Get the "Hardcore Devo" comps: Awesome basement recordings of the pre-stardom band, with lots of cool analog synths and weird guitar effects.

I find the reference to "Whip It" as the band's "signature anthem" problematic, as lyrically it seems tangential (at best) to the core thrust of their best work. I can only assume that Heller means it's their "signature anthem" from the general public's point of view.

I imagine Xenu didn't want him to do it.

And don't forget these geniuses: http://www.youtube.com/watc…

Wow…that pic…I thought they were old the first time around…

Someone has to answer for their horrible, horrible music. Hey, Russia, could you detain the Red Hot Chili Peppers next?

Fun fact: No one knows what Hal Wilner actually does. I think he throws darts at his record collection.

NOSTALGIA MILK HOTEL SOLDIERS ON!

What's the list price on that skull thing?

I gotta give them credit for kick-starting the whole '90s indie nostalgia and being the first in the pool, paving the way for so many pointless reunions…

OOOH, new EP. I guess I can't make fun of them for being an oldies act anymore.

Did you get any notification that yours has shipped? I haven't. Still don't have it and it came out yesterday.

MBMBAM and Stop Podcasting Yourself are also gems of this ilk…good point!

What a sausage fest. A panel of 14 men and one woman? Really?

Good to hear. I am too…

I pre-ordered the amazing-looking "Purple Snow" boxed set months and months ago, and have not received any word as to if it's shipped or not. It's a big pet peeve of mine when titles I pre-order show up in shops before they arrive on my doorstep.

Check this line from the original Campbell vs. Acuff Rose Supreme Court decision: "…the use of a copyrighted work to
advertise a product, even in a parody, will be entitled to less
indulgence." This is as opposed to “the sale of a parody for its own sake.”

Check this line from the original Campbell vs. Acuff Rose decision: "…the use of a copyrighted work to
advertise a product, even in a parody, will be entitled to less
indulgence." This is as opposed to “the sale of a parody for its own sake.”

Is there any precedent for this though? Wouldn't people sooner or later realize this is an underhanded tactic to usurp someone else's copyright? So many commercials have pop songs with altered lyrics — were those parodies too, also used without permission? I know this is all fun and games to some folks, but to…

Copyright law has to balance two forces: the rights of the original creator to profit from their work and the right of a creative community to interpret that work and thus to grow and flourish. Parody and satire are a big part of that, so fair use allows you to mock something or use it for satirical purposes without…