**NEW MESSAGE** at FanAsylum

[TRAGChick]

Well, least he didn't send a D&C letter. Good.

If he pulled that shit, I would have loosed the powder stores and brought out the tripple cannons on the motherfucker.
I'm so sick of artists trying to politicize their music in this election.

However, having said that, by making a statement at all, he actually has...so fuck him and his size 23 nose. Nostril-face would have been far better just shutting the fuck up and ignoring it. He would have retained his respect instead of trying to politicize music that SHOULDNT be politicized.

It has nothing to do with that.

The music has a Copyright....that's what this means:

"Copyright is the ownership of an intellectual property within the limits prescribed by a particular nation's or international law.

In the United States, for example, the copyright law provides that the owner of a property has the exclusive right to print, distribute, and copy the work, and permission must be obtained by anyone else to reuse the work in these ways."

I may be wrong (and probably am), but don't copyrights expire after a certain amount of years and have to be renewed? Just curious.

It's called a "Mechanical Royalty" - and it's in effect for 75 years AFTER the Published / Broadcasted Work.

So....if there a 3 Co-Writers / Participants on a song, and only TWO give permission for it to be used as a certain "theme song", etc....

GUESS WHAT?

[Don]

A Mechanical Royalty comes from a Mechanical License which refers to permissions granted to mechanically reproduce music onto some type of media (e.g., cassette tape, CD, etc.).

[TRAGChick]

A Mechanical Royalty comes from a Mechanical License which refers to permissions granted to mechanically reproduce music onto some type of media (e.g., cassette tape, CD, etc.).

OK; yes you are correct on that...

But -

if Mr. McCain is using DSB as a "theme song", then therein lies the topic of this post:

His people did not get permission from Steve.

[Since 78]

A Mechanical Royalty comes from a Mechanical License which refers to permissions granted to mechanically reproduce music onto some type of media (e.g., cassette tape, CD, etc.).

OK; yes you are correct on that...

But -

if Mr. McCain is using DSB as a "theme song", then therein lies the topic of this post:

His people did not get permission from Steve.

I don't think it qualifies. They only played it once, no?

[journey062393]

Why start now....Politicians never ask ANYBODY ANYTHING before they do the shit that they do.....They work for US, WE pay THEIR slaries through our tax dollars - yet they do absolutely NOTHING that their constituants want.....It's STILL taxation w/o representation.....after all this you want them to ask permission to use a song?! Ummmm...yeeeaaahhh....riiiiiiiiiight!

Not to get off topic, and I'm sure nobody will mind this but.....nice picture! I'll take a Naughty Light. I mean a Natural Light.

[TRAGChick]

OK:

I asked Mark for his take on this...and I apologize; I was wrong on certain key points:

Here's what Mark had to say:

"There's nothing Steve can do, because the Sound Man / DJ has the right to play DSB because he will pay ASCAP and/or BMI the Mechanical Royalty for playing Copyrighted songs at a Public Venue.

The same Principal applies to a typical Restaurant / Bar, which plays Copyrighted Music: Agents from ASCAP and/or BMI visit such establishments quarterly to "Audit" usage and/or playlists of Copyrighted Music - ie, Jukeboxes, Live Bands playing covers, etc.

The only way that Steve Perry can stop the usage of DSB is if John McCain's people approached him DIRECTLY to request approval of DSB as the McCain Republican "Theme Song".

If Steve said "no", then that would put the stop to it".

[Don]

A Mechanical Royalty comes from a Mechanical License which refers to permissions granted to mechanically reproduce music onto some type of media (e.g., cassette tape, CD, etc.).

OK; yes you are correct on that...

But -

if Mr. McCain is using DSB as a "theme song", then therein lies the topic of this post:

His people did not get permission from Steve.

If it's being used in his ads then yes, but if it was just played at the convention without a banner saying something like “Don't stop believin' vote for McCain” then, like Barracuda it was bumper music so it's use isn't breaking any laws.

[Since 78]

A Mechanical Royalty comes from a Mechanical License which refers to permissions granted to mechanically reproduce music onto some type of media (e.g., cassette tape, CD, etc.).

OK; yes you are correct on that...

But -

if Mr. McCain is using DSB as a "theme song", then therein lies the topic of this post:

His people did not get permission from Steve.

If it's being used in his ads then yes, but if it was just played at the convention without a banner saying something like “Don't stop believin' vote for McCain” then, like Barracuda it was bumper music so it's use isn't breaking any laws.

How about Stranglehold? I'm sure Ted wont mind!!

[separate_wayz]

Here's what I posted on another thread, about the Heart song "Barracuda" .....



The song credits for "Barracuda" include not only Ann Wilson and Nancy Wilson, but also Roger Fisher (former guitarist) and Michael DeRosier (former drummer). Fisher was said to be "thrilled" at the use of the song, because under a licensing agreement, the song is licensed for public performance under a blanket fee paid by the Xcel Energy Center (in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, where the RNC convention was held) to ASCAP, the firm that collects royalties on behalf of composers and copyright owners.

Therefore, copyright law may not be on the Wilsons' side.

Fisher seems to be the only one with any common sense (and business sense), calling it was a win-win situation: Heart gets publicity and royalties, while the Republicans benefit from "the ingenious placement of a kick-ass song."

Considering that Heart is currently touring (and would directly benefit from additional concert seats sold), and that the use of the 31-year-old song could introduce it to a whole new generation, the Wilson sisters' decision seems doubly stupid (and probably not enforceable anyway).


The same probably goes for "Don't Stop Believin' ". The song is (probably) covered under a blanket fee paid by the Xcel Energy Center. Whether Steve Perry approves of the song being played is (likely) irrelevant.

[perrylover52]

In trying to read this whole thread and not really understanding most of it. I've come to this:

To me, what this boils down to is this, if the DNC was playing the same music for the same purpose, to fill time and entertain the crowd, no one would be saying anything. But because it was the RNC doing it everyone has their underpants in a knot over it.

And after reading this and the other thread on this board, people wonder why I keep the way I vote to myself.

[TRAGChick]

In trying to read this whole thread and not really understanding most of it. I've come to this:

To me, what this boils down to is this, if the DNC was playing the same music for the same purpose, to fill time and entertain the crowd, no one would be saying anything. But because it was the RNC doing it everyone has their underpants in a knot over it.

And after reading this and the other thread on this board, people wonder why I keep the way I vote to myself.

Again, this is out of Journey's - and Steve Perry's - hands.

If SP has personal reasons for not having this song broadcasted, REGARDLESS of what Party it's for, then YES- he DOES have rights to his opinions.

But:

"Legal Red Tape" says otherwise, in this case....

[strangegrey]

It has nothing to do with that.

The music has a Copyright....that's what this means:

"Copyright is the ownership of an intellectual property within the limits prescribed by a particular nation's or international law.

In the United States, for example, the copyright law provides that the owner of a property has the exclusive right to print, distribute, and copy the work, and permission must be obtained by anyone else to reuse the work in these ways."

You clearly don't have a firm grasp on copyright law. Copyrights protect an artist from having his/her work stolen and passed off as someone elses works. It really doesn't at all govern broadcasting and/or performing the work. A different set of rules apply in this case. Most of the time (as is the case in acceptable use/broadcast scenarios such as this), the publishing companies are usually paid royalty fees for broadcasting (and the artist gets a small cut). The artist has little control over acceptable use broadcasting of the song. The only reason artists are doing these stupid "you can't use my shit" statements, is because of this fact. Otherwise, they'd just pull the plug and make their statement after the fact.

So, having said that....the point is rather moot. The artist can't tell John McCain, B.Hussein Obama or Jack the fucking Ripper...."dont use my music"....because in the end, so long as it falls under the acceptable-use verbiage, it's a non-issue.


So in the end, what is the artist really doing? all they can do....they're politicizing their music...nothing more, nothing else.

It's pretty sad when they end up doing that...because it casts an ugly light on them.....

[strangegrey]

Sorry Tragchick, didn't read your post following the original...where you clarified your statement...

[TRAGChick]

Sorry Tragchick, didn't read your post following the original...where you clarified your statement...

THANK YOU for "chiming in" again....I was about to get all ":x" on you....

It's all good....

[Monker]

He would have retained his respect instead of trying to politicize music that SHOULDNT be politicized.

But... he's trying NOT to have it politicized. I bet he would do the same if any other party used a Journey song. He doesn't even like them in commercials...

I believe they also played this song four years ago at the DNC after Kerry's speach.

I don't remember anybody, especialy any: current, former, or futur member of the band, complaining about that.

[Moon Beam]

He is a co-creator of that song and it should not be used continuously without all creators consent.
Just my 2 coppers worth.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I believe they also played this song four years ago at the DNC after Kerry's speach.

I'm pretty sure it was a Sammy Hagar or Van Halen song that was played after Kerry's speech.
I remember because the balloons wouldnt drop and you heard one of the producers cursing live on air over it.
A Democrat did adopt DSB as their campaign anthem...I think it might've been failed also-ran Dick Gephardt.

I don't remember anybody, especialy any: current, former, or futur member of the band, complaining about that.

Don't forget they allowed Hillary to use it in her lame Sopranos spoof ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEPcJlz2wE

[Loneman1]

I really hate to get into political debates unless all parties can look each other square in the eye in person, but this seems pretty clear-cut. I sure as hell wouldn't want a song I wrote being played on TV in front of millions of people, promoting a party I didn't believe in. They gave Wesley Clark (D) the go ahead in '04 with DSB to be used as his theme.

I'm also glad Heart did the same thing by calling them out on this.

[Allied Forces]

You mean they didn't use the newly recorded scab version?

[annpea]

It has nothing to do with that.

The music has a Copyright....that's what this means:

"Copyright is the ownership of an intellectual property within the limits prescribed by a particular nation's or international law.

In the United States, for example, the copyright law provides that the owner of a property has the exclusive right to print, distribute, and copy the work, and permission must be obtained by anyone else to reuse the work in these ways."

You clearly don't have a firm grasp on copyright law. Copyrights protect an artist from having his/her work stolen and passed off as someone elses works. It really doesn't at all govern broadcasting and/or performing the work. A different set of rules apply in this case. Most of the time (as is the case in acceptable use/broadcast scenarios such as this), the publishing companies are usually paid royalty fees for broadcasting (and the artist gets a small cut). The artist has little control over acceptable use broadcasting of the song. The only reason artists are doing these stupid "you can't use my shit" statements, is because of this fact. Otherwise, they'd just pull the plug and make their statement after the fact.

So, having said that....the point is rather moot. The artist can't tell John McCain, B.Hussein Obama or Jack the fucking Ripper...."dont use my music"....because in the end, so long as it falls under the acceptable-use verbiage, it's a non-issue.


So in the end, what is the artist really doing? all they can do....they're politicizing their music...nothing more, nothing else.

It's pretty sad when they end up doing that...because it casts an ugly light on them.....

Does, it cast an ugly light on them because they don't want the RNC playing their music.? Why would you think such a thing as that, I have read numerous posts on this very forum from,certain members who have made some very ugly statments; some have surprised me beyond belief. I have never seen such vile posts directed toward others becuase they do not blindly swollow everything the Republicans lay out. I am more convinced than ever, after viewing some of the posts here; that if this is the way Republicans behave toward others, with name calling and belittling of fellow Americans for expressing their opinions then The GOP is not for me. I only want for this country the best that it has to offer and if that best is male, female ,black ,white or purple then that should be my right and my right to express as much without having to fear being ridiculed and scorned by other so called Americans. As for the artists and their music; I feel that if they had been accorded the proper respect and asked permission for the use of their music then it's a possibility that permission might have been given; I see it like this, If i own a car i would want to be asked before my neighbor jump in behind the wheel and speed off.

[whirlwind]

I still find it hard to believe that Journey would have their iconic, very American based song, relate to one political party only. I can't believe that people are even making such a fuss about it.

It was so appropriate for the song to relate to Sarah as a small town girl who has not stopped believing. The song has been brought back year after year and given emphasis in relating to events in all our lives, not just Democratic or Republican. We all made it the popular song that it is. Journey gave us the song and it is for everyone, imo.

If Perry has a problem with it, I would wonder about him, at long last.

[strangegrey]

It casts an ugly light because the mere fact of coming out and saying "The music isn't political" is actually politicizing it. If it isn't political, then don't say a thing.

Really.

It's that simple.


Because the cold hard facts of this case is that the artist really can't do anything about it. If the DJ or broadcaster wants to pay the royalty fees, they can do so and play the music.

If the artist didn't want this to be a problem they'd have two choices:

1) Retain complete and utter control over all broadcasting rights of the music instead of signing them off to the publishing company. There's a fat chance of that, because the expense of managing that would far exceed the income of royalty payments. Not to mention it would be a fucking nightmare to actually manage.

2) Never bother becoming a professional recording artist.



So to conclude here....if the artist has no *real* and *legal* control over the music, by coming out and bitching and griping about who should or shouldn't use the music is a futile and pointless effort (to the end of actually preventing the use of it). So with that out of the picture, what *other* motivation does the artist have to say anything....?!?!?!

Think hard. You can do.....


let me help....


...to throw their $0.02 into t the political arena....and by doing that, they appear ugly to people that never wanted to associate their music with politics.

While Steve Perry coming out and saying "My music isn't political" isn't as bad as the two pigs from seatle attacking Palin for using Baracuda, it's still a political move...and I do NOT respect Perry for it. I think it was cheap, nasty and unnecessary....given what I (and others should) know about how music broadcasting works.

[donnaplease]

I love that they used the songs by Journey & Heart at the convention. I don't think SP's comments were inappropriate. I don't believe that by saying "the song isn't political" he was saying that he disproved of the RNC. It seems to me that he was just trying to make it clear that he wasn't endorsing the use of the song for the RNC.

I think this is much adieu about nothing.

[lights1961]

THE WHOLE ISSUE IS A NON ISSUE... just because they dont like MCCAIN... that is no reason to be as STUPID as to not let the music be played at an event in arena where 20000 people can hear it and MAYBE BY the music if they dont already have it... plus 40,000,000 people nation wide hearing the song... I MEAN WHAT IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM WITH ARTIST ANYWAY...THEY CLAIM THEY ARE OPEN MINDED... BUT THEY SHOW THEY ARE NOT by these kind of actions.. its not just STeve...but its Mellencamp, Springsteen etc... get over their self importance already.
its music we like we play it. if they came to your HOUSE and ordered you not to play it---is that next??? what if they dont like the Packers or the Vikings is that next???

again this just stupid that it has gotten this way in the FREE NATION OF THE WORLD.


Rick

[Moon Beam]

Because the cold hard facts of this case is that the artist really can't do anything about it. If the DJ or broadcaster wants to pay the royalty fees, they can do so and play the music.

If the artist didn't want this to be a problem they'd have two choices:

1) Retain complete and utter control over all broadcasting rights of the music instead of signing them off to the publishing company. There's a fat chance of that, because the expense of managing that would far exceed the income of royalty payments. Not to mention it would be a fucking nightmare to actually manage.

2) Never bother becoming a professional recording artist.


While Steve Perry coming out and saying "My music isn't political" isn't as bad as the two pigs from seatle attacking Palin for using Baracuda, it's still a political move...and I do NOT respect Perry for it. I think it was cheap, nasty and unnecessary....given what I (and others should) know about how music broadcasting works.

I don't know schweet sheet squat about recording royalties so I'll take your word for it Frank.
I do know that you could have been a bit more eloquent in your choice of words to the Wilson women.

[strangegrey]

I don't know schweet sheet squat about recording royalties so I'll take your word for it Frank.
I do know that you could have been a bit more eloquent in your choice of words to the Wilson women.

I don't like them. shoot me. I think they're both unappealing to look at and nothing, to me, is more of a turn off....than ugly women trying to politicize things that shouldn't be politicized.

I've had *years* of Hillary doing that on a national level and a local level here in NYS. I don't need it from the Wilson Chuds.

[scarygirl]

Good lord, I thought that Steve had posted something about his supposed new album, not breaking a shit over DSB being played at a political convention.

[strangegrey]

Sad huh....even artists that dont work are trying to jump on this damn political bandwagon!

[scarygirl]

Sad huh....even artists that dont work are trying to jump on this damn political bandwagon!

Furthermore, if the music truly has no political affiliation then it shouldn't matter if some Republicans get a kick out of playing it. Music for the people? Oh, Democrats are the only ones who qualify.

[annpea]

I believe they also played this song four years ago at the DNC after Kerry's speach.

I'm pretty sure it was a Sammy Hagar or Van Halen song that was played after Kerry's speech.
I remember because the balloons wouldnt drop and you heard one of the producers cursing live on air over it.
A Democrat did adopt DSB as their campaign anthem...I think it might've been failed also-ran Dick Gephardt.

I don't remember anybody, especialy any: current, former, or futur member of the band, complaining about that.

Don't forget they allowed Hillary to use it in her lame Sopranos spoof ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEPcJlz2wE

If, I remember right Steve Perry was'nt to happy about Hillary doing that. In an interview about that spoof he said something in the manner of ( it was ok, but it would have been better if she had asked permission first) not the exact wording but I'm sure that interview can be found again.