I thought it was clever when the GOP blasted out the 1977 hit “Barracuda” at the end of the convention last night, playing off Sarah Palin’s nickname during her high school basketball days. But the rock group Heart isn’t happy about it. Ann and Nancy Wilson issued a statement today:
“Sarah Palin’s views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image. The song ‘Barracuda’ was written in the late ’70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The ‘barracuda’ represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there’s irony in Republican strategists’ choice to make use of it there.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
107 Comments
Ann and Nancy ROCK. Good, solid liberals from CF2K’s home in the Pacific Northwest.
My only name-dropping story involving Ann and Nancy is that at Layne Staley’s memorial celebration, I got to hear Ann and Nancy join with Chris Cornell to sing “Wild Horses.”
hahahaha!
From the article:
After former President Bill Clinton’s ringing speech last week, the band struck up the intro to Robert Palmer’s 1985 hit, “Addicted to Love.” C-Span showed a group of delegates dancing to the opening strains and singing along until stopping on the chorus, “Might as well face it/I’m addicted to love.”
One would think that with the presence of attorneys within the GOP, someone would have sought clearance from Heart to use Barracuda once Gov. Palin was named.
Who really cares what Ann and Nancy Wilson like, don’t like or think?
If the proper royalty was paid for use, and I imagine it was, they now have no say.
My advice…..girls, get over it.
#
avtolle
Posted September 5, 2008 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
One would think that with the presence of attorneys within the GOP, someone would have sought clearance from Heart to use Barracuda once Gov. Palin was named.
—————-
Doesn’t that fall under “fair use” statutes?
C’mon, VT, JUST LIKE BUSHCO laws are made for other folks, not for them!
Regular, while pretending no expertise in intellectual property matters, I don’t think it does fall within the “fair use” exemption.
Boxlock, it isn’t just payment of royalties as I understand it. Again, not any kind of expert in intellectual property, but I think it would have been necessary to get clearance to use the song, as ironic as the juxtaposition is, to promote the VP candidate for the GOP.
Perhaps it was subtle satire. :D
Ah, Regular, are you hinting at the “parody” fair use doctrine developed under case law? :-)
avtolle
Posted September 5, 2008 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
Ah, Regular, are you hinting at the “parody” fair use doctrine developed under case law?
—————-
hehe, could be AV. :D
No way, satire is out of repubs. league.
#
Phantom
Posted September 5, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Permalink
No way, satire is out of repubs. league.
——————-
Yeah, only Libs understand and invoke literary sense.
:roll:
Should Biden use the old Mike Hayden v. Joan Finney debate trick against Palin. Remember that? Like a school teacher he asked Joan to name the states in a waste disposal compact. Joan got it right, but she was sweating.
The above would be the only opportunity we will have in hearing from the real and unmanaged Palin.
Would Elton let her use “The Bitch is back”, would go right along with the pitbull in lipstick.
#
StevenEDavis
Posted September 5, 2008 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
Should Biden use the old Mike Hayden v. Joan Finney debate trick against Palin. Remember that? Like a school teacher he asked Joan to name the states in a waste disposal compact. Joan got it right, but she was sweating.
The above would be the only opportunity we will have in hearing from the real and unmanaged Palin.
————————-
Speaking of ‘use’ violations.
Perhaps Palin could ask Biden about his plagiarism in the 1980s in a campaign and Biden’s out right lying about his law school record and funding. :D
Legal action by Heart for playing their song written 31 years ago at the RNC? Only in America and only AGAINST the Republicans.
Yeah, take this to court desperate libs….yawn.
avtolle,
Artists and musicians are typically represented by one group or another of the recording associations that collect royalties on their behalf.
If that was done the artist really has no say.
For instance, if a health club wants to use music for exercise classes they actually are to have gotten permission and paid the ‘fee’ to do so.
Those folks really go after that stuff when they find out someone is using someones material.
If whoever has the Wilson’s material was paid, the Wilson’s have sold rights to use even though it maybe completely unknown to them personally.
Boxlock, the issue isn’t royalty payment; it is copyright infringement, to which fair use is a defense. Now, if the Wilsons did assign the copyright to a third party, there is no legal right left for them to assert. Given the statement, I rather think there has not been such an assignment.
I agree that ASCAP, e.g., does really go after someone who uses music as you describe, without the payment of royalty. They are like a duck on a June Bug in that regard (as a client of mine found out). BTW, the basis for their vigilance is the “rebroadcast” of such material without the payment of a separate royalty therefor.
As ASCAP acknowledges, it does not own the rights to the material (generally); it has merely been appointed as agent to enforce the owner’s right to receive royalty payment for the use thereof.
Maybe Rod Stewarts ‘If you like my body”, I know, Alice Cooper’s a Republican, they could get ‘Dead Babies’.
If the artist that recorded it is against its being used, just respect that.
Yes, Phantom, if the owner of the copyright is against the use, then the owner’s wishes should be respected.
BTW, an important (to me) distinction needs to be drawn here. The “cease and desist” statement applies to future use. The use at the convention is over, and, so long as royalties have been paid, there isn’t anything that the Wilsons may lawfully do about it. Future use, though, would be at the risk of litigation, given the statement issued today (together with a letter from the Wilsons attorney to the McCain/Palin campaign and the GOP, I’m sure).
#
avtolle
Posted September 5, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
Yes, Phantom, if the owner of the copyright is against the use, then the owner’s wishes should be respected.
BTW, an important (to me) distinction needs to be drawn here. The “cease and desist” statement applies to future use. The use at the convention is over, and, so long as royalties have been paid, there isn’t anything that the Wilsons may lawfully do about it. Future use, though, would be at the risk of litigation, given the statement issued today (together with a letter from the Wilsons attorney to the McCain/Palin campaign and the GOP, I’m sure).
==========================
But isn’t a public “Cease and Desist” statement useless without the properly paperwork filed IAW with the law and jurisdiction?
That is, a “cease and desist” statement is one of intent, but has no real legal weight.
Or I am sneezing into the wind here?
Isn’t there a song titled “Ankle Biter”? Given the situation, wouldn’t that be more apropos?
Calm down, CONs.
Issues of copyright and intellectual property rights and usage clearances are pretty standard throughout the industry.
You can’t appropriate someone else’s intellectual property to promote a product, cause, or other such enterprises. It’s black-letter law.
And it’s not as if the McCoot campaign hasn’t run into many, many of these objections by appropriating Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode” and Van Halen’s…. whatever it was.
This is the other side of all you CONs bitching about “taking what is mine to benefit others” crap about how government is (or should be) people working together for everyone’s benefit.
SOCIALISM!!!!
No.
Civilization.
Highways, sewers, fire departments, the national defense, equal opportunities, a decent education, a planet that sustains life….
It’s either “socialism” or Heart has a right to control how their intellectual property is used by others.
If the Republic Party thinks they can leverage some votes by playing “Barracuda” at their convention — and to a 30 million television audience — it’s probably worth something to them. If it’s worth it to the user, it’s worth something to those who created it.
That’s about as conservative as it gets.
Legal action by Heart for playing their song written 31 years ago at the RNC?
It still isn’t Public Domain.
I know that when using lyrics in books, authors must get permission, so VT is right on the copyright issue v. royalties. Stephen King does this a lot, starting each chapter with a short lyric. The same copyright goes for quotes, long or short.
Regular, I guess I didn’t state it clearly enough. A cease and desist demand, whether it be by public statement, correspondence from counsel, etc., does not in and of itself have any legal weight. However, to not issue one is implicitly consent to use, which would vitiate any subsequent action brought for copyright infringement (for this is truly the legal action that would need to be brought).
So, Regular, you are correct; the mere issuance of the statement in and of itself carries no legal penalty if ignored. There would need to be an action filed for relief (injunction, in this case) and an order issued by a court before there is anything with “legal weight”. And, without the cease and desist being issued, consent would be implied, so this is a statement of intent, to use your term.
Thanks VT,
Guess I’ll have to put that patented chicken suit and cassette player back in storage for now then. :D
Vaughn, I’m curious: could they really argue “fair use” in this instance? It seems to me they’re using the music to promote an idea and a produce, i.e. Sarah Palin. It does get a little gray.
Kudos to the Wilson sisters anyway. Kick it out, ladies!
Rage, as posted above, I profess no expertise with issues of intellectual property. As you are no doubt aware, one may argue almost anything in court; whether the argument has any legal validity is another matter.
What little I know about “fair use” is that the term has a specific legal meaning which is different from the plain English meaning of the term. There are four (?) statutory descriptions of “fair use”; there are multiple cases on the topic, providing judicial gloss and arguably additional exceptions (parody being one, IIRC).
So, “fair use” could be argued in defense of a copyright infringement claim brought in the future after use of the song after the cease and desist statement; how a court might decide that is outside my ability to ascertain.
I suggest they settle it with a basketball game. The Wilson sisters against Palin.
Of course Annie can set a helluva pic these days.
A couple of musicians are liberals? More shocking revelations from the Democratic party.
My limited understanding of music rights they most likely don’t have the control over their songs and what they are used for.
I would suggest, Mr_Kia, that your limited understanding is incorrect insofar as it applies to those who still hold the copyright to their work.
From the article:
“But the Wilsons condemned the usage then and earlier in the convention, adding that Universal Music Publishing and Sony BMG have sent a cease-and-desist notice to the McCain-Palin campaign, according to CNN.”
Sounds as if Universal Music Publishing and Sony BMG have the copyright.
If they were getting a cut, they’d be just fine with its use.
And I care why?
It sounds to me like Sony BMG have rights to the recording played (and not the copyright to the song itself); Universal Music Publishing may hold the copyright to the song, but I wonder who Universal Music Publishing is (and off to the ‘net to see if I can find out).
I knew they were one of my favorite bands for a reason.
Sounds as if Universal Music Publishing and Sony BMG have the copyright.
This just goes to show that you don’t have a clue.
If they were getting a cut, they’d be just fine with its use.
This, too.
From what I can tell, Universal Music Publishing is a company that represents various artists, writers, producers; it handles royalty collections, disbursements, PR, etc; in other words, a management group. Thus, it would presumably be the appropriate group to contact the GOP, et al., on behalf of Heart, who are under contract with it. So, it seems it (Universal Music Publishing) is not the copyright holder, either.
avtolle
Posted September 5, 2008 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
It sounds to me like Sony BMG have rights to the recording played (and not the copyright to the song itself); Universal Music Publishing may hold the copyright to the song, but I wonder who Universal Music Publishing is (and off to the ‘net to see if I can find out).
—————————————————-
Either way it sounds as if the Wilson sisters sticking their noses in it is for publicity vs. any authority in the matter.
Do post what you find though.
I do always find the legalities of the music industry interesting (i.e. Michael Jackson for instance owning the Beatles catalog).
Michael Jackson purchased John Lennon’s interest in the Beatles catalog from his estate, IIRC.
Universal Music Publishing
It’s the same with a book publisher.
Have any of you ever read the copyright page in a book? Here’s an example fro Harlequin:
ISBN:xxx xxxx xxxx
(TITLE)
Copyright [copyright symbol] 2008 by (author’s name)
All rights reserved. Except for use in any review, the reproduction or utilization of this work in whole or in part in any form by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including xerography, photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, is forbidden without the written permission of the publihser, Harlequin Enterprises Limited… (with address.)
Michael Jackson purchased John Lennon’s interest in the Beatles catalog from his estate, IIRC.
As far as I’ve heard, that’s correct.
Just try to download (legally) any Beatles music. It isn’t out there to download from Amazon, Wal-Mart, iTunes, you name it. You can buy it on CD or Vinyl, but if you can find a place that legally sells downloads, please let me know. :)
Get over it. It was a cool song and if they wanted to use it then it was there right to do so; unless I woke up in Mother Russia today. Seems you LWWs(Left Wing Whackos) always say you believe in freedom of speech but it is becoming more and more apparent everyday that you only believe that it is for you, not for anyone else.
It is a matter of property rights, BorgHunter, not a matter of free speech. As such, it was not the right of the RNC to use the recording without obtaining a license to do so, which, in this case, means more than just purchasing a CD to play. BTW, have you read the license that comes when you purchase a CD, for example? Personal use only appears therein, not to be, etc., etc.
Surely you believe in upholding the property rights of the owner thereof, BorgHunter.
Only the lawless like you, eh, BorgHunter?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/heart-van-halen-orleans-j_n_124264.html
List of those, including Heart, objecting to the use of their property without permission by the McCain campaign.
#
avtolle
Posted September 5, 2008 at 2:50 pm | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/heart-van-halen-orleans-j_n_124264.html
List of those, including Heart, objecting to the use of their property without permission by the McCain campaign.
————————
Now, the question is – Did the sponsors at the Democratic Convention get permission for the use of the songs played there? :D
Or is this just more glorified spin with a legal twist?
I have a feeling a Judge would through any claims either way out on their collective DVD heads.
Or, in other words, let’s put every DJ that plays songs at Weddings where there are republicans present under a gluttony of law suits.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
Hmm, Regular, from what I read, the band played the songs at the DNC; don’t know whether clearances were obtained, but in the absence of any objections, either 1) clearances were obtained or 2) the copyright holders didn’t mind.
On the DJs at weddings bit; if they are careful DJs, the needed licenses for commercial use of the music has been obtained, and the political persuasion of those in attendance has nothing to do with proposed litigation.
On what a Judge would do? We’ll never know unless an action is brought. Based upon the YouTube notice, it seems that the cease and desist request is being honored by someone (likely YouTube, as it would have the liability for continuing rebroadcast).
#
avtolle
Posted September 5, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Permalink
Hmm, Regular, from what I read, the band played the songs at the DNC; don’t know whether clearances were obtained, but in the absence of any objections, either 1) clearances were obtained or 2) the copyright holders didn’t mind.
On the DJs at weddings bit; if they are careful DJs, the needed licenses for commercial use of the music has been obtained, and the political persuasion of those in attendance has nothing to do with proposed litigation.
On what a Judge would do? We’ll never know unless an action is brought. Based upon the YouTube notice, it seems that the cease and desist request is being honored by someone (likely YouTube, as it would have the liability for continuing rebroadcast).
——————–
Then the Judge, in my opinion, can make a decision that the unfair use of their copyright was predicated on the aspect of political view rather than an objection to the use of the song.
If the song Barracuda, could be proven that it was played in deference to a nick name that the Governor of Alaska had as a high school student and not as a means to bolster the standing of a political party
- then I would say the litigants have a case without standing or merit
- the lawsuit was frivolous and counter charges would be allowed
- the accused could request damages from said litigants in addition to court costs
- restraint via legal order could be processed from the bench to prevent further legal argument without first taking it to the appeals process.
Of course, that is from a “Law and Order” TV show point of view. :D
VT, you bring up YouTube.
I notice a lot of music used on YouTube that probably doesn’t have permission to be played. Trying to track down every YouTube with music and contact the creator would probably be a major headache for each artist. It still doesn’t make it right.
I was creating a book trailer for an author a year or so ago, and we were looking for music to use with it. Knowing the “system” as we do, we knew we couldn’t use just any recorded music out there. The author did find music not in the mainstream and paid for rights to use it. (BTW, the music was great!)
Then the Judge, in my opinion, can make a decision that the unfair use of their copyright was predicated on the aspect of political view rather than an objection to the use of the song.
Why would the decision have to be made based on the aspect of political view? Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Period.
Or are you back to arguing fair use?
Why is the ‘e’ included in ‘infringement’ but not in judgment? :)
Predestined
Posted September 5, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
Why is the ‘e’ included in ‘infringement’ but not in judgment?
————————-
Attorneys had it removed for expeditious purposes.
Pre, apparently the YouTube video explosion is creating quite a stir among Intellectual Property lawyers and others. There are many issues surrounding the same, and I’ve read articles suggesting that fair use protects the creator of the video, and an equal number suggesting that the explosion in number of such videos should create an exception to the “enforce your rights or lose them” approach under the law.
Regular, I appreciate your “Law and Order” judicial approach to the issue. I would suggest that it is just that, a TV show approach to a convoluted legal issue. :-)
One thing that is among the few I think I know about intellectual property law is that objection to use of copyrighted material may be made by the owner thereof if the same is used without permission of the owner, and it then becomes the obligation of the defendant to find a defense which would overcome the plaintiff owner’s claim. Thus, I think your frivolous action approach would not be upheld on appeal, but I have to say, I appreciate the way you lay it out.
Good question, Pre, and Regular’s answer is as good as any as far as I’m concerned.
#
Predestined
Posted September 5, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
Then the Judge, in my opinion, can make a decision that the unfair use of their copyright was predicated on the aspect of political view rather than an objection to the use of the song.
Why would the decision have to be made based on the aspect of political view? Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Period.
Or are you back to arguing fair use?
——————————–
Doesn’t matter if my point holds valid.
That is, the litigants would be protesting the use of the song at a sponsored event by the Republicans for political purposes.
Because the song was played for one individual (Sarah Palin) because of her nick name and not for the purposes of promoting the event, I would, as a pseudo-Judge rule that the litigant’s charge held no merit because they used the wrong means to assess a charge.
In other words, they tried to sue the RNC for a misdeed, when in fact, if proven, the song was only meant for an individual which by definition falls under fair use (i.e. song dedication for a singular purpose that has no possible financial or social standing benefit)
The particulars could however, be argued more stringently under the Pseudo Supreme Court. :D
I also think that when a performers music is played at a convention, there is, at least for me, an implication that the performer is supportive of the political party. As was the case with Springsteen, and those that performed at the dnc.
The Wilson sisters are has beens who should be sending flowers to the DNC for playing their song. I understand that the downloads of the song are going through the roof.
avtolle
Posted September 5, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Thus, I think your frivolous action approach would not be upheld on appeal, but I have to say, I appreciate the way you lay it out.
—————————
Well, if I was foolish enough to present that as an unlicensed attorney and jailhouse lawyer, I would probably be the first person in history sent to prison for twenty years mocking the judicial system in a jester-like manner.
:D
I once fought a Rightard for months whose favorite band was the Grateful dead. He never did see the irony.
Come on people, get over it. Chrissie Hynde has been bitching for years about Rush using her song “Ohio” as an intro to every hour he’s on the air. Rush just smiles and pays a royalties check to her each month and has for years. Truth is it is probably her biggest source of income these days, since her career hit the skids about twenty years ago. Come to think about it, thats how long Rush has been on the air nationally. Who knows, maybe Rush is the only thing that keeping Chrissie Hynde from homelessness.
I’ll leave the copyright issues for the attorneys who specialize in that sort of stuff. I don’t think you need the permission of the Wilson sisters to use the song, as long as the royalty is paid. It is, after all, played regularly by radio stations and DJ’s for profit.
More importantly, it absolutely ROCKS!!!!!! One of the top 20 ROCK songs of all time. The ladies kick ass.
Heart is washed up anyway.
Contact US Weekly’s advertisers
http://www.boycottusweekly.com/advertisers.html
GMC, I agree with your assessment of Barracuda.
And, for leaving the issues over copyrights to those of our colleagues that do that sort of thing, agreed; but, I don’t agree with your statement that the Wilsons’ permission to use the song isn’t needed and that all that needs to be done is to pay the royalties, limited, of course, to any future playing of the recording used at the RNC, which is what the cease and desist thing is all about.
The truer statement issued by them should have been it does not represent those 2 women…I as an american women say she does represent me….although the song was not written for Sarah…if the shoe fits….change is what we need and she is willing to give all to do just that…Let the Barracuda loose
“jjj” is hitting every thread with that link.
No one is interested “jjj”.
I’ll leave the copyright issues for the attorneys who specialize in that sort of stuff.
I’ve known DJs who played music at a local bar, which in turn paid royalties to ASCAP. I think you might be right about that but, like that, I defer to the entertainment lawyers–to a degree, anyway: as noted above, intellectual property issues are in a very odd state of flux right now and, as a computer geek and a musician, I’m concerned about things going too far–in either direction.
I think more likely selling more issues than anything else.
teri ?
Do you have shoes?
P.S. An example of an entirely ridiculous copyright claim (see the video).
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/judge-copyright.html
VT –
You’re probably right; as I said, I have little if any expertise in intellectual property law, and I’ll freely admit I’m probably wrong. And that’s OK; I’ve been wrong before. I was wrong once in 2005. I thought I was wrong once in ‘07, but I was mistaken. :-)
But the song kicks ass, I don’t care who you are. Always wanted to play it, but finding a lady who can do Nancy Wilson’s extraordinary voice justice is very difficult.
I was turning up the stereo just to hear it last night.
GMC, ask my office neighbors what happens when “Barracuda” comes on the streaming audio…
:-)
Just for giggles!
——–
Music tastes link to personality
Musical tastes and personality type are closely related, according to a study of more than 36,000 people from around the world.
It suggested classical music fans were shy, while heavy metal aficionados were gentle and at ease with themselves.
BLUES — High self-esteem, creative, outgoing, gentle and at ease
JAZZ — High self-esteem, creative, outgoing and at ease
CLASSICAL MUSIC — High self-esteem, creative, introvert and at ease
RAP — High self-esteem, outgoing
OPERA — High self-esteem, creative, gentle
COUNTRY AND WESTERN — Hardworking, outgoing
REGGAE — High self-esteem, creative, not hardworking, outgoing, gentle and at ease
DANCE — Creative, outgoing, not gentle
INDIE — Low self-esteem, creative, not hard working, not gentle
BOLLYWOOD — Creative, outgoing
ROCK/HEAVY METAL — Low self-esteem, creative, not hard-working, not outgoing, gentle, at ease
CHART POP — High self-esteem, not creative, hardworking, outgoing, gentle, not at ease
SOUL — High self-esteem, creative, outgoing, gentle, at ease
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7598549.stm
Americana: Actually knows what music is.
Barracudas are one of the easiest fish to catch.
They are merciless predators but cowards at heart; they’ll come steaming at you really fast, and stop right in front of your mask looking at you. Just flick your head, They’ll take off. I once found a rocky beach littered with barracuda jaws, some still entangled in the hook and line that caught them. The fishermen didn’t deal with it, they just chopped the jaws off, and let them rot.
So come on Barracuda. Flashy, but stupid, and they don’t last long.
I think I’ve figured out that I am of high esteem, of low esteem, creative, not creative, gentle, not gentle, at ease, not at ease, hardworking and not hard working.
WOW! I’m sure glad they did this study so I could know more about myself.
Why is the ‘e’ included in ‘infringement’ but not in judgment?
————————-
Attorneys had it removed for expeditious purposes.
I always have to go back and take it out. Maybe it’s one of those words spelled “correctly” in Britain that we had to mess with, just because. LOL
Heroin
Heroine
GAWD, will people ridicule you for getting those two mixed up.
By the way it’s:
Cocaine
McCane
One get you high can kill you; the other just kills you.
Linda,
Same with me. I found 2, maybe 3 that I don’t listen to, and I don’t have a clue what Chart Pop is. I’m an eclectic listener, and my choice depends on my mood and what I’m doing.
jjj
“Heart is washed up anyway.”
Any guesses why they didn’t show a picture of them now vs a picture of them 20 years ago?
“Any guesses why they didn’t show a picture of them now vs a picture of them 20 years ago?”
The chose the album cover of the song in question maybe? That’s my guess.
Good on them for protecting their intellectual property from use by cons.
TheBorgHunter
Posted September 5, 2008 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
Get over it. It was a cool song and if they wanted to use it then it was there right to do so; unless I woke up in Mother Russia today. Seems you LWWs(Left Wing Whackos) always say you believe in freedom of speech but it is becoming more and more apparent everyday that you only believe that it is for you, not for anyone else.
—
This comment, and you know who’s “argument” against Coldcreek Beef a couple days ago — his argument was straight out of Pravda, I swear that dipshit authoritarian is a closet commie — should tell you Dems that the current crop of GOP wannebes ain’t conservative.
Not in the least.
These two, and others, they’re populists, through and through. Like, to the bone.
Use it or lose it, bro’s.
Examples:
Lose it: attack Sarah Palin for being white trash (big mistake). Populists have lots of relatives, close relatives like living in their home, who are white trash. They know real white trash, and Gov. Palin ain’t it. It’s wrong because it’s F A L S E.
Use it: attack Sarah Palin for being GW Bush in drag. It goes like this: GW Bush relies on his gut when he makes decisions. Great, that’s what we look for in a leader (it’s normal). However — and this is CRUCIAL — that “gut” has to be fed, and fed WELL, by a world-class education, constant reading, and real mental exercise if we Americans have aspirations to lead the world into what remains of the 21st century. Why? Because otherwise we end up with Iraq, Katrina, Medicare Part D, the Justice Dept, Jack Abramoff: all examples of really bad “by the gut” decisions which could have been easily improved on by anybody whose brain was actually fed.
Anybody think it might be possible, even cheap (because it’s C O R R E C T), to portray Sarah Palin as an intellectual goldbricker of the caliber of Augustus Stupidus?
Now that’s a winner, not least because it links McCain and all of the GOP to Augustus Stupidus. Directly, and plausibly.
Dems should go for the political jugular, but make it the CORRECT jugular.
$0.02
Looks like the picture of their album cover to me.
http://www.mylifetime.com/lifestyle/entertainment/ann-and-nancy-wilson
From the looks of the photo, someone in the photo has been slapping on the feedbag way too much.
Heart Singer Photo
P.S. An example of an entirely ridiculous copyright claim (see the video).
The little guy in the video reminds me of my 1-year-old grandson, only he dances like that to Lady Marmalade. (No, it’s not on YouTube.)
Actually, the song “Barracuda” first appeared on Heart’s 1976 debut album “Dream Boat Annie”. The Album “Barracuda” was a “Greatest Hits” Album from much later.
Beethoven’s 9th symphony is out of copyright.
Plus, it’s in a language that has consistent spelling rules and grammar.
Admittedly, Spanish has even better spelling rules, but the grammar gets a bit weird, and there are too many know-nothing Spanish haters out there anyhow.
But German? The US and German go way back. The German translation of the Declaration of Independence was printed in the Pennsylvanischer Staatsgebot just 5 days after it was ratified.
Wir koennen eine gute Sprache benuetzen, wenn wir wollen.
Interesting that the war mongering supposedly flar waving republicans picked the song Barracuda by Heart.
“By the mid-1970s, some of the male band members who had been eligible to be drafted to Vietnam were avoiding living in the U.S., so the band relocated to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. By early 1977, the band was able to return to the United States after President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to Vietnam draft evaders.”
Do republicans even know they are supporting draft dodgers?
Regular I hear that you look like a cross between Michael Moore and the Elephant Man.
Political mama – who are you to talk about another posters looks?
What I hear about you isn’t pleasant. As a gentleman, I should refrain. But if you are stepping out there posting meaningful stuff, like what someone LOOKS like – I heard you are so ugly you’d make a freight train leave the tracks. That so?
Is that what counts to libs? Looks?
Blue,
“Good on them for protecting their intellectual property from use by cons.”
Cons, for obvious reasons don’t understand or give a damn about intellectual property; in fact the only property rights they care about are their own. If they can steal it from you, they will.
#
Political_mama
Posted September 5, 2008 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
Regular I hear that you look like a cross between Michael Moore and the Elephant Man.
=====================
Yeah, except I don’t weight 380 pounds like Michael Moore and don’t have any scar tissue around my head or shoulders like the Elephant man.
Ask Steven Davis how I look, since he’s the only person that has seen me. I don’t claim to be handsome, but I’m hardly fat nor do I have any visible disfigurement.
I read an article on the legalities yesterday, but didn’t keep a link.
It was as much as I suspected: so long as a music was properly licensed and royalties paid, they can continue to use it at rallies.
If, however, they tried to use it in a political ad, that’s an instant lawsuit. Jackson Browne is already suing for the unauthorized use of “Running on Empty.”
#
Rage
Posted September 6, 2008 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
I read an article on the legalities yesterday, but didn’t keep a link.
It was as much as I suspected: so long as a music was properly licensed and royalties paid, they can continue to use it at rallies.
If, however, they tried to use it in a political ad, that’s an instant lawsuit. Jackson Browne is already suing for the unauthorized use of “Running on Empty.”
——————
I’m sure sound effects technicians will be next in line to sue.
All those political commercials that used canned explosions, car sounds, tweets, honks, beeps, animal sounds and anything not related to music but registers on the sound pressure level meter.
Headline:
SFX guy sues Democrats for “braying” donkey sounds.
Too bad Heart, Springsteen, etc didn’t put a warning label on their albums that they were only for sale to people with their own beliefs!!! You’d think those two old crows would enjoy that people still listen to them….
Ha!
Borghunter is either a troll or not too bright.
Mother Russia? You’ve got to be kidding me. In Mother Russia, everything was the property of the state, people had no individual property rights or copyrights. So I guess what you are actually saying (if I can read what’s going through that puny little brain of yours) is that McCain and Palin are a couple of commies!
Sorry Regular, but the use is a little different.
People have to pay useage fees for the fair use of sound fx, usually they either lease or buy a sound fx library. Same is true for wedding DJ’s. Wedding DJ’s have to pay licensing fees for the use of music they play at wedding receptions. This is also true for nightclubs, bars, etc.
By the way, as someone above posted, Palin is a Populist, not a true Conservative. There’s a big difference. Unfortunately, not may Republicans seem to know the difference anymore.
When it comes to governing styles (ie, governing by gut instinct),
Sarah Palin = George W Bush
Are you happy with the overall direction of the USA under the leadership of George W Bush? If so, then you’ll LOVE Sarah Palin!
Now wait a minute pedant. You people have been trying to paint McCain as another George Bush. Now its Sarah Palin? Is that all you people got? No wonder you’re losng.
And Barney, Sarah Palin is a conservative with a populist bent. Taking on corruption and the “money is God” wing of the republican party does not cancel ones conservative credentials.
Late to this thread.
However:
The McCain campaign says that they PAID the royalty.
Therefore, HEART has NOTHING to say about the matter, legally speaking.
From header (emphasis added),
. . . But the rock group Heart isn’t happy about it. Ann and Nancy Wilson issued a statement today:
“Sarah Palin’s views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image. The song ‘Barracuda’ was written in the late ’70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The ‘barracuda’ represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there’s irony in Republican strategists’ choice to make use of it there.”
A more appropriate song for Sarah Palin would be Tina Turner’s “Private Dancer”.
cosmos
HEART does not “OWN” the song.
Heart sold their rights, in exchange for royalties.
Those royalties were PAID.
Heart can bitch, but Heart has no case.
econ,
And WHERE in my 11:31 pm post did I argue that Heart had a “legal” case?
““Sarah Palin’s views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image.” “
All the more reason to play the song over and over and over again.
I will make sure to play it at everyone of my get togethers before the election.
LOL
Nathaniel posted September 15, 2008 at 12:10 am
“All the more reason to play the song over and over and over again.
I will make sure to play it at everyone of my get togethers before the election.
LOL”
————-
Excellent idea Nathaniel! (huge sarcasm)
Prove that you, a “Christian” Marine, have zero respect for the artists who created that song — like you did by stealing 100 GB of music files.