Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

You know what I'm talking about. What a jerk.

It's irrefutably his intellectual property, and I don't blame him for not wanting his music to be associated with that fundementalist whackjob.

Grizalltheway wrote:It's irrefutably his intellectual property, and I don't blame him for not wanting his music to be associated with that fundementalist whackjob.

Not the point. The Dem operatives have been using this schtick since the mid-90's. You were probably still playing with your Easy Bake oven when Dem operatives were caught underwriting (providing legal counsel) for Crissie Hynde's effort to stop Limbaugh's use of "My City Was Gone"...and that was commercial use.

Even lower to fuck with politician's use for branding. Doesn't matter if it's Fleetwood Mac, Lionel Richie, Smashing Pumpkins...the artist has a right to be compensated for the song's usage, but not who listens or where it's played.

LIke his music, but Tom could use a jaw relocation for this.

Yeah this is not about wanting to be compensated for when somebody uses your song. If he was saying, "You have to pay me to use my song" I'd have no problem with it given the system is what it is. But that's not what he's doing.

I have been trying to think of a case when a "conservative" entertainer did something like this. I haven't been able to. Maybe part of it is that there aren't as many "conservative" entertainers as there are "liberal" ones. And maybe someone else can think of an instance or two.

As an aside I don't know why Bachman wanted to use that song anyway. I mean, the title line sounds good but it doesn't really present a flattering image. Kind of calls to mind pointless wandering with a little bit of sexual innuendo. Not exactly what you'd think of as a theme song for somebody courting the religous right vote.

1. It's his song... if he doesn't want it being associated with some whacko - that's his prerogative.

2. This is rarely an issue with Dem campaigns because (at least in my experience) we VET our choice of song, making sure the artist won't object.

3. I think it's humorous that she chose a song about a girl who goes chasing after a guy and ends up at least contemplating suicide...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:3. I think it's humorous that she chose a song about a girl who goes chasing after a guy and ends up at least contemplating suicide...

THIS. Did her staff even LISTEN to the song, or do they have ANY idea what it's about? Reminds me of when Ronald Reagan wanted to use John Mellencamp's song Pink Houses in his 1984 reelection campaign. I swear....

AZGrizFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:3. I think it's humorous that she chose a song about a girl who goes chasing after a guy and ends up at least contemplating suicide...

THIS. Did her staff even LISTEN to the song, or do they have ANY idea what it's about? Reminds me of when Ronald Reagan wanted to use John Mellencamp's song Pink Houses in his 1984 reelection campaign. I swear....

Or Al Gore using "American Woman" by The Guess Who when speaking to a womans group. Sure he never read the lyrics.

Wondered why a thread about Tom Petty being Petty would smell like dead fish..

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:1. It's his song... if he doesn't want it being associated with some whacko - that's his prerogative.

2. This is rarely an issue with Dem campaigns because (at least in my experience) we VET our choice of song, making sure the artist won't object.

3. I think it's humorous that she chose a song about a girl who goes chasing after a guy and ends up at least contemplating suicide...

She already committed political suicide...................................hence the song.


Maybe instead of always gearing up to trash any republican woman like you guys always do, you should give her credit for systematically taking herself out of the race before it starts.

Sorry to break up your conservative woman bashing..................you may now continue your regularly scheduled diatribe....

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:1. It's his song... if he doesn't want it being associated with some whacko - that's his prerogative.

2. This is rarely an issue with Dem campaigns because (at least in my experience) we VET our choice of song, making sure the artist won't object.

3. I think it's humorous that she chose a song about a girl who goes chasing after a guy and ends up at least contemplating suicide...

She already committed political suicide...................................hence the song.

Maybe instead of always gearing up to trash any republican woman like you guys always do, you should give her credit for systematically taking herself out of the race before it starts.

Sorry to break up your conservative woman bashing..................you may now continue your regularly scheduled diatribe....

I can live with Olympia Snowe.

kalm wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

She already committed political suicide...................................hence the song.

Maybe instead of always gearing up to trash any republican woman like you guys always do, you should give her credit for systematically taking herself out of the race before it starts.

Sorry to break up your conservative woman bashing..................you may now continue your regularly scheduled diatribe....

I can live with Olympia Snowe.

Full time move in type live with??

He has every right to ask her not to use his music. People that are upset by this have every right not to buy his music.

Property rights issue. It's his property and he has the right to allow or refuse the use of it to whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

Wedgebuster wrote:

kalm wrote:
I can live with Olympia Snowe.

Full time move in type live with??

Well she is hot in a Margaret Hamilton sorta way. Plus, aren't witches kinda kinky?

death dealer wrote:Property rights issue. It's his property and he has the right to allow or refuse the use of it to whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

Falls under simple "exclusive rights" under copyright law. Again, the issue isn't Petty's right to control his music for financial benefit, it's his discriminatory restriction of access solely based upon Bachmann's political affiliation. Similar to any Intellectual Property rights, once the restriction is identified as existing solely to affect a CLASSIFICATION of social standing, then his actions become discriminatory.

Why not restrict access to exclude fat chicks?
Why not restrict access to exclude residents of Janesville?
Why not restrict access to exclude dentists?
Why not restrict access to exclude communists? ...flat chested women? ...lawyers from Baltimore?

Our judiciary has leaned heavily in the direction of unfettered protection of IP rights...but this is a case worth arguing.

No matter how the libs dress this, it's clearly bigotry.

1. It's his song... if he doesn't want it being associated with some whacko - that's his prerogative.

Sure it is. But only a jerk would exercise that perogative in a situation like that. If it was purely money...where he said, "OK, if you use my song again in the futre you're going to have to pay me" I could go with it.

But we all know that's not what it is. He's a jerk. Plain and simple.

Yes, he has a right to be a jerk in this case. But he's sitll a jerk.

JohnStOnge wrote:Yeah this is not about wanting to be compensated for when somebody uses your song. If he was saying, "You have to pay me to use my song" I'd have no problem with it given the system is what it is. But that's not what he's doing.

I have been trying to think of a case when a "conservative" entertainer did something like this. I haven't been able to. Maybe part of it is that there aren't as many "conservative" entertainers as there are "liberal" ones. And maybe someone else can think of an instance or two.

As an aside I don't know why Bachman wanted to use that song anyway. I mean, the title line sounds good but it doesn't really present a flattering image. Kind of calls to mind pointless wandering with a little bit of sexual innuendo. Not exactly what you'd think of as a theme song for somebody courting the religous right vote.

Exactly. It's about not wanting one's own image damaged by association with some lunatic fringe wack job.

She wants a song, she should write one.

travelinman67 wrote:

death dealer wrote:Property rights issue. It's his property and he has the right to allow or refuse the use of it to whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

Falls under simple "exclusive rights" under copyright law. Again, the issue isn't Petty's right to control his music for financial benefit, it's his discriminatory restriction of access solely based upon Bachmann's political affiliation. Similar to any Intellectual Property rights, once the restriction is identified as existing solely to affect a CLASSIFICATION of social standing, then his actions become discriminatory.

Why not restrict access to exclude fat chicks?
Why not restrict access to exclude residents of Janesville?
Why not restrict access to exclude dentists?
Why not restrict access to exclude communists? ...flat chested women? ...lawyers from Baltimore?

Our judiciary has leaned heavily in the direction of unfettered protection of IP rights...but this is a case worth arguing.

No matter how the libs dress this, it's clearly bigotry.

travelinman67 wrote:

death dealer wrote:Property rights issue. It's his property and he has the right to allow or refuse the use of it to whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

Falls under simple "exclusive rights" under copyright law. Again, the issue isn't Petty's right to control his music for financial benefit, it's his discriminatory restriction of access solely based upon Bachmann's political affiliation. Similar to any Intellectual Property rights, once the restriction is identified as existing solely to affect a CLASSIFICATION of social standing, then his actions become discriminatory.

Why not restrict access to exclude fat chicks?
Why not restrict access to exclude residents of Janesville?
Why not restrict access to exclude dentists?
Why not restrict access to exclude communists? ...flat chested women? ...lawyers from Baltimore?

Our judiciary has leaned heavily in the direction of unfettered protection of IP rights...but this is a case worth arguing.

No matter how the libs dress this, it's clearly bigotry.

Red Herring much?


It's like this T: Tom Petty's reputation drops precipitously by being associated with this clown. Who wants to buy the music of a political mouthpiece for some twit?

JohnStOnge wrote:

1. It's his song... if he doesn't want it being associated with some whacko - that's his prerogative.

Sure it is. But only a jerk would exercise that perogative in a situation like that. If it was purely money...where he said, "OK, if you use my song again in the futre you're going to have to pay me" I could go with it.

But we all know that's not what it is. He's a jerk. Plain and simple.

Yes, he has a right to be a jerk in this case. But he's sitll a jerk.

Not so, John. He's just another American exercising his rights.


Michelle should have chosen "She Came in Through the Bathroom Window".

What's next? Barring people from using your music at parties because you don't approve of the people throwing parties? As long as the music was acquired legally who cares? Let MB make a fool of herself.

Michelle Bachman is a loon and Tom Petty's music sucks. They're a perfect combination.

Tom Petty is right. Same thing happened with Springsteen and Reagan, Clinton and Fleetwood Mac.

Plus, as Z very astutely comments, that bitch is a fvcking loon.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Tom Petty is right. Same thing happened with Springsteen and Reagan, Clinton and Fleetwood Mac.

Plus, as Z very astutely comments, that bitch is a fvcking loon.

Well, she won't be boring......

JohnStOnge wrote:

1. It's his song... if he doesn't want it being associated with some whacko - that's his prerogative.

Sure it is. But only a jerk would exercise that perogative in a situation like that. If it was purely money...where he said, "OK, if you use my song again in the futre you're going to have to pay me" I could go with it.

But we all know that's not what it is. He's a jerk. Plain and simple.

Yes, he has a right to be a jerk in this case. But he's sitll a jerk.

Maybe he is a jerk, but isn't Bachmann trying to raise money for her campaign? She's playing Petty's music and she's trying to raise money. Maybe the connection is thin, I suppose it would make an interesting court case.

Either way, seems like the best way to resolve this is for Bachmann to use the music of an artist who won't object. Especially since Petty has already objected to a Republican using his music in the past.