Tom Petty is Petty

[BlueHen86]

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.

I disagree. If Bachmann is running on a platform that Petty doesn't agree with I don't think it's bigotry. By using his music Bachmann is giving the impression that Petty supports her. Maybe Petty doesn't want to be misrepresented.

[dbackjon]

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.

Prussian Blue, maybe?

[BlueHen86]

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.

Prussian Blue, maybe?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

An artist shouldn't be able to turn down some cash because they don't believe in the cause huh?

After arguing for years that a landlord should be able to rent to who he chooses?

OK, I got it now. Fucking unbelievable.

[BlueHen86]

An artist shouldn't be able to turn down some cash because they don't believe in the cause huh?

After arguing for years that a landlord should be able to rent to who he chooses?

OK, I got it now. Fucking unbelievable.

It's not a question of cash, it's a question of courtesy. If I took your work and used it in a way that you didn't approve, and you asked my to stop I would have two choices:

be courteous and stop

ignore your wishes continue with what I was doing.

Perhaps neither action is wrong, but one is clearly more mature than the other.

It's not as if Petty's first move was to take this to court, he simply asked that Bachmann stop. Maybe Petty is being petty, but so is Bachmann. There has to be another song that she could use.

This is a dumb thing to argue about, which is why I love this site.

[houndawg]

An artist shouldn't be able to turn down some cash because they don't believe in the cause huh?

After arguing for years that a landlord should be able to rent to who he chooses?

OK, I got it now. **** unbelievable.

It's not a question of cash, it's a question of courtesy. If I took your work and used it in a way that you didn't approve, and you asked my to stop I would have two choices:

be courteous and stop

ignore your wishes continue with what I was doing.

Perhaps neither action is wrong, but one is clearly more mature than the other.

It's not as if Petty's first move was to take this to court, he simply asked that Bachmann stop. Maybe Petty is being petty, but so is Bachmann. There has to be another song that she could use.

This is a dumb thing to argue about, which is why I love this site.

This is probably worthy of its own thread.


"If I'd Shot You When We Met, I'd Almost Be Out By Now"

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

An artist shouldn't be able to turn down some cash because they don't believe in the cause huh?

After arguing for years that a landlord should be able to rent to who he chooses?

OK, I got it now. Fucking unbelievable.

It's not a question of cash, it's a question of courtesy. If I took your work and used it in a way that you didn't approve, and you asked my to stop I would have two choices:

be courteous and stop

ignore your wishes continue with what I was doing.

Perhaps neither action is wrong, but one is clearly more mature than the other.

It's not as if Petty's first move was to take this to court, he simply asked that Bachmann stop. Maybe Petty is being petty, but so is Bachmann. There has to be another song that she could use.

This is a dumb thing to argue about, which is why I love this site.

BH86, that was aimed at St. Onge who is always standing up for owners rights as to who they can sell/rent to and yet in this situation Tom Petty is Petty for not wanting someone he doesn't like or agree with using his property.

I was in agreement with what you said.

[BlueHen86]

It's not a question of cash, it's a question of courtesy. If I took your work and used it in a way that you didn't approve, and you asked my to stop I would have two choices:

be courteous and stop

ignore your wishes continue with what I was doing.

Perhaps neither action is wrong, but one is clearly more mature than the other.

It's not as if Petty's first move was to take this to court, he simply asked that Bachmann stop. Maybe Petty is being petty, but so is Bachmann. There has to be another song that she could use.

This is a dumb thing to argue about, which is why I love this site.

BH86, that was aimed at St. Onge who is always standing up for owners rights as to who they can sell/rent to and yet in this situation Tom Petty is Petty for not wanting someone he doesn't like or agree with using his property.

I was in agreement with what you said.

Sometimes I miss the subtle things and a mallet is called for. This is one of those times.

[death dealer]

Oh T and Jon, your duplicitousness (sic?) saddens me. I usually count on at least Jon to be steadfast and true to his beliefs no matter how wacky or off center they may be.

Tman, I'm not talking about the rights accorded by the convoluted mess that is the american judicial system. I'm talking about Real Law. And in that world, property rights are absolute. It's his song. He wrote it. He recorded it. It's his. If he doesn't want you to use it for any reason whatsoever, he has the right to make you stop using it.

[BDKJMU]

Oh T and Jon, your duplicitousness (sic?) saddens me. I usually count on at least Jon to be steadfast and true to his beliefs no matter how wacky or off center they may be.

Tman, I'm not talking about the rights accorded by the convoluted mess that is the american judicial system. I'm talking about Real Law. And in that world, property rights are absolute. It's his song. He wrote it. He recorded it. It's his. If he doesn't want you to use it for any reason whatsoever, he has the right to make you stop using it.

No, he likely doesn't.

"Bachmann v. Petty?

Despite Tom Petty's cease-and-desist letter to Michele Bachmann, James Hohmann reports that her campaign continues to use "American Girl." A 2008 POLITICO story explains that the law is probably on her side -- and notes that these cease and desists are mostly filed against Republican campaigns:

What do all the cease-and-desist letters and testy calls amount to legally, though? Not much, if the songwriters licensed the public performance rights to their music to the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers or Broadcast Music Inc. And the vast majority of artists, including Heart, have done that. Buying an ASCAP or BMI license allows a venue (or a campaign, if it purchases a traveling blanket license) to play any of about 8 million songs during their events. Though it might be a nice courtesy, the licensees are not obligated to call the artist to discuss.

The McCain-Palin campaign told Politico that in 2007 it purchased both ASCAP and BMI licenses that cover the use of tunes for all public events. Campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said, “Our campaign respects copyrights and obtains licenses whenever the law requires, and any suggestion otherwise is flat wrong.”

Though Charlie Crist was recently forced to apologize on camera to David Byrne of the Talking Heads for using "Road to Nowhere," that dispute was about the use of music in a campaign commercial. As long as the Bachmann campaign obtained the correct license, she is on much firmer legal ground."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... Petty.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Skjellyfetti]

[youtube][/youtube]

[houndawg]

[youtube][/youtube]

[houndawg]

Oh T and Jon, your duplicitousness (sic?) saddens me. I usually count on at least Jon to be steadfast and true to his beliefs no matter how wacky or off center they may be.

Tman, I'm not talking about the rights accorded by the convoluted mess that is the american judicial system. I'm talking about Real Law. And in that world, property rights are absolute. It's his song. He wrote it. He recorded it. It's his. If he doesn't want you to use it for any reason whatsoever, he has the right to make you stop using it.

No, he likely doesn't.

"Bachmann v. Petty?

Despite Tom Petty's cease-and-desist letter to Michele Bachmann, James Hohmann reports that her campaign continues to use "American Girl." A 2008 POLITICO story explains that the law is probably on her side -- and notes that these cease and desists are mostly filed against Republican campaigns:

What do all the cease-and-desist letters and testy calls amount to legally, though? Not much, if the songwriters licensed the public performance rights to their music to the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers or Broadcast Music Inc. And the vast majority of artists, including Heart, have done that. Buying an ASCAP or BMI license allows a venue (or a campaign, if it purchases a traveling blanket license) to play any of about 8 million songs during their events. Though it might be a nice courtesy, the licensees are not obligated to call the artist to discuss.

The McCain-Palin campaign told Politico that in 2007 it purchased both ASCAP and BMI licenses that cover the use of tunes for all public events. Campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said, “Our campaign respects copyrights and obtains licenses whenever the law requires, and any suggestion otherwise is flat wrong.”

Though Charlie Crist was recently forced to apologize on camera to David Byrne of the Talking Heads for using "Road to Nowhere," that dispute was about the use of music in a campaign commercial. As long as the Bachmann campaign obtained the correct license, she is on much firmer legal ground."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... Petty.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It isn't going to help Bachmann to have Petty, or an opponent, constantly reminding us that the guy who wrote her campaign song doesn't want her to use it. She'll be cast as Chinese-like in her disrespect for the intellectual property rights of others.

[BDKJMU]

No, he likely doesn't.

"Bachmann v. Petty?

Despite Tom Petty's cease-and-desist letter to Michele Bachmann, James Hohmann reports that her campaign continues to use "American Girl." A 2008 POLITICO story explains that the law is probably on her side -- and notes that these cease and desists are mostly filed against Republican campaigns:

What do all the cease-and-desist letters and testy calls amount to legally, though? Not much, if the songwriters licensed the public performance rights to their music to the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers or Broadcast Music Inc. And the vast majority of artists, including Heart, have done that. Buying an ASCAP or BMI license allows a venue (or a campaign, if it purchases a traveling blanket license) to play any of about 8 million songs during their events. Though it might be a nice courtesy, the licensees are not obligated to call the artist to discuss.

The McCain-Palin campaign told Politico that in 2007 it purchased both ASCAP and BMI licenses that cover the use of tunes for all public events. Campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said, “Our campaign respects copyrights and obtains licenses whenever the law requires, and any suggestion otherwise is flat wrong.”

Though Charlie Crist was recently forced to apologize on camera to David Byrne of the Talking Heads for using "Road to Nowhere," that dispute was about the use of music in a campaign commercial. As long as the Bachmann campaign obtained the correct license, she is on much firmer legal ground."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... Petty.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It isn't going to help Bachmann to have Petty, or an opponent, constantly reminding us that the guy who wrote her campaign song doesn't want her to use it. She'll be cast as Chinese-like in her disrespect for the intellectual property rights of others.

I don't think Bachmann should use the music simply due to the lyrics that some have pointed out. That said, there is no disrespect for the intellectual property rights of Petty if he, like most artists do, licensed the public performance rights to their music to the ASCAP or BMI, and Bachmann's campaign bought a ASCAP or BMI license. Bachmann will have followed intellectual property rights LAWS, and Petty will come across as the one looking, well...petty.

[CID1990]

No, he likely doesn't.

"Bachmann v. Petty?

Despite Tom Petty's cease-and-desist letter to Michele Bachmann, James Hohmann reports that her campaign continues to use "American Girl." A 2008 POLITICO story explains that the law is probably on her side -- and notes that these cease and desists are mostly filed against Republican campaigns:

What do all the cease-and-desist letters and testy calls amount to legally, though? Not much, if the songwriters licensed the public performance rights to their music to the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers or Broadcast Music Inc. And the vast majority of artists, including Heart, have done that. Buying an ASCAP or BMI license allows a venue (or a campaign, if it purchases a traveling blanket license) to play any of about 8 million songs during their events. Though it might be a nice courtesy, the licensees are not obligated to call the artist to discuss.

The McCain-Palin campaign told Politico that in 2007 it purchased both ASCAP and BMI licenses that cover the use of tunes for all public events. Campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said, “Our campaign respects copyrights and obtains licenses whenever the law requires, and any suggestion otherwise is flat wrong.”

Though Charlie Crist was recently forced to apologize on camera to David Byrne of the Talking Heads for using "Road to Nowhere," that dispute was about the use of music in a campaign commercial. As long as the Bachmann campaign obtained the correct license, she is on much firmer legal ground."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... Petty.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It isn't going to help Bachmann to have Petty, or an opponent, constantly reminding us that the guy who wrote her campaign song doesn't want her to use it. She'll be cast as Chinese-like in her disrespect for the intellectual property rights of others.

The people who would be put off by it aren't going to vote for her, anyway.

[death dealer]

Oh T and Jon, your duplicitousness (sic?) saddens me. I usually count on at least Jon to be steadfast and true to his beliefs no matter how wacky or off center they may be.

Tman, I'm not talking about the rights accorded by the convoluted mess that is the american judicial system. I'm talking about Real Law. And in that world, property rights are absolute. It's his song. He wrote it. He recorded it. It's his. If he doesn't want you to use it for any reason whatsoever, he has the right to make you stop using it.

No, he likely doesn't.

"Bachmann v. Petty?

Despite Tom Petty's cease-and-desist letter to Michele Bachmann, James Hohmann reports that her campaign continues to use "American Girl." A 2008 POLITICO story explains that the law is probably on her side -- and notes that these cease and desists are mostly filed against Republican campaigns:

What do all the cease-and-desist letters and testy calls amount to legally, though? Not much, if the songwriters licensed the public performance rights to their music to the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers or Broadcast Music Inc. And the vast majority of artists, including Heart, have done that. Buying an ASCAP or BMI license allows a venue (or a campaign, if it purchases a traveling blanket license) to play any of about 8 million songs during their events. Though it might be a nice courtesy, the licensees are not obligated to call the artist to discuss.

The McCain-Palin campaign told Politico that in 2007 it purchased both ASCAP and BMI licenses that cover the use of tunes for all public events. Campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said, “Our campaign respects copyrights and obtains licenses whenever the law requires, and any suggestion otherwise is flat wrong.”

Though Charlie Crist was recently forced to apologize on camera to David Byrne of the Talking Heads for using "Road to Nowhere," that dispute was about the use of music in a campaign commercial. As long as the Bachmann campaign obtained the correct license, she is on much firmer legal ground."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... Petty.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You don't do well with reading comprehension do you?

[BDKJMU]

No, he likely doesn't.

"Bachmann v. Petty?

Despite Tom Petty's cease-and-desist letter to Michele Bachmann, James Hohmann reports that her campaign continues to use "American Girl." A 2008 POLITICO story explains that the law is probably on her side -- and notes that these cease and desists are mostly filed against Republican campaigns:

What do all the cease-and-desist letters and testy calls amount to legally, though? Not much, if the songwriters licensed the public performance rights to their music to the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers or Broadcast Music Inc. And the vast majority of artists, including Heart, have done that. Buying an ASCAP or BMI license allows a venue (or a campaign, if it purchases a traveling blanket license) to play any of about 8 million songs during their events. Though it might be a nice courtesy, the licensees are not obligated to call the artist to discuss.

The McCain-Palin campaign told Politico that in 2007 it purchased both ASCAP and BMI licenses that cover the use of tunes for all public events. Campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said, “Our campaign respects copyrights and obtains licenses whenever the law requires, and any suggestion otherwise is flat wrong.”

Though Charlie Crist was recently forced to apologize on camera to David Byrne of the Talking Heads for using "Road to Nowhere," that dispute was about the use of music in a campaign commercial. As long as the Bachmann campaign obtained the correct license, she is on much firmer legal ground."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... Petty.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You don't do well with reading comprehension do you?

So you have no problem with Petty licensing the public performance rights to his music to the ASCAP or BMI for $, then when a campaign purchases an ASCAP or BMI license for $ not being able to use the music because Petty doesn't like the person using the music. Ok. Petty can't have it both ways. If Petty doesn't want Bachmann's campaign using the music, he shouldn't have taken $ by licensing his public performance rights to his music to the ASCAP or BMI. There is NO violation of intellectual property rights here.

[death dealer]

You don't do well with reading comprehension do you?

So you have no problem with Petty licensing the public performance rights to his music to the ASCAP or BMI for $, then when a campaign purchases an ASCAP or BMI license for $ not being able to use the music because Petty doesn't like the person using the music. Ok. Petty can't have it both ways. If Petty doesn't want Bachmann's campaign using the music, he shouldn't have taken $ by licensing his public performance rights to his music to the ASCAP or BMI. There is NO violation of intellectual property rights here.

You don't get it. I don't give two fat shits about your contract law, licensing bullshit. I'm talking about raw property rights and the right any person possessing that property to decide how and when it is used. That is a basic tenet of Jon's existence, and he is blatantly thrashing that in his postings in this thread. As you said, you can't have it both ways.

[dbackjon]

So you have no problem with Petty licensing the public performance rights to his music to the ASCAP or BMI for $, then when a campaign purchases an ASCAP or BMI license for $ not being able to use the music because Petty doesn't like the person using the music. Ok. Petty can't have it both ways. If Petty doesn't want Bachmann's campaign using the music, he shouldn't have taken $ by licensing his public performance rights to his music to the ASCAP or BMI. There is NO violation of intellectual property rights here.

You don't get it. I don't give two fat shits about your contract law, licensing bullshit. I'm talking about raw property rights and the right any person possessing that property to decide how and when it is used. That is a basic tenet of Jon's existence, and he is blatantly thrashing that in his postings in this thread. As you said, you can't have it both ways.

How did I get involved in your rant?

[dbackjon]

petty has given Bachmann permission to use "Free Fallin" and "Runaway Train"

[death dealer]

You don't get it. I don't give two fat shits about your contract law, licensing bullshit. I'm talking about raw property rights and the right any person possessing that property to decide how and when it is used. That is a basic tenet of Jon's existence, and he is blatantly thrashing that in his postings in this thread. As you said, you can't have it both ways.

How did I get involved in your rant?

wrong Jon. I was talking about the one they call StWronge.

[travelinman67]

petty has given Bachmann permission to use "Free Fallin" and "Runaway Train"

...and Obama, "Time to move on."

[dbackjon]

How did I get involved in your rant?

wrong Jon. I was talking about the one they call StWronge.

Gotcha