Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans

damn_registrars's Journal: Conservatives Love Copyright Protection So Much... 27

Journal by damn_registrars
That they make a point to crap all over it.

We of course remember Saint Ronnie abusing "Born In The USA" from the Boss, back in 1984. More recently, GWB tried to make use of Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down", and even more recently yet was Sarah Palin trying to make use of Heart's "Barracuda".

So who is stealing music today? None other than our resident lunatic GOP candidate Michele Bachmann. Even better, she went for a song by known liberal (or communist, in her world) Tom Petty - you would think they would have learned this the first time. Bachmann went for "American Girl", and now is being hit with a cease and desist order from the singer-songwriter.

Yep, that's what individual freedom is all about for Bachmann. You have the freedom to be creative and make your own product, and she has the freedom to abuse it and give you no compensation for it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Conservatives Love Copyright Protection So Much...

Comments Filter:
  • Sadly for Mr. Petty, most record companies (who would sell their grandmothers for a nickle) have a straight license for a fee model with songs that any politician can legally pay for and then use. Did Bachmann pay up, or is she outright stealing the song? No, I didn't read the F***ing article - I've seen enough of her DERP in the last two days. First the Jown Wayne Gacy / John Wayne "confusion", and then insisting that a 9 year old boy who later when on to fight slavery was a "founding father". This is just

    • Did Bachmann pay up, or is she outright stealing the song?

      As far as I understand, she did indeed steal the song, as no permission was asked for its use - from the artist, the record company, or anyone else with any authority to grant such use.

      Now, I know it is unpopular to move lines around when quoting someone, but I wanted to take the next line last:

      Sadly for Mr. Petty, most record companies (who would sell their grandmothers for a nickle) have a straight license for a fee model with songs that any politician can legally pay for and then use

      As I recall Tom Petty was a rather shrewd negotiator with the record companies. Indeed a lot of other artists of his generation signed away all kinds of things that they should not have (John Fogerty a prime and

      • That's possibly true - and totally cool on the reordering of things - that makes more sense. Tom Petty is actually a bit of an asshole, but I agree with him on this, and not just for political reasons. As an artist, I would be horrified if someone took one of my songs and used it to promote a different message than the one I had intended.

  • That's <the song> [bobdylan.com] that should be directed at all the politicians

    Question: Why are you using the republican icon for a story about conservatives? The American flag would be much more generic since the savagery is a national phenomenon.. becoming more global.. hmmm... maybe just use the earth icon

    • I was actually tempted instead to go for the "It's Funny, Laugh" icon, but I feel like I use that one a lot. Ultimately, I was aiming to bring out the utter stupidity of the song selections that are made by the republicans in particular. While Saint Ronnie selecting "Born in the USA" might ultimately epitomize it more than any other, there is no shortage of entertaining entertainment gaffes coming from the GOP when they assume that a song they don't understand must be coming from an artist who agrees with
  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

    Liberals love artistic freedom so much, they sure get fascist when it comes to applying THEIR music to something they dislike.

    Also, the leftist politicians love copyright as much as conservatives do. You don't see any significant movement from them to free things up; you only see it on the "far left" ... and also, from the "far right." As usual, it's those closer to the middle who care less about civil liberties, and those further from the middle, on both sides, who care more about them.

    Sometimes, I think

    • Liberals love artistic freedom so much, they sure get fascist when it comes to applying THEIR music to something they dislike.

      Please elaborate on where the fascism exists in this situation. Tom Petty has a specific contract with his record company that allows him to do this; he is the owner of his music. Other musicians have different contracts that may or may not grant them the same privileges with regards to their music - a good counter example would be the first contracts that John Fogerty and CCR signed; it took quite a while before Fogerty was able to negotiate a new contract so that he would have some control over future

      • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        Please elaborate on where the fascism exists in this situation.

        He won't let some people use his music.

        he is the owner of his music

        And?

        I guess I figured most people were aware that Petty had a contract with his record company that allows him these rights.

        That is completely irrelevant to my point. Whether the rights belong to the artist or the record company has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

        If your argument is that the democrats are not liberal, I do agree with that.

        My argument is that Democrats are not necessarily liberal. Many of them, of course, are very liberal.

        No currently serving democrat who I can think of deserves the title "liberal"

        Nancy Pelosi. Barney Frank. Jim McDermott. Dennis Kucinich. Chuck Schumer.

        It may just be an indication that he falls for the fallacy of the "two party" system

        "He"? You mean YOU? You're the one who called him a liberal. Again, I see no evidence he's a liberal.

        • Please elaborate on where the fascism exists in this situation.

          He won't let some people use his music.

          But the music is his property, as provided by his contract. If you won't let me rebuild my transmission in your driveway, does that make you a fascist as well?

          he is the owner of his music

          And?

          Doesn't the property owner have the right to say how his or her property is used?

          I guess I figured most people were aware that Petty had a contract with his record company that allows him these rights.

          That is completely irrelevant to my point. Whether the rights belong to the artist or the record company has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

          So then if the record company owned the rights instead, and they objected to politicians using the music without compensation, would that make the record company fascist?

          If your argument is that the democrats are not liberal, I do agree with that.

          My argument is that Democrats are not necessarily liberal. Many of them, of course, are very liberal.

          Few, to none, of them are very liberal.

          No currently serving democrat who I can think of deserves the title "liberal"

          Nancy Pelosi. Barney Frank. Jim McDermott. Dennis Kucinich. Chuck Schumer.

          That is a list of five people who are associated with bei

          • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

            But the music is his property, as provided by his contract.

            My point has nothing to do with his contract, but with copyright law. I don't know how you keep missing this obvious point.

            Doesn't the property owner have the right to say how his or her property is used?

            In terms of intellectual property, those obviously fictitious rights have limitations, and should be limited further than they are. Trademarks and so on should have exclusivity, because they have no meaning otherwise. But for copyrights and patents, I think exclusivity should be far more limited: you should have a certain time period (say, 5 or 10 years, depending on what it is, perh

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              Speaking of irony, I do like Petty's album The Last DJ, perhaps not as much as many critics, but more than most fans ... and I can't help but detect the irony in Petty's story about a DJ "who plays what he wants to play, and says what he wants to say;" and when the DJ is disallowed from playing what he wishes, Petty says "there goes your freedom of choice." I submit that the effect of what Petty is doing here isn't all that different.

              Just had a thought though ... the DJ protagonist of that song also was a victim, like Bachmann, of the problem of association: the main reason Clear Channel restricts its playlist is because it -- for whatever reasons -- does not want to be associated with anything not on its playlist. That's really not different what Petty is doing. His DJ left to go to Mexico, but the obvious implication is that Petty thinks he should've been free to play what he wants.

              Again, not saying Petty's a hypocrite: he probably

            • I think exclusivity should be far more limited: you should have a certain time period (say, 5 or 10 years, depending on what it is, perhaps) to develop your idea into a product (whether it's a widget or a book or a song),

              And what if you're writing code for Microsoft? Should all their code be released after 5-10 years? Should we have all the code for, say, Windows98, available to us now to use as we please?

              Or is code inherently different than music?

              and my use of "fascist" was tongue-in-cheek

              I wish you would have made that more clear earlier. Certain circles of conservatives throw around the fascist label so often now that it no longer has any real meaning coming from them.

              Nancy Pelosi. Barney Frank. Jim McDermott. Dennis Kucinich. Chuck Schumer.

              That is a list of five people who are associated with being liberal. Those five people talk about being liberal, but their actual records in congress show otherwise.

              Then you do not know their records very well.

              Then please, if it is so easy, provide us with an example of something they actually did

              • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                And what if you're writing code for Microsoft? Should all their code be released after 5-10 years?

                No, you're a bit confused ... I didn't say anyone should be obligated to give away anything. But yes, I think they should not be able to prevent someone from copying them, within a couple of years after the product's been released. They shouldn't be obligated to give away their source code anymore than Petty should be obligated from giving away the discrete pre-mix tracks from his records. Similarly, using Windows at your business is like playing a Petty song on your radio station.

                (Also, again, in case t

                • You don't see Microsoft, or most other software publishers, distinguishing uses of their code. They let anyone use it, if they pay for it or whatever.

                  Wasn't Apple dictating who could or could not use their code, even if they were willing to pay for it? As I recall, the first releases of OSX for Intel Macs were not available for sale at any price, you could only get them preloaded on a new system. As I understand the current situation is that if you buy OSX you are only allowed to load it on an Apple computer, even if you have another system that meets the same hardware requirements.

                  Are you opposed to Apple stating who can and cannot use their softwa

                  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                    Wasn't Apple dictating who could or could not use their code, even if they were willing to pay for it?

                    Not who, no. For specific purposes, they have in the past. And I think that such things should be limited, as I said. You appear to think that if you say "Apple!" then I'll hold a different standard or back down or something. You should know I don't do that.

                    As I understand the current situation is that if you buy OSX you are only allowed to load it on an Apple computer, even if you have another system that meets the same hardware requirements.

                    I don't know of any such requirement. Who reads EULAs? I'd be surprised, though.

                    Incorrect. Liberalism is about helping all of society, and doing it through any means necessary. It's similar to what Keynes says: it doesn't matter where the money goes, as long as it's flowing.

                    The workers are by far - by population - the larger portion of society.

                    Yes, and most of them will benefit from this, the liberals in Congress believe.

                    A bill that favors a smaller portion of society - as in corporations instead of workers - is not to the benefit of society as a whole.

                    Oh come on. You can't believe that. So a bill that gives GE a trillion dollars to come

                    • You appear to think that if you say "Apple!" then I'll hold a different standard or back down or something. You should know I don't do that.

                      You're making another faulty assumption, there. Although that is just one of many that you have made in this discussion. I selected to mention Apple only because of what they have done to restrict installations of OSX. If I could find a similar example of Microsoft, Adobe, or any other software company that I could easily think of, I would have gone for that. Apple was just the first one that came to mind.

                      I actually happen to be rather fond of OSX, I think it is a very nice OS. If I could buy it fro

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      Nevermind that by action there are not liberals left in congress.

                      Nevermind that you commit the question-begging fallacy. As you often do.

                      Wrong again. Actual liberals despise the bill at least as much as conservatives do

                      False. I listed off several liberals who supported it.

                      No. Other countries implemented single payer without forcing everyone to buy into for-profit care first.

                      Yes, because the people supported single-payer. Here, they do not. Therefore you have to do it incrementally, and this is a necessary step for that strategy.

                      Your first video link says right in the title how wrong you are. It explicitly says that a public option would lead to single payer - except we have no public option. So that doesn't hold any weight.

                      I explained this. Please learn to read.

                      There is no such thing as Obamacare

                      You're an idiot. It's a perfectly valid nickname for a law that now exists. That's like saying there's no such person as "Dubya."

                      You might as well say that Obama wants to incite thermonuclear war with the USSR, it would be just as well supported by the complete absence of facts that you have presented.

                      Right ... other than the fact that Obama said he wante

                    • Wrong again. Actual liberals despise the bill at least as much as conservatives do

                      False. I listed off several liberals who supported it.

                      Just because you dislike them, does not automatically qualify them as liberals. You failed to show actual liberal deeds coming from them, as the health insurance company bailout act was undoubtedly not liberal in any meaningful sense of the word.

                      No. Other countries implemented single payer without forcing everyone to buy into for-profit care first.

                      Yes, because the people supported single-payer. Here, they do not.

                      Actually in most polls, the number who support it are within margin of error with those who oppose it - and a very large portion of people who are undecided but keep getting counted as opposing it because the pollster (or pundit) counted anyone who did not say th

    • Since I may have your attention, I'd like to request to be removed from your foes list. I've been there for almost 3 years now.

      I'm even willing to promise that I will never write a reply in any of your journal entries again.

      If my motives are not clear, I will state them here. I ask this only because there are some people who occasionally write interesting JEs who have you on their friends list. The people I am thinking of in particular from that set often use the "no foes or friends foes" option, whi

The reward of a thing well done is to have done it. -- Emerson

Working...