Tom Petty tells Bachmann "Don't Come Around Here No More"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
The same authority, if the song is recognizable as the original and is used for commercial purposes, she would have to pay. Hence we get into a "general public" rulings. It would be better to ask your local radio show who uses bumper music for their talk radio. They have to follow that portion.

Basically, because the song isn't played to make money (it isn't a music show), they can play a portion of songs as bumper music. How much would constitute a violation? I'm not sure.

Anyway, my post previous was in answer to yours, I was going to concede the point, but since you are such an ass here and acting like I didn't answer you, I'll not do that. Why don't you look it up? Give a couple calls? Maybe I'm wrong, but you will still have acted like a total jerk after I had conceded the point.

what the fuck is your problem? where did you concede "the point" and where did you specifically address "how much" of the song is used? you did not directly quote any post of mine, i have no clue what the fuck you're cyring about. apparently asking you for authority to support your claim is too much and causes you to meltdown and start calling names. i did not realize you answered any question of mine.
 
what the fuck is your problem? where did you concede "the point" and where did you specifically address "how much" of the song is used? you did not directly quote any post of mine, i have no clue what the fuck you're cyring about. apparently asking you for authority to support your claim is too much and causes you to meltdown and start calling names. i did not realize you answered any question of mine.

Well, in the post previous, the part where I stated that it wouldn't fall into fair use because it is not "editorializing", etc. Pretty much an entire concession of my whole argument from the start of the thread. But for you, that can't be enough can it? It makes the rest of my argument moot, I pretty much thought you were intelligent enough to figure that out.
 
Well, in the post previous, the part where I stated that it wouldn't fall into fair use because it is not "editorializing", etc. Pretty much an entire concession of my whole argument from the start of the thread. But for you, that can't be enough can it? It makes the rest of my argument moot, I pretty much thought you were intelligent enough to figure that out.

fuck you too. your answer could have been posed to anyone. it did not at all answer where you got your authority for you claim. i thought that post was to ID and if you had the brains to understand what it is you type, you would see your post is a perfect response to ID's posts, rather than mine. it still reads as an addition to your discussion with her. next time, try the quote function if you want people to know who you are responding to. hopefully, you're intelligent enough to figure that out.
 
fuck you too. your answer could have been posed to anyone. it did not at all answer where you got your authority for you claim. i thought that post was to ID and if you had the brains to understand what it is you type, you would see your post is a perfect response to ID's posts, rather than mine. it still reads as an addition to your discussion with her. next time, try the quote function if you want people to know who you are responding to. hopefully, you're intelligent enough to figure that out.

It was a wholesale concession, it wasn't only to you. Sometimes I may be speaking to more than just you. I expect intelligent people to take into account information in the post. I'm reasonably sure you kept up with the conversation and knew what I had said. When my argument is moot it's still moot even if I don't quote you.

Anyway, after looking it up I found that bumper music is payed for, it just costs less if you don't use the whole song (hence the American Idol example I gave earlier and why they do it), whether you are playing the original (bumper music is usually the original and not live interpretations or karaoke), and whether you want to play all songs from a particular artist as to what type of royalties license you would pay. Most of them don't want to pay the Pro-license which covers all music of any particular artist so the pay a per song fee unless, of course, they are a music station.
 
Again, it would depend on how much of the song was used. Let's say, there was this leftist band that sang a song played on Rush Limbaugh's show (BTW, there is), so long as he played only a portion of the song he could continue to use it as his bumper music without having to pay royalties. The same would be true for Michelle. It depends on how much of the song she used.

In this case it is likely that Tom has the right to tell her to quit using his song, especially if she used more than a small portion of the song at introduction, however it isn't an absolute right, it depends on exactly how much of the song is used.

You'll see this in usage on American Idol often, they'll allow their singers to sing only a portion of a song, and they know exactly how much can be used without permission, believe me. When a full song is used they need to get permission, they usually refuse to pay for that until near the end of the show... Hence you'll get portions played, but not full songs unless it is from a list of "free use" songs where the copyright is free, until the show reaches the point where the audience is voting and where they deem it worth the cost to pay the royalties.

I think you missed the part about her likely having paid ASCAP- She used the song in accordance with their( copyright law) agreement with Petty. Petty's contention is that he sees that as an endorsement of her-(licensing law). Petty would have to sue her if she persists ib order to get her to stop...Springsteen sued a McCain PAC and won- but that case is different in that the song used was part of an actual campaign ad. My point is that Petty should not be allowed to be a member of ASCAP if he is going to complain about music used in a rally- political or otherwise, since rally's are the very kind of thing ASCAP is designed to cover.
 
Fair Use man... Fair use...

Mr. Petty's work was used in a "commercial" manner by Ms. Bachman, it is copyrighted, a substantial portion of the copyrighted work was used with out authorization from the copyright holder and it's use could have a significant impact on the potential market or value of Mr. Petty's copyrighted material and thus the "Fair Use Doctrine" would not apply.

Even if it was to fall into a legal gray area the fact that the Author has specifically stated his opposition to it's use in this manner and context does not look good. Particularly for a politician who belongs to a party that holds private property rights in such high esteem.
 
I think you missed the part about her likely having paid ASCAP- She used the song in accordance with their( copyright law) agreement with Petty. Petty's contention is that he sees that as an endorsement of her-(licensing law). Petty would have to sue her if she persists ib order to get her to stop...Springsteen sued a McCain PAC and won- but that case is different in that the song used was part of an actual campaign ad. My point is that Petty should not be allowed to be a member of ASCAP if he is going to complain about music used in a rally- political or otherwise, since rally's are the very kind of thing ASCAP is designed to cover.

Interesting, I did miss that. I may have been "right" for all the wrong reasons....

It isn't "fair use", I admit I was wrong with that. Music specifically has its own rules too... It's draconian. There was a dude who won awards by copying and pasting words from other novels to write a novel of his own. Full sentences, paragraphs, etc. You can't do that with music without paying a crapton of royalties...
 
"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ... , scholarship, or research."

Yeah, a campaign probably couldn't be considered that, if it was used for the campaign specifically.

She could actually use the whole song if she was criticizing the song in a speech... Tom wouldn't be able to do a thing about that. :D

That's true but she didn't. She used it as an advertisement for her campaign with out permission from the copyright holder.
 
That's true but she didn't. She used it as an advertisement for her campaign with out permission from the copyright holder.

You need to catch up... I actually conceded that I was wrong earlier... I extended a "jackass" argument when I got frustrated with Yurt, uncharacteristically. I've been "grumpy" lately and I need some meditation time.

Sorry Yurt, it isn't you... It's clearly my inner troll showing its teeth.
 
Apparently the issue comes down to a legal argument between copyright law and licensing law. The only artists to pursue it legally was Jackson Brown against McCain's campaign. It was technically a different issue since it was the use of a song for an actual campaign ad-not a political rally.

I think an artist like Petty can run the risk of alienation of an audience- on a personal note however, I understand his position. Of course he ought to then not participate in ASCAP and enjoy the royalties of being a member.

That's true but it may be a matter of principle for him. First, it's his property and not hers. Second, he may disagree with her politics and does not wish for their to be an appearance that he endorses her campaigns or political policies.
 
You need to catch up... I actually conceded that I was wrong earlier... I extended a "jackass" argument when I got frustrated with Yurt, uncharacteristically. I've been "grumpy" lately and I need some meditation time.

Sorry Yurt, it isn't you... It's clearly my inner troll showing its teeth.
Topper can probably help you out with that! ;)
 
Interesting, I did miss that. I may have been "right" for all the wrong reasons....

It isn't "fair use", I admit I was wrong with that. Music specifically has its own rules too... It's draconian. There was a dude who won awards by copying and pasting words from other novels to write a novel of his own. Full sentences, paragraphs, etc. You can't do that with music without paying a crapton of royalties...

She likely had "copyright permission" via ASCAP as that is standard practice. Petty may have a case with regards licensing-though that is not clear in this instance. Personally I think he is an idiot for raising the issue as it could very well offend/alienate many in his own audience-
 
That's true but it may be a matter of principle for him. First, it's his property and not hers. Second, he may disagree with her politics and does not wish for their to be an appearance that he endorses her campaigns or political policies.

Principle? He joined ASCAP to enjoy the royalties... He should stand on the principle of his signing a contract with them.
 
Back
Top