Hopefully you answered anti-consumerism:
It looks as though the Goldieblox / Beastie Boys legal debate could be over before the case hits courts. The toy company has issued a new statement in which they reveal that they don’t want to fight with the living members of the group and were unaware of Adam Yauch's wishes that the band’s music not be used for commercial purposes at the time they created their parody of the song ‘Girls.’ ...
The trouble started when Goldieblox shot a very creative video empowering young girls and breaking down stereotypes by promoting their new line of toys. The video featured a reworked version of the Beasties’ ‘Girls’ with the lyrics more in line with the message. The band reportedly reached out to Goldieblox to ask about the usage of the song since they hadn’t licensed it and were met with preemptive legal action from the company seeking to "vindicate the rights" of the company in connection with the parody video.
I found the Beasties Boys vs. Goldieblox fight intriguing because it put three sacrosanct principles into direct competition with one another. It was "gender equality/grrl power" vs. "remix culture" vs. "anti-consumerism" in a to-the-death cage match.
The Goldieblox ad went viral because it managed to be both modestly clever and also perfectly PC. Slate's XX blog, for instance, described the ad as "stupendously awesome" and praised Goldieblox for "subvert[ing] a bunch of dumb gender stereotypes." You go girls!
But then it turned out that things weren't so awesome after all. The Beastie Boys were vexed that someone would use their work in an advertisement. Remix culture was under fire! "The irony here is pretty thick," wrote Cory Doctorow.* "The Beasties are still being sued over their use of samples on their early albums, including the classic Paul's Boutique. Every pirate wants to be an admiral, of course, but for the Beasties to decry remix culture even as they go to court to defend their (perfectly legitimate) right to make new things out of other creators' old rope is pretty sad."
The Beasties then played their trump: The dead bandmate card! "The Beastie Boys called up GoldieBlox to say that, on his deathbed, one of their members, Adam Yauch, said he never wanted the song to be used in commercials," Time's Eliana Dockterman reported. When Goldieblox preemptively sued the Beasties following that conversation, the two surviving rappers responded with an open letter that was all, "Hey, chill out dudettes, we just don't want any dirty dirty businesses appropriating our work."**
Goldieblox backed down and the anti-copyright crowd more or less piped down once it became apparent that the Beasties weren't the aggressor here. So for now, anti-consumerism trumps all other considerations. Artists should keep that in mind the next time they find that someone is ripping off their work in a way they don't care for.
*As it happens, from a purely legal standpoint I think Doctorow is pretty obviously right: The Goldieblox ad was not only transformative but also clearly parodic, insofar as the ad was (at least in part) a comment on/critique of the original object. This kind of skips past the main quandary, though, which I think has less to do with whether or not Goldieblox should have appropriated the Beasties' work for commercial gain even if they were legally permitted to do so.
**Actual quote: "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."