Stuck on Repeats

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint

Hi there. I've been away in my own private hell for about a week or so, but have since caught up. The answer to this question is a qualified yes, but only to the extent that I'm actually scared of meeting any of you people in real life, with the possible exception of Gardener, who seemed like a good chap.

or maybe you just are such a white bread eurocentric you wanted to avoid eating swarthy-people food? I may never know

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Huh? Copyright absolutely allows the artist to pick and chose who gets to use it. The only reason that right is in any way in question is that the artists here have sold a blanket license.

The only reason Mrs. Lincoln didn't like the play is that her husband was shot. Pretty big reason. Until ASCAP licenses say things like "Everybody but Republicans," there is no legal authority for a musician to withdraw consent to public performance.

As for the rest of it, I think the horse is beat. I chalk this disagreement up to the usual David versus Goliath thinking, and you're a David guy, through and through. Now we can just all sit tight and wait for Wonk, a fellow Davidian if ever there was one, to agree with you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

The only reason Mrs. Lincoln didn't like the play is that her husband was shot. Pretty big reason. Until ASCAP licenses say things like "Everybody but Republicans," there is no legal authority for a musician to withdraw consent to public performance.

As for the rest of it, I think the horse is beat. I chalk this disagreement up to the usual David versus Goliath thinking, and you're a David guy, through and through. Now we can just all sit tight and wait for Wonk, a fellow Davidian if ever there was one, to agree with you.

Can't they pull the license selectively? I know to be practical a bar or whatever has to have a complete right not to worry what the house band plays, but can't the artist (through ascap or bmi) pull the right selectively?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Can't they pull the license selectively? I know to be practical a bar or whatever has to have a complete right not to worry what the house band plays, but can't the artist (through ascap or bmi) pull the right selectively?

If ASCAP allows this, they don't say so in their FAQ. Since it's a non-profit pool of music for the collection of royalties, query whether members will be keen on paying lawyers' fees with pooled royalty money just because Bono doesn't want his stuff played here or there.

[tmdiva]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Can't they pull the license selectively? I know to be practical a bar or whatever has to have a complete right not to worry what the house band plays, but can't the artist (through ascap or bmi) pull the right selectively?

It's called compulsory licensing for a reason.

tm

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Can't they pull the license selectively? I know to be practical a bar or whatever has to have a complete right not to worry what the house band plays, but can't the artist (through ascap or bmi) pull the right selectively?

No.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

If ASCAP allows this, they don't say so in their FAQ. Since it's a non-profit pool of music for the collection of royalties, query whether members will be keen on paying lawyers' fees with pooled royalty money just because Bono doesn't want his stuff played here or there.

You are having an argument with Hank where you know neither the facts nor the law and he at least knows the law.

I pick fights with Hank just because I don't like the way he looks at the screen, but I would not pick this one.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by tmdiva

It's called compulsory licensing for a reason.

tm

This. Listen to the beginning of Detroit Rock City by the Mighty Mighty Boss Tones, where Gene tries to pull a fast one "declining" to give the MMBT permission to cover Detroit Rock City. And then the track starts.

Once a song is recorded on a major label anyone can cover it, recorded or otherwise. As long as they pay the orig composer. Supposedly.

I am still waiting to get a check from Destruction. Maybe I'll ask to join them on stage when they play NY.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by tmdiva

It's called compulsory licensing for a reason.

tm

That's a broadcast or recording, not performance, license, isn't it? I didn't think there was a compulsory performance license.

ETA: yeah, just checked, there is not a compulsory performance license.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

That's a broadcast or recording, not performance, license, isn't it? I didn't think there was a compulsory performance license.

ETA: yeah, just checked, there is not a compulsory performance license.

Wrong. Same thing. You can perform it. You just have to pay the artist.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Adder

Spoken like a non-celebrity, and spoken like campaigns are simply naive and picking catchy tunes rather than sometimes trying to coop the celebrity's brand as a sort of pseudo-endorsement.

To me, this seems like the real point. At least on some level, when Gingrich leads off his rally with a Melt Banana tune, he is suggesting that there is an endorsement there and that Melt Banana fans should feel in sync with his campaign. Melt Banana should be able to stand up, without judgment from the Angry Attici of the world, and say, "Hey, to the extent this Gingrich chap is trying to suggest that we are part of his movement, it is not true. When we 'sing' the lyrics 'I see a Plastic Moon shining...Won't you lead me?', we want you to know we were referring to Herman Cain. Cain is the Plastic Moon." I also would like to know what Melt Banana eat and drive, but I don't think this makes me less smart than GWNC and Thurgreed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

That's a broadcast or recording, not performance, license, isn't it? I didn't think there was a compulsory performance license.

ETA: yeah, just checked, there is not a compulsory performance license.

at my biglaw i did bMI bar suits. the licenses are long. they could have a 100 exceptions. I really don't know, but anything you can put into words can be in such a license. as to lawyer fees pooling, bmi and ascap generally bring suit in cases where there is no defense and statutory damages, so they tend to make money from every suit.

but I would never argue with icky about musicians rights, or whether fucking wendy o would have been a good time.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

at my biglaw i did bMI bar suits. the licenses are long. they could have a 100 exceptions. I really don't know, but anything you can put into words can be in such a license. as to lawyer fees pooling, bmi and ascap generally bring suit in cases where there is no defense and statutory damages, so they tend to make money from every suit.

but I would never argue with icky about musicians rights, or whether fucking wendy o would have been a good time.

Yeah, good advice. Not an area I practice in.

So, as long as I'm getting schooled, what I looked up was Section 115, and (c)(J) specifically says the compulsory license under 115 doesn't annul or limit the exclusive right to perform in 106(4). What am I missing?

Not quite sure any of this relates to playing Springsteen's own recordings at political events, just the ability of the house band to play them.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Okay, let me try to clarify. Celebrities can say "Fuck Santorum" or "Obama 2012" all they like, just like other Americans. It's their right, and I don't deny it to them. (Which is a stupid thing to have to say, since "I hate it when X says Y" is not a limitation on X's speech anyway -- it's more speech, as you've said.) But who cares? They get a microphone because they're famous, but their insights haven't been selected for quality.

What I specifically dislike is when a recording artist says "You can't use my song." Yes, it's nothing more than free speech to the effect of "I hate you," which is fine. I'd prefer the artist to say "That guy's an asshole and I'm not voting for him." You might respond that "Don't use my song" is toothless (and it is), but the public is less aware of that than you might want to believe, and the candidate actually faces a ridiculous choice between complying with a legally baseless moral demand or creating a sideshow that detracts from the policy debate. The artist has commandeered another guy's campaign for publicity. When I hate the candidate my first thought is "Yay, good" but the more I've thought about it, the more it's a ridiculous privileging of one person's views over another. We don't let other kinds of artists make moral claims over the use of their works they've sold for cash. (Actually, in limited instances we do, but those rights are narrow and usually involve giving the artist the right to take the work back out of the stream of commerce and doesn't let them pick and choose who gets to use it.) Copyright is the tool we use in lieu of moral right, and that's good because free speech rights were never supposed to be about the right of the speaker to be heard, but about the listeners' right to hear. So if Romney wants to play "We Take Care of Our Own" at a rally, the listeners should decide whether they're inspired or persuaded. Springsteen saying "He's doing that over my objection" adds nothing to the discourse -- it only subtracts from it, by claiming the song can't mean what Romney stands for. I don't think the artist should get to decide that point with any greater authority than the listener can, which is why it pisses me off when an artist even says "You can't use my songs." It just drags everybody into a world of heckers' vetos. We'll have typeface designers holding press conferences to distance their works from hated users. Or maybe Apple will publish a website of all people who they wish wouldn't buy and use Apples.

It's horseshit. Say how you'll vote and see if people care, but claiming a monopoly on how and where your art is interpreted and used, aside from copyright law, is net bad for discourse.

You can't possibly be serious.

Requesting that a candidate not use a song because you disagree with his or her policies is so fucking far from "a world of hecklers' vetos" that I'm worried about your mental health. It was a nice try--what with all the extra words strung loosely together in that really big paragraph--but your argument is kind of ridiculous.

And who are you to determine that Springsteen saying, "He's playing one of my songs over my objection," adds nothing to the discourse? Voters, like people, are overwhelmingly stupid. And campaigns pick songs I'm sure for many reasons, some of which revolve around linking said politician to a popular artist in voters' minds. Having the artist remove that link most certainly "adds something to the discourse."

Frankly, I can't believe anyone really cares about this issue. If you are dumb enough to vote for or against a candidate because of what the artist of the rally song feels about him, you aren't engaged in the discourse in the first place.

Commandeered another guy's campaign for publicity. Shit, you absolutely must be kidding.

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And who are you to determine that Springsteen saying, "He's playing one of my songs over my objection," adds nothing to the discourse? Voters, like people, are overwhelmingly stupid. And campaigns pick songs I'm sure for many reasons, some of which revolve around linking said politician to a popular artist in voters' minds. Having the artist remove that link most certainly "adds something to the discourse."

To me, this seems like the real point. At least on some level, when Gingrich leads off his rally with a Melt Banana tune, he is suggesting that there is an endorsement there and that Melt Banana fans should feel in sync with his campaign. Melt Banana should be able to stand up, without judgment from the Angry Attici of the world, and say, "Hey, to the extent this Gingrich chap is trying to suggest that we are part of his movement, it is not true. When we 'sing' the lyrics 'I see a Plastic Moon shining...Won't you lead me?', we want you to know we were referring to Herman Cain. Cain is the Plastic Moon." I also would like to know what Melt Banana eat and drive, but I don't think this makes me less smart than GWNC and Thurgreed.