BTW, those elephants' GOP stars have been turned up-side-down like a goat since W. Bush entered the White House. Just an observation that has been discussed for a few years on Air America. The original stars on the American flag were never turned up-side-down. I'm sure I sound nutty by pointing that out. But I do wonder why the GOP logo became that way and has remained that way. The star as a goat is symbolic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/581073/posts
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...sage513627/pg1

Given the way Americans feel about the wars, the economy, and the Republican leadership, Republicans would LOVE to send as many voters as possible to the polls with Sarah Palin high in their thoughts.

Judging from the volume of reactions here--more than 200 posts in just the two most popular threads--the GOP is doing a great job of making Palin an "issue."

Those who would like to see Palin lose would be well-advised to ignore her and, when she's brought up, to avoid expressing any dislike or disdain, but instead politely change the topic to the real issues.

The damage cannot be undone. The proceedings are documented on film and the song is now part of it.
Accepting compensation would be tacit approval.

Isn't respect of property rights a right-wing issue.

Did the DNC get permission to use the music they played?

Someone bought the music and played it an event - perfectly legal (at least there have been no accusations of theft that I'm aware of). The fact the event was reported on and aired does not violate any copyight issues.

Y'all are just determined not to like 'the enemy'. She appears to have been a good choice for McCain, by early reactions, which probably rankles you even more *grin*. The speech wasn't deep, but it performed its function.

Going over the transcript, I didn't see her attacking Obama as a community organizer, but defending herself against prior criticism about her lack of experience, comparing her own CEO experience more favorably to Obama's work.

I think her take-me-as-I-am approach grabbed the hearts of the Republican base as it was planned to do, allowing McCain a bit more freedom to woo the independents without alienating his base.

Yea - a good choice, indeed, if only by the reaction here *grin*.




[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited September 05, 2008).]

So, Jerry, you're ok with the attempted book banning thing, huh?

Jerry,

Sorry, this won't fly: Going over the transcript, I didn't see her attacking Obama as a community organizer, but defending herself against prior criticism about her lack of experience, comparing her own CEO experience more favorably to Obama's work.

"Actually have responsibilities!" is pretty clear English. Jerry, you're a master of tone and implication everywhere else. And in the actual delivery, she fairly dripped with scornfulness. And though perhaps she shouldn't be held responsible for the boorishness of the crowd (though she did whip them into a lather), her audience was already roaring at the word "community."

Best,
Slipp

"Someone bought the music and played it an event - perfectly legal (at least there have been no accusations of theft that I'm aware of). The fact the event was reported on and aired does not violate any copyight issues."

Wrong.

Think about it this way. What if you published a book of poetry and someone bought it. And then the McCain campaign started playing a recording of one of your poems over the loudspeaker at the convention and in promotional tapes sent out to media outlets around the world.

Leaving aside the issue of hell freezing over, I think you can see that the campaign cannot simply make your poem its own and use it on television and in its promotional materials to its heart content simply because they plunked down $12 to buy your book.

Poem or song, there's little difference here. You can't "publish" someone else's copyrighted work, and rebroadcasting is a form of publication.

I don't think it's a big issue, by the way. I'm much more concerned with the ridiculousness of claiming that being mayor of a town of 7000 people is sufficient preparation for leading the free world (particularly after the McCain campaign ridiculed the idea of a Keane vice presidency by saying that being mayor of Richmond, Virginia was not the sort of preparation that counts).

But while we will no doubt disagree on politics, when it comes to the copyright issue you are simply wrong.

What does the DNC have to do with it?

(And, as far as I know, they've followed the rules when it comes to appropriating other people's property. I could be wrong, tho. I've just not heard any differently.)

As for The RNC in question, they did not get permission, no. They didn't even ask for permission according to the cease and desist order from Heart.

And Roger's right - it is NOT perfectly legal to use a copyrighted song - not the music or the lyrics, without first obtaining permission and paying an agreed upon royality.

What happens if I accidentally use a piece of copyright protected music?

You would probably receive a "cease and desist" letter from the copyright holder advising that you have infringed on his copyright. You would them present your PD research findings and attempt to reach an amicable agreement with the copyright holder. If you had done your research properly and had good reason to believe you had a legal right to use the music, hopefully the copyright holder would accept the most reasonable royalties possible for the use you made of his song. However, making an honest error in no way protects you from paying royalties due to a copyright holder. After you have already used the song, you are pretty much dependent on the copyright holder's mercy when royalties are assessed. If there is any doubt about rights to a song, you should always obtain clearance through an attorney or rights clearance organization prior to any usage.
http://www.pdinfo.com/faq.htm

Considering the McCain campaign has already been in hot water with both Jackson Browne and John Mellencamp over the same issue you'd think they'd figure it out already.




[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 05, 2008).]

Not familiar with it - kindly post the information.

Roger

I'm discussing the playing of the music at the convention - not in any publications - which is the only issue I'm aware of. The media reporting on an event is not a publication. If they used the music in something published to the public without permission then the creators have the right ot sue for compenstaion. If they used it to create a visual for a meeting, not publication, I don't believe (may be wrong) there's an infringement. If they hired a band to perform, the band has to acquire rights to the music they perform. That right may be (again Im not sure) inherent in the purchase of the music.

If I make a recording of my poetry, and it is purchased, the buyer has certain rights to play my recording for non-commercial use. If someone else records my poetry without my permission for publication or commercial purposes, they have violated the copyright.

It's deeper and more tangled than this. Ch out the 2 Live Crew and Jane Fonda cases: they're being presumtive about the use as much as they once were. I'm not familiar with any accusations they 'published' the music. Also, hey may have a case under fair use. That's up to the courts. If you have specific information, I'd be interested in knowing about it.



[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited September 05, 2008).]

Lo

So you're advising if they played the song during the convention they violated a copyright? Or did they do more than that?

[quote]Originally posted by Roy Hamilton:

The Silver Star is a big one. You should be very proud.



John Kerry won one, right?

My platoon leader had two Silvers and six Purple Hearts. My platoon sergeant had no medals. I asked the sergeant, how come? He told me that purple hearts were for careless soldiers. He wore several campaign ribbons, but no jewelry on them. He also used to march us three miles to crawl through a culvert rather than cross a road.

He won our hearts and minds.

Bob

How the hell do you "accidentally" use copyrighted music? It's pretty clear what's in copyright and what isn't. Sony Bono--a Republican congressman, and for that matter, a well-known musician--literally wrote the current law. For Republicans to claim to not understand what is and isn't in copyright is blatant bullshit.

The sad fact is, they have enough power to run roughshod over the laws when it amuses them and they know it.

The other fact is that, with the exception of a few country and western singers who make their money off phony flag-waving, no musician wants a damn thing to do with the Republican party. Even aside from having different politics, no one wants their music to be associated with the failed policies of a failed administration.

And as the Iraq war has borne out, the Republican party is made of fail.

In other news, absolutely great editorial by Jamie Lee Curtis here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-..._b_123491.html

Very interesting read: http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341

More reading.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,7915118.story

Steinem wrote the best article I've seen on this issue yet. [Nemo's link]

Here's an excerpt:

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. ...To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

Oh, I don't think we have to worry about that "protest" [against Hillary losing the nomination] vote any longer! Moot point now.

Is it true Condi rejected the Veep nomination? No comment. It's another minefield.

ROFLMAO
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...t-fly-on-ebay/

So much for the Ebay story.

Oh, that's great! I was thinking today,...who bought that jet on Ebay? I did't not believe the story...they wouldn't be so fucking crazy as to tout it as they have if it weren't true.

Or would they?

~,:^)

edit in: Yes, the Steinem article is tremendous. Great byline for that editorial. Thanks Nemo.



[This message has been edited by Rick Mullin (edited September 05, 2008).]

No answer to my question on the question of Heart's song: was it just used at the convention or was it published in some form? It was a sincere question, folks, not an attack on your opinions.

I'm not "advising" anything - all I did was find an legal article regarding the unauthorized use of copyrighted music which is not in the public domain.

The article seems to suggest that permission should be sought before using a song or music which belongs to someone else. It also seems to suggest that if the original rights holder protests the unauthorized use that they can be entitled to financial remuneration.


Every so often a thread pops up here with someone complaining that they've found a poem which they had written has suddenly appeared on someone's blog or in some e-zine somewhere without their permission or knowledge. Generally they are angry about it - and rightfully so, if you ask me.
The only recourse is to ask the offending site to remove it - or to notify the owners of the site and get them to remove it if the actual website belongs to a bigger holder.

I believe when you take something which is not yours and use it for your own purposes it's called "theft." With material objects, that's illegal - and punishable. With other, less tangible matters it seems to be a grayer area.

So, we've established that most of us would be irritated if we found out one of our poems had been taken without our knowledge or consent but that our recourses are small. Removal is about all we can hope for. There's not much monetary value to a poem - it's not like stealing a bicycle which you can say cost X amount of dollars and therefore you are entitled to X amount of dollars to compensate you for your loss. Songs are probably much the same. But it belonged to you just like that bicycle was yours, and you're just as angry that it was stolen.

Now say that your poem was "borrowed" by an ezine like "The New Formalist" or some other magazine whose political/religious views or whose editor's views are utter anathema to you. You'd be even angrier, I'm sure. A minor irritation would become a major one. Not only has your poem been lifted, it's being used to promote a cause or a belief which is not only not yours but is in direct conflict with yours. Not only have they taken your poem without persmission, they're using it to sell their product. You have, unwittingly and unwillingly, become a spokesperson for an idea you abhor.

From The Heart Sister's response, I'm pretty comfortably assuming that's pretty much how they feel.

Do they have actual legal recourse? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. It seems that if you request someone NOT use your product to promote their product and they refuse, then you SHOULD have legal recourse. A "borrower" can claim ignorance the first time but once they've been warned, I imagine that if they do not comply they can be held liable.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if the campaign uses the song again. They've not reused the Mellencamp or the Jackson Browne so I am assuming they are content to do wrong until called out on it and then move on.

It does seem a little strange, if not deliberate, that they would continue to "borrow" songs without asking the authors or musicians, though. Obviously they've been warned before. Which makes it appear just as obvious that they don't care.

To me, it's simple. If they don't mind taking something which belongs to someone else, even when they know full well it's wrong because they've been told it's wrong, and they continue to do the same thing to other people, then they surely aren't going to care about taking something which belongs to me, either.

My world is pretty basic. If you'll do it to a someone, knowing full well that it's going to be noticed and it's going to be objected to, you'll certainly not hesitate to do it to a no one.

Had they done it once in ignorance I'd be fine with it. It's an "opps" and "opps" are forgivable. To repeat it a third and fourth time on a national stage {with a total of 62 million people watching) is no longer an "opps" it's a "ha ha" and I really don't need a president who's laughing at what he can get away with.

Lo

Lo

So we're only talking about using the song at the convention.

When Michelle Obama left the podium at the Democratic National Convention to the tune of Stevie Wonder's "Isn't She Wonderful", did they get prior permission from the copyright holder to play that song?

Personally, I doubt it. I could be wrong, but a vast amount of music is played at those conventions over the several days of the conventions. I've done a little more research into (not extensive) into cases, and despite your opinion of what's legal or not, I don't see a copyright violation. Just because a 'cease and desist' order was issued does not necessarily mean a copyright was violated. That's what the court decides. The order is a temporary measure until the issue is litigated.

If the Democrats didn't get permission for every song they played at their convention, didn't they commit the same 'crime' you're accusing the Republicans of? Why aren't you ranting at them - or are you just assuming they did everything properly because they're Democrats *wink*. (Just teasing, Lo).

The issue appears to be two members of Heart don't like having a song they recorded associated with Palin. A former guitarist - who played in the recorded version - thought it was great (I read his comments in an interview). He thought it was great publicity.

Was there a copyright violation? That's for the courts to decide. It's questionable, to me.

Since no one answered my question about the book burning issue I'll research that one when I have time, also.

I'm wondering why no one has mentioned that Palin has more experience as an elected official than Hillary?

If Palin weren't such a good choice for McCain, I doubt people here would be attacking her so incessantly. They would merely ignore her.

[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited September 06, 2008).]

Jerry,

In the sense that Karl Rove would consider Palin a 'good choice' for McCain, I think many Democrats would agree with you. But if you mean that she is a good choice for the American people to turn the country in a better direction, no, I don't think so. If you think the evangelicals were happy about getting Bush into the White House, go look around at the James Dobson, Pat Robertson, et al reactions to this Sarah Palin. I didn't know you were one of them.
She's from the "Assembly of God". I don't know how many people here have ever been inside an "Assembly of God" congregation - - it is a very bizarre experience. The problem in those kind of churches is that they worship an image of God that is like Molech. They think God is hateful like they are.

I also find it humorous that certain parties - interviews - brought up the fact that Palin's husband ha a DUI 22 years ago. What about this from Obama's book:

Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/24/news/dems.php

And on a recent thread Democrats here were calling Cindy McCain a druggie (and she's not even running for President!)

All I ask is that people not be hypocrites...



[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited September 06, 2008).]

Anne

I meant 'good for McCain' as in 'increasing his chances to get elected'.

If the Democrats didn't get permission for the songs played they, too, would have committed the same offense, yes. In the interest of fairness I've just googled 17 pages of "song usage" and "Democrats" and found nothing to suggest that they've done so, however. So, either I'm googling the wrong words, they've never done so, or they've done so and no one objected.

I did find several articles stating that Jackson Browne IS actively suing the McCain campaign for using "Running on Empty" in a commercial.

Singer/songwriter Jackson Browne is suing Republican presidential nominee John McCain and the Republican party for using his song "Running on Empty" in a recent TV commercial.

In the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, Browne claims McCain and the party did not obtain permission to use the song for an ad in which "Senator McCain and the Republicans mock Democratic candidate for president Barack Obama for suggesting that the country conserve gas through proper tire inflation." Browne, a lifelong Democrat, is seeking unspecified damages as well as a permanent injunction prohibiting the use of "Running on Empty" in any form by the McCain campaign.

"Not only have Senator McCain and his agents plainly infringed Mr. Browne's copyright in 'Running on Empty,' but the Federal Courts have long held that the unauthorized use of a famous singer's voice in a commercial constitutes a false endorsement and a violation of the singer's right of publicity," says Browne lawyer Lawrence Iser.
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/conte...3822c0db?imw=Y

And yes, I realize a commerical is different than a convention - but it does show a willingness on the part of the McCain campaign to disregard property rights.

Like I said earlier, do it once and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - do it repeatedly and the doubt is removed.

Sorry, Jerry, there's some stuff on one of the other threads regarding the book banning (not burning) so I thought the question was answered.

According to an article in Time Magazine, one of Mrs. Palin's first acts as mayor was to visit the local library and ask the librarian what she would have to do in order to have certain books removed from the shelves.

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...837918,00.html

Unfortunately (And embarassingly) there appears to be a contingency of Left Wingers who have jumped on the story and started circulating a supposed "list" of the requested books - and the morons incuded the Harry Potter series which wasn't even published at the time - which, in my mind at least, casts a serious shadow of doubt on what may have been a true story at one time.

Please don't think I am a rabid anything, Jerry. I'm not. I'm as interested in truth as you are. I'm not even a democrat - I've never been a registered anything until this year.

I try very carefully to check my sources and to verify them whenever possible. I've come down as hard on some "lefties" here as I've come down on the Right - I hate hyperbole and innuendo wherever it comes from.

Am I always right? Nah, not by a long shot. No one is always anything. But if I'm stating a fact, I try very hard to make sure it's verifiable - if I'm stating an opinion, I try very hard to preface it by saying so. I enjoy hearing from people with opposing views - it keeps me from becoming the type of person I would normally disrespect. I actually try to keep an open mind although I suppose I don't succeed very well. However, even if I vehemently disagree with a person, I will never disagree or dispute his/her right to say it.

In my opinion John McCain and Sarah Palin are very scary people. Am I trying to force the information available to fit my opinion? Maybe. I hope not, but I can't guarentee it. What one reads and how one reads it is always colored by their beliefs.

I'm trying, tho, I'm trying.

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

This is what I - in the abscence of any facts - suspect.

They were wrong in the usage of 'Running on Empty'. The party might argue it was a non-commercial use, but it doesn't have to be commercial to be a violation, as I read it. The courts appear to be twisty in their interpretations, though.

(More later if you're interested - have to run).

I'll disagree about the convention usage, but acknowledge that I might be wrong and you might be right.

And that is what I - in the absence of any facts - concede.

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

God, we're civil this morning, aren't we? LOL

And sure, I'm always interested...whenever you've got time.

L

Palin tried to fire the librarian for not cooperating in the banning of books (about which no one had complained except Palin), but there was backlash in the community so Palin had to back off. I do find it amusing that a mayor who strutted her stuff in a skimpy bathing suit for an audience and judges who would determine if she had the best body of them all was the moving force behind a desire to censor material she found salacious.

As far as copyright is concerned, Jerry, the plain fact is that you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, as in whether Palin is a horse's ass (my opinion, yes). I haven't even heard the McCain people claim that they didn't violate a copyright. If you have some reputable source to cite opining that there was no copyright violation, then cite it. Until then, why not believe the lawyers who are all basically in agreement on the subject?

Wow! I'm qualified. I have five kids, my youngest has a chromosome disorder which made him moderately/severely mentally retarded, plus he is autistic. I did the PTA thing too. Actually president of the PTA for a couple years. And some members of my family like to drink! On the other hand: I'm a stay-at-home mom that is more like a hard working sled-dog than a pitbull. I don't hunt big game trophies, though I've killed and eaten squirrels and done trap shooting. I'm a pro-choice, pro-dirty books-- if that's our cuppa, non-church going ex-Catholic agnostic (pretty much atheiest)My husband does business in China, (and loves his country.) I've traveled to several foreign countries. We own more than one house. My grandchildren came after my daughters had been married a few years but though we would have been disappointed, had they become pregnant at 17 or 18, we would have welcomed the grandbaby if they had decided (with our help) the to have the child. I'm somewhat ashamed to say--I would do just about anything to keep my oldest son out of Iraq.

The thought of me potentially leading the free world is frightening! HA!

I know this doesn't need saying, but I didn't mean to denigrate the PTA or the work involved in raising five children. (Just saying this for my own sake.)

More moved by the post above than by anything I heard at the Republican Convention (in fairness, I doubt they were trying to-make-misty-eyed the likes of me).

[This message has been edited by Mike Slippkauskas (edited September 06, 2008).]

Mike of course it didn't need saying. I took no offense and I don't understand how anyone that's being honest could. I know the value of what I do, it's important for me and my family and a few others in the communtity, but I mean come on, PTA or motherhood as a qualification for VP is nuts! IMO

of course there's always someone that will take offense to your statement--McCain and Palin might.

Donna

Hey, Kevin--

I'm sure you've got lots of reasons to dislike the Republicans, but this one seems to rely on a misunderstanding of what copyright actually means.

The publication of a recording automatically confers a use right on the purchaser, which is why we can all play the music without getting some kind of direct permission from the author. The band Heart didn't write 10,000 letters of permission to every DJ and radio station in the country when the label released their song.

Commercial use requires payment of a percentage back to the copyright holder, which is collected by the organizations called ASCAP and BMI--and, man, are they serious about that collecting. Remember the stories a couple years ago about them going after the Girl Scouts?

Anyway, a copyright holder can complain about a use (maybe even preemptively, if they find out about it) and thereby remove the presumptive permission. But everybody who owns a copy of the record starts with that permission.

With the case of a song played at a political convention, we enter into the tangled legal areas of whether this was genuinely commercial use. Thank about it this way: If you play a song on a stereo at a private party, do you have to pay ASCAP? What if you charged admission? What if you play it over the loudspeakers at a high-school football game?

Now, what if a tape of that party or that game makes it onto the evening news? The TV stations typically claim fair use: we're just reporting what others are doing. But that gets stretched when the whole song appears in the filmed snippet.

Some of this was worked out back during the Carter administration, when somebody recorded a song called "Bomb, Bomb Iran," during the Iran hostage crisis, to the tune of "Barbara Ann," and paid the usual ASCAP fees for borrowing a tune.

The copyright holders of "Barbara Ann" sued, and, as I remember, the courts said that the publication of the song gave implicit permission for its use, parodic or not (and so no punitive damages could be collected), but that such implicit permission could be withdrawn.

(As I remember, it gets even more complicated; I think the courts said further that when ASCAP or BMI accepted payment, they were acting as licensed agents for the copyright holders, and so the copyright holders had given an additional explicit permission beyond the implicit permission.)

More info than we need, I know, but it does mean that, however many laws you think the Republicans have run roughshod over, copyright on Heart's "Barracuda" wasn't one of them.

Jody

Typical bloody American election. The discussion veers off into whether the GOP had the right to play a B-list 1970s AOR single. Hardly the most pressing matter, is it?

Well, Sarah's not allowed to talk to the press so we have to fill in the blanks with trivia.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...shes_ready.php

Jody--

Are you honestly saying that the Republican National Convention was a private party? That's giggle-worthy. It's a public spectacle on the order of the Oscars. Invitations may be limited to the membership and their guests, but there's no question that it's meant for public consumption.

I'll admit to handwaving over the complex web of copyright, ASCAP, the RIAA, and referring to them all under the layman's blanket of "copyright" rather than the more inclusive term of "intellectual property," but honestly, if you want to use a song, securing an artist's permission is not that hard. I distinctly remember Bill Clinton using Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" as his campaign theme song, and I'm fairly certain he secured the band's permission and approval because they were there dancing around on stage at the inauguration. Contrast that with Reagan, whose campaign got sued by Bruce Springsteen for using Springsteen's "Born in the USA," the Republican party in this case displaying the twin gorgons of Arrogance and Cluelessness--Arrogance for not asking the artist's permission, and Cluelessness for not having listened to the rest of the lyrics and realizing it was the most left-wing anti-Vietnam-war song possible.

I really don't see how this can be so difficult. I mean, other people get it. I remember being at the Comicon International in San Diego a few years ago--a public-private-newsworthy media spectacle of roughly the same order--and Neil Gaiman was doing a Q&A panel for his new film MirrorMask. The film had not been scored yet, but for the advance montage they'd used some songs by Tori Amos--a friend of Neil--and he remarked something along the lines of "Nice to be able to use some music where you know you won't get sued."

I hadn't heard about the Girl Scouts, but honestly, with the Republicans, you would have thought they'd have figured it out back during the Reagan era with Bruce Springsteen. Obviously not.

Roger

I'm not trying to be stubborn, I'm just reading the copyright laws and what case laws I can dig up.

What lawyers? I haven't seen anything in print about lawyers agreeing. It's not about the lawyers, anyway, but the judges. It's a lawyer's job to argue the side they're paid to argue. Unless you're paying them to give you an honest opinion - even then that opinion will probably have enough caveats to it to render it worthless *grin*.

If you know a relevant case history, I'd be interested in reading it.

Actually, I'd be interested in seeing this one go to court and read the arguments and decision.

No one's wrong in a legal dispute until the judge or jury says so.

One case I did find interesting was 2 Live Crew's theft of Roy Orbison's 'Pretty Woman',but the judge made the decision it was 'Fair Use' because 2 Live Crew claimed it was parody. Go figure.

When the court finds against the RNC I'll admit to being wrong. Until then, I'll concede the possibilty I'm wrong.

OK I'm probably being stubborn, but I also spend a lot of my day reading and applying laws.

There's always a gray area, which is why we have judges.

The reason every radio station doesn't have to secure permission to play every song is that the stations have an ongoing, fee-based arrangement with BMI and ASCAP that is generally not based on the individual song, but on the size of the audience/market of the individual radio station. BMI and ASCAP monitor the stations to see what is being played and to determine which artists are entitled to compensation that BMI and ASCAP pay them from the fees they collect.

As far as I know, neither the DNC nor the RNC have licensing agreements with BMI or ASCAP, so they do not have even a presumptive, revocable right to play copyrighted songs. This is why the RNC use of the song without prior permission was improper while the use of a song by a radio station with an ongoing royalty arrangement with BMI or ASCAP would be proper.

I'm certainly not trying to make a big deal of this. It's more important to note that fiscal conservative Palin inherited a town with no debt and left it with $22 million in debt, despite having collected $27 million in federal earmarks of the type that she now pretends, as a "maverick," she finds repugnant. But, of course, she won't answer any questions about this because she clearly has no answers.




[This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited September 06, 2008).]