Tom Petty’s cease-and-desist letter

sjjohnston said:
100 points to one of the few people in America who - judging by press accounts - actually understands how music is licensed.

Is there someone who really thinks that every time you want to play a piece of music over a loudspeaker, you call up the recording artist and the songwriter and ask for their permission? Wouldn't that result in people like Paul McCartney, Burt Bacharach, Kool and the Gang (not to mention whoever controls the Hill sisters' estates) doing nothing other than taking requests from Wal-Marts, elevator operators and wedding planners 24 hours a day?
Click to expand...

100 points to one of the few people in America who - judging by press accounts - actually understands how music is licensed.

Unfortunately, he's not 100% correct...

An ASCAP or BMI license will allow someone to record or perform a song, playing someone else's recording is a different matter. There you have to license the recording from the record company.

While I firmly believe Ms. Bachmann will be our next President (and she will have my vote), I'm not sure I want to hear her sing.

And as far as Tom Petty goes, who's even heard "American Girl" since "Silence of the Lambs" came out...
 
grimtraveller said:
I disagree with that wholeheartedly. For some people, following the progression of various artists through the years is fascinating as you see how they change, grow up, regress etc. And as for imposition of views on the buyers of records/fans, that's a major part of the relationship between those that write the songs and those that listen to them.
Click to expand...

There's musicians/artists who are "political" right from their beginnings, and everyone knows where they are coming from, and then usually their fan base tends to be in the same frame of mind.
However, when you got some who build up their entire career on non-political expression...then all of a sudden decide to *USE* their captive audience/fan base to spew political messages at because all of a sudden they got on some political bandwagon, using their *non-political* art as the vehicle....I say STFU and get back to your art.

It's like at work...it's considered poor form to spew political opinions at your captive co-worker audience. So why do it to a unsuspecting fan base?
I mean, OK, some still do and take a chance at alienating a portion of their fan base, not just because of the political message they are injecting, but also because they are *using* their art to give it and spoiling the art/entertainment for the audience.
I think that's lame.
 
miroslav said:
However, when you got some who build up their entire career on non-political expression...then all of a sudden decide to *USE* their captive audience/fan base to spew political messages at because all of a sudden they got on some political bandwagon, using their *non-political* art as the vehicle....I say STFU and get back to your art.
Click to expand...

Ok, I suppose if it isn't genuine it could be kind of lame, but I don't see why it'd matter if they'd been political throughout their career or not? Are you saying it makes them seem hypocritical or something? I don't get it.

Anyway, it doesn't have anything to do with the Tom Petty thing since this wasn't something he started or sought out. He isn't spewing anything. He merely learned that she played his song at her rally or whatever and wants her to stop since he understandably doesn't want to be associated with her or appear to be endorsing her in some way. She is the one trying to use his art as a vehicle not the other way around.
 
Greg_L said:
I can see cease-and-desist letters from a royalty/compensation perspective, but these guys protesting the use of their songs based off political principles are pompous douchebags. Tom Petty, Springsteen, and Heart? Please. Just be glad someone remembers you.
Click to expand...

It's not just about royalties, it's more like a trademark protection issue.
 
miroslav said:
However, when you got some who build up their entire career on non-political expression...then all of a sudden decide to *USE* their captive audience/fan base to spew political messages at because all of a sudden they got on some political bandwagon, using their *non-political* art as the vehicle....I say STFU and get back to your art.
Click to expand...
But people change.
I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone who writes songs and some years down the line goes through a religious conversion or falls in love or has kids or gets depressed or becomes political etc, etc. Much of their art will express what they feel or what they're going through. Songs have pretty much always done that. I can't see what's wrong with that. The songs may be lame but that's the punter's call.
I dig Ted Nugent's first 7 albums, the songs are brilliant, the guitaring is, in many cases outstanding. Apart from "Death by misadventure" which is an anti drug song aimed at Brian Jones, you get no real sense of what he's about. But read his interviews and he's very clear. I don't like much of what he stands for. I saw his autobiography a few years back, but I didn't buy it because when I looked through it in the shop, there's virtually nothing about music and how he got into the whole shebang. It was as right wing a tome as you're likely to find. But it's his right.
I can't see the difference between imposing one's political views on your fans and imposing stories of sexual conquests on the same fans. Anything a songwriter/artist comes up with can be seen as imposing. And where in the career this starts happening doesn't really matter; people change.
 
As long as we have only two viable parties and their moronic followers line right up behind them no matter what, then politics in the USA is a joke and we deserve the decades of clusterfuck headed our way.

Stop voting. Kill a politician today. :)
 
heatmiser said:
Ok, I suppose if it isn't genuine it could be kind of lame, but I don't see why it'd matter if they'd been political throughout their career or not? Are you saying it makes them seem hypocritical or something? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

grimtraveller said:
But people change.
I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone who writes songs and some years down the line goes through a religious conversion or falls in love or has kids or gets depressed or becomes political etc, etc. Much of their art will express what they feel or what they're going through.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the guys who have been openly political with their art and their views from the start of their careers...I can accept that.
I'm talking about the ones who all of a sudden decide to "endorse" some political view after never being political throughout their rise to fame (or at least they kept their politics private), and then they suddenly use their artistic clout to preach a message to their fans who mainly came for the art that was never political.

I know a lot of politicians will try to draw in artists to preach their message because they know the young crowds are more accessible that way...and that to me is a sham. You see them every election year, the candidate surrounded by big-name musicians and movie stars who were rarely political outside of that arena and before they got drafted into the endorsement.
People came for the music/art but got a dose of "vote for Dave...blah, blah, blah".

IOW...if Joe Rock Star was NOT a star...how much would his political view be worth???
ZERO
But now that his art made him famous (non-political art), he is suddenly valuable to endorse a political view. Basically IT'S THE ART that gives him "political" clout....which is total BS if he was never political before.

And it's not about "growing"...this shit only happens when it's called for by the politics. It's not like someone who use to write Pop cheese, is now a devout political hound and is focusing all his talent on pushing a political point with his art.

Anyway...I just find those artist to be lame and pissing on their art when they use their non-political artistic image to suddenly endorse political views.

Yes...politics suck ass...and those artists are sucking the asses of the politicians they are endorsing...thanks to their art.
 
Track Rat said:
So, you hate me eh?
Click to expand...

Not at all. But then again I haven't heard you rant and rave like a typical lefty hypocrite. Let's keep it that way. :D

I don't care about anyone's political or religious affiliations until they start talking about it. Then I'll automatically take the opposing view just to piss them off.
 
bdenton said:
Unfortunately, he's not 100% correct...
Click to expand...
At the risk of chaning the subject (which seems to have gone over to random political musings):

Probably not 100%, but still pretty close. The owner of the copyright in a sound recording (unlike the owner of a copyright in a composition) doesn't have any exclusive rights with respect to playing the record in public. When the record company sells you the record, it sells you the right not only to listen to it, but to play it for any number of other people, at least so long as they're right there listening to the speakers. See Sections 106 and 114(a) of the Copyright Act.

This, of course, assumes that Michelle Bachman didn't shoplift her Tom Petty CD or improperly copy it (and things rapidly get muddy in the world of copyright once you start fooling around with downloads).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top