does.

  • JJ

    I agree with all of this, and that it CAN be fair use but is a difficult argument. And I mean that regardless of whatever company does the parodying and who the artist is. What I didn't agree with was the absolute stance that "A business stole a song from an artist to sell a product."

  • Guest

    Totes L.O.V.E., my thoughts exactly.

    *Random comment, which seems to be throughout the comments.

    If this post was titled differently:

    Beastie Boy's song used to shill product by company against their wishes (and founding member MCA's personal request before his death). WTF company?

    Or: Boys against use of Girls to whore product.

    Or: Boys dying wish not to have Girls used to sell product.


    The Beastie Boys Go To Battle With GoldieBlox Over The Song 'Girls.'

    It leans heavily in favor of the company, much like most of stories about it.

    If their statement is true (from the Update) then I say FVCK YOU GoldieBox.

blog comments powered by Disqus