Cof L49

[kelber at mindspring.com]

The satirical poems and songs that crop up in Alice In Wonderland seem like an inspiration.

Laura

-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com>
>Sent: Jun 3, 2009 9:15 AM
>To: P-list <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: Cof L49 "Contracts flee thee yet"
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> p. 83 Yoyodyne, Yoyodyne,
>>>         Contracts flee thee yet.
>>>         DOD has shafted thee,
>>>         Out of spite, I'll bet.
>>
>
>these remind me of the MAD Magazine song parodies
>
>I can easily visualize a cartoon version of this book in the style of
>Mort Drucker
>
>in fact it was MAD who established the legal precedent for song
>parodies in 1961:
>
>The magazine has been involved in various legal actions over the
>decades, some of which have reached the United States Supreme Court.
>The most far-reaching was Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications,
>Inc.. In 1961, a group of music publishers representing songwriters
>such as Irving Berlin, Richard Rodgers and Cole Porter filed a $25
>million lawsuit against Mad for copyright infringement following "Sing
>Along With Mad," a collection of parody lyrics "sung to the tune of"
>many popular songs. The publishing group hoped to establish a legal
>precedent that only a song's composers retained the right to parody
>that song. The U.S. District Court ruled largely in favor of Mad in
>1963, affirming its right to print 23 of the 25 song parodies under
>dispute. An exception was found in the cases of two parodies, "Always"
>(sung to the tune of "Always") and "There's No Business Like No
>Business" (sung to the tune of "There's No Business Like Show
>Business"). Relying on the same verbal hooks ("always" and
>"business"), these were found to be overly similar to the originals.
>The music publishers appealed the ruling, but the U.S. Court of
>Appeals not only upheld the pro-Mad decision in regard to the 23
>songs, it stripped the publishers of their limited victory regarding
>the remaining two songs. The publishers again appealed, but the
>Supreme Court refused to hear it, thus allowing the decision to
>stand.[22][23]
>(Wikipedia)
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>"...no matter what you did to its edges the true Pacific stayed
>inviolate and integrated or assumed the ugliness at any edge into some
>more general truth."