**NEW MESSAGE** at FanAsylum

[Arianddu]

Cindy McCain had on a Michael Kors watch during her speech, wonder if he's notified everyone he
doesn't endorse the party?
They were using Macs on the podium at one point, wonder if that company has made a statement?
its ridiculous...

They weren't using the Macs or Michael Kors watches specifically to rally the troops though, were they?

I don't get it, they only want Dems. buying and using their music? its really rude to make the statement at all, they should have just
let it lie....they just turn people off and look shallow when they pull stuff like that and NO ONE is a bigger fan of Steve Perry than
Steveforever, no one!

This is one of the many reasons why I don't get American politics; partisan politics is all very well, but you guys take it to ridiculous extremes.

Who gives a shit who he does or doesn't support? Your vote is your business and no one elses. SP has publically said he hasn't given permission for McCain to use the song, and he doesn't personally endorse the campaign. He hasn't said he supports the Democrats, or that he's anti-Republican, or even anti-McCain. He's said before elsewhere (see the link re Hilary Clinton using DSB above) that he doesn't like music being politicised, or his music at least. So because he's vocally apolitical, you've made the jump that he doesn't want republicans buying his music? I just don't get how you can make that link and keep a straight face.

But then again, I don't understand how you tolerate your electoral system, or how Americans can get such support for the right to bear arms, but don't seem to mind the notion that citizens can legally have their right to vote taken away. I'm going to shut up now, 'cause it's not my country, not my election, even if the whole world is going to be affected by the outcome.

[separate_wayz]

Laura, I understand your point and respect it...but legally, the artist doesn't have that much say in it in this context.

Was this rally a private party? I guess not. Was it televised? Broadcasted in any shape or form? I bet it was. Is it part of an official campaign?
Just like in the Sopranos, the usage of the song required permission from the artists. Using DSB on a PA system in a public place is considered "public reproduction of the work".
I'm telling you from experience. I've worked on political campaigns with my radio job,and whenever a political party wanted to use a certain song for their public meetings/rallys/spechees/ or whatever included an audience, a PA and broadcasting (radio or TV) the artists had to be asked for permission.

What Journey can't control is anything private where their songs are played. No need to control that either, because it doesn't fall under the copyright law anyway. Anything else that goes on in the public eye, in public circumstances is their business and should be able to control it. Legally.

No. The artist doesn't have to be asked permission.

The use of the Heart song (and probably the Journey song too) was covered under a licensing agreement with the Xcel Energy Center, where the RNC Convention was. The center paid a licensing fee to the ASCAP for the use of the Heart song. That's how it works. Period.

The Republicans didn't have to ask permission of the Wilson sisters of Heart for "Barracuda". Nor did they have to ask the permission of the other band members with song credits, Roger Fisher (former guitarist for Heart) and Michael DeRosier (former drummer for Heart). Fisher, for the record, was "thrilled" at the use of the song -- but whether he was thrilled or not is irrelevant. (And Fisher is an Obama supporter, by the way.) Each of the songwriters got a small royalty check, and that's the end of the story. The Wilson sisters' griping is meaningless, because (again) the use of the song was covered under a licensing agreement with the venue. Their posturing is stupid venting and almost certainly not legally enforceable. (If I were the Republican Party, having received the Wilson sisters' "cease and desist" order, I would've ignored it and played the song anyway. The "c&d" paperwork would be legally worthless and generally silly.)

What makes me roll my eyes is when artists complain about "preserving" the "artistic value" of their "artwork". Whatever. These are the same 30-year-old songs, like "Barracuda", that half the population doesn't even remember, and that the other half remembers being used in a Burger King fish sandwich commercial. Yeah ..... gotta preserve that artistic merit for the BK Fish Whopper.

[Arianddu]

Ok, I understand the licensing laws regarding public playing of music, and that's cool. But what's the situation when it's being used at an event that is going to be televised? Does that alter the legal situation?

Just curious.

[Don]

The ASCAP fee should cover that. How many times have I heard DSB on T.V. during a football game when they're going to commercial. It's not over a P.A., its bumper music for the broadcast. The ASCAP fee wouldn't be accepted if it wasn't allowed.

[Rick]

The ASCAP fee should cover that. How many times have I heard DSB on T.V. during a football game when they're going to commercial. It's not over a P.A., its bumper music for the broadcast. The ASCAP fee wouldn't be accepted if it wasn't allowed.

Good point.

Maybe SP and Heart know all of this, but simply lob out the objection and or cease and desist, hoping that the Republicans will respect their wishes and stop using the song. The Republicans don't want to come off as the bad guy right now.

[Don]

That's what I'm saying. They know that all they can do is express their opinion on the matter but that's it. They'll still cash their royalty check or if it's such a big deal they should donate their check to some worthwhile cause. Let's see if one of them does that now. I sort of doubt it.

[Deb]

That's what I'm saying. They know that all they can do is express their opinion on the matter but that's it. They'll still cash their royalty check or if it's such a big deal they should donate their check to some worthwhile cause. Let's see if one of them does that now. I sort of doubt it.

Great AV Gunbot!

[walkslikealady]

Why didn't they play Bach or Beethovan?

The Republican and Democratic parties' planners are not stupid. The people at the convention played specific songs because of the message they send..."Don't Stop Believin'" or "Baracuda" and whatever else was played.

From a layman's point-of-view, it would have been more gracious if political parties had asked if the artists involved with the songs whether they could use the song because it "does" put the impression in the minds of viewers that the artists are "for them".

Also, SP had the right of free speech to state he didn't give his permission.

[Enigma869]

I honestly don't have an issue with an artist coming out and expressing that they don't want their music used. As Frank said, these artists CLEARLY know the rules and that copywrites are not being violated. That doesn't mean that 99% of the listening public has the same understanding of how all of this works. As has been mentioned here, most people beleive if they hear a certain artist's music, said artist must endorse this candidate. I personally loathe both the Democrats and the Republicans, so don't have a dog in this fight. I've heard many here suggest that something is only being said because it was the Republicans using the music. From my perspective, it wouldn't matter one iota which party chose to use the music. The artist still has a right to make a statement, whether they have the right to put a stop to the use of the music or not! If they want to make a statement that they don't endorse the party using their music, that is their right! As for Perry's statement...Frank, my friend...you are WAY overreacting to Perry's statement! There was NOTHING remotely political about what Perry said. NOWHERE in his comment could you even begin to decipher which party (if either) Perry supports. He made a VERY simple comment, by saying his music isn't political, period, end of story! How you made it into something political is beyond me!


John from Boston

[Michigan Girl]

I honestly don't have an issue with an artist coming out and expressing that they don't want their music used. As Frank said, these artists CLEARLY know the rules and that copywrites are not being violated. That doesn't mean that 99% of the listening public has the same understanding of how all of this works. As has been mentioned here, most people beleive if they hear a certain artist's music, said artist must endorse this candidate. I personally loathe both the Democrats and the Republicans, so don't have a dog in this fight. I've heard many here suggest that something is only being said because it was the Republicans using the music. From my perspective, it wouldn't matter one iota which party chose to use the music. The artist still has a right to make a statement, whether they have the right to put a stop to the use of the music or not! If they want to make a statement that they don't endorse the party using their music, that is their right! As for Perry's statement...Frank, my friend...you are WAY overreacting to Perry's statement! There was NOTHING remotely political about what Perry said. NOWHERE in his comment could you even begin to decipher which party (if either) Perry supports. He made a VERY simple comment, by saying his music isn't political, period, end of story! How you made it into something political is beyond me!

John from Boston

This is the way I read it, as well!!!!!

[strangegrey]

Laura, I understand your point and respect it...but legally, the artist doesn't have that much say in it in this context.

Was this rally a private party? I guess not. Was it televised? Broadcasted in any shape or form? I bet it was. Is it part of an official campaign?
Just like in the Sopranos, the usage of the song required permission from the artists. Using DSB on a PA system in a public place is considered "public reproduction of the work".
I'm telling you from experience. I've worked on political campaigns with my radio job,and whenever a political party wanted to use a certain song for their public meetings/rallys/spechees/ or whatever included an audience, a PA and broadcasting (radio or TV) the artists had to be asked for permission.

What Journey can't control is anything private where their songs are played. No need to control that either, because it doesn't fall under the copyright law anyway. Anything else that goes on in the public eye, in public circumstances is their business and should be able to control it. Legally.

The sopranos scenario is extremely different because it's getting pushed to reproduced DVD. Copyright laws are treated differently with respect to broadcast and reproduction for sale. It is *my* understanding...and a fairly educated one at that...that this situation is out of steve perry's hands for a handful of reasons. I suggest that you seek some clarification on this.

I'll tell you what, if it were in Perry's hands (or that of his lawyers), why on earth didn't he immediately sick his dream team of lawyers on McCain's campaign??!?!? That's been Perry's MO since day one and don't tell me otherwise, because you know that's true. I've never seen a 'retired' artist with more lawyers on his speed dial than steve perry...

So why is his legal team not unleashing the unholy hellfire on McCain's campaign??? probably because the lawyers (and one has to assume one of his lawyers is an IP expert) told him that it would be a waste of time and money.

[strangegrey]

I honestly don't have an issue with an artist coming out and expressing that they don't want their music used. As Frank said, these artists CLEARLY know the rules and that copywrites are not being violated. That doesn't mean that 99% of the listening public has the same understanding of how all of this works. As has been mentioned here, most people beleive if they hear a certain artist's music, said artist must endorse this candidate. I personally loathe both the Democrats and the Republicans, so don't have a dog in this fight. I've heard many here suggest that something is only being said because it was the Republicans using the music. From my perspective, it wouldn't matter one iota which party chose to use the music. The artist still has a right to make a statement, whether they have the right to put a stop to the use of the music or not! If they want to make a statement that they don't endorse the party using their music, that is their right! As for Perry's statement...Frank, my friend...you are WAY overreacting to Perry's statement! There was NOTHING remotely political about what Perry said. NOWHERE in his comment could you even begin to decipher which party (if either) Perry supports. He made a VERY simple comment, by saying his music isn't political, period, end of story! How you made it into something political is beyond me!


John from Boston

Perhaps I am, perhaps I am not.


You're missing my point. If an artist can NOT affect change with such a statement, there's ZERO need for it unless to politicize his/her music without appearing to do so.

Frankly, One of the reasons why I loved Journey was because they were so a-political. I *hate* and *resent* bands that politicize their music, like U2 and REM.

So in this scenario, Perry coming out and bitching about something beyond his control...I see that as an effort to coyly, slyly slip in a political jab, when he otherwise shouldn't have any need to. I mean, for fuck's sake...the guy's RE-FUCKING-TIRED. How on earth he involves himself in this shit and doesn't get any ink on his shirt is beyond me.


So to that end...call it what you want. It's another reason (on top of the many) that I have lost a boat-load of respect for him. He should ahve just shut the fuck up, stayed retired and I wouldn't feel a need to 'react' to his statements. That fucker always seems to open his mouth when it hurts himself the most in my eyes.


Regardless, I don't care whether or not you guys feel differently. His statements to me STINK to high hell of politicizing this while trying to appear neutral. If you're so fucking neutral, don't say a word.

Same goes for those whiny dickbreaths, Van Halen....who I also respected because they remained politically neutral with their music. They took a swipe (save for Sammy and Mike, who yet again, take the high road).....and FUCK them for it.

[Arianddu]

Frankly, One of the reasons why I loved Journey was because they were so a-political. I *hate* and *resent* bands that politicize their music, like U2 and REM.

So in this scenario, Perry coming out and bitching about something beyond his control...I see that as an effort to coyly, slyly slip in a political jab, when he otherwise shouldn't have any need to. I mean, for fuck's sake...the guy's RE-FUCKING-TIRED. How on earth he involves himself in this shit and doesn't get any ink on his shirt is beyond me.

So... when he says 'I don't endorse this campaign' - that's him sneakily taking political sides? Even when most people assume if a song is used, then the artist has given express permission for it to be used? Even when he has said elsewhere that he doesn't like his music being used for political purposes?

Personally, I think he's being consistent. He's keeping himself, and his music, apolitical, and is simply stating that although the Republicans have used his music, he's not endorsing their campaign. He hasn't said he's anti-republican, or pro-democrat, he's just said he doesn't endorse McCain's campaign.

Let it go dude, it's really not worth getting so het up about!

[strangegrey]

Laura, let me follow up, because I decided to do some research on this.

It is my *researched* understanding that the McCain campaign has paid for a venue-use ASCAP licence for the use of music as background music at the campaign. It's a blanket license that allows the PA broadcaster to play the music on the PA, irrespective of any other considerations. The networks (who cover this event) have similar paid licenses.

Sorry, there's *nothing* these whiny, bitchy, over-paid (and in heart's case, over-fed) artists can do about it.



Unless McCain or other politicians continue to use music to create an 'association' with the music....the artist has NO legal leg to stand on....and that's the reason why NONE of them have either sued or successfully sued (Jacksone Browne's lawyers must be dumb or out of work and in need of billable hours). To prove such an 'association' requires FAR more than one playing of the song...and it's quite difficult to prove based on 1-3 seperate playings.


Sorry, Perry, the Wilson pakaderms, Van Halen, Jackson Browne and that useless cock-stain John Mellencamp are out of luck here...

[Arkansas]

I say, sue the RNC.

Most likely, they have a LOT of $$......

Yeah, like SP needs their money.

Yeah, and our courts need to be tied-up with another frivolous lawsuit.
Maybe John Edwards will take the case.


later~

[Arianddu]

"Steve cannot speak for the current members of Journey but we have been told that Steve Perry as a Co-Writer and Singer was never contacted for permission to use the performance of "Don't Stop Believin" at the RNC.

As far as he is concerned, this song and his performance have NO political party affiliation. "

Can someone please find the part in this statement that says:

1. SP is suing anyone.

2. Copyright is being cited or violated.

3. SP is anti-Republican or pro-Democrat.

4. Anything at all that implies who SP votes for or supports politically.

Because I can't. But I think maybe some of you need to take a chill pill and read this bit again:

"As far as he is concerned, this song and his performance have NO political party affiliation"

[amaron]

"Steve cannot speak for the current members of Journey but we have been told that Steve Perry as a Co-Writer and Singer was never contacted for permission to use the performance of "Don't Stop Believin" at the RNC.

As far as he is concerned, this song and his performance have NO political party affiliation. "

Can someone please find the part in this statement that says:

1. SP is suing anyone.

2. Copyright is being cited or violated.

3. SP is anti-Republican or pro-Democrat.

4. Anything at all that implies who SP votes for or supports politically.

Because I can't. But I think maybe some of you need to take a chill pill and read this bit again:

"As far as he is concerned, this song and his performance have NO political party affiliation"

Re-read your own post.

contacted for permission to use the performance of "Don't Stop Believin" at the RNC.

That is a claim of copyright violation. Why bring that up unless it bothers him?

10. I want to use music-on-hold in my business. Do I need permission?

Yes. When you place a caller on hold and transmit music via your telephone lines, that is a public performance of the music. It is your responsibility to obtain permission to perform ASCAP songs from ASCAP or directly from the copyright owner. ASCAP represents tens of thousands of copyright owners and millions of songs and an ASCAP license will give you the right to perform them all.

Public Performance or Performance Rights
A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.

Steve Perry absolutely does NOT need to be contacted to have his songs played.

Does this look familiar: Love Batch Music (ASCAP)

If not, look it up.

[Arianddu]

"Steve cannot speak for the current members of Journey but we have been told that Steve Perry as a Co-Writer and Singer was never contacted for permission to use the performance of "Don't Stop Believin" at the RNC.

As far as he is concerned, this song and his performance have NO political party affiliation. "

Can someone please find the part in this statement that says:

1. SP is suing anyone.

2. Copyright is being cited or violated.

3. SP is anti-Republican or pro-Democrat.

4. Anything at all that implies who SP votes for or supports politically.

Because I can't. But I think maybe some of you need to take a chill pill and read this bit again:

"As far as he is concerned, this song and his performance have NO political party affiliation"

Re-read your own post.

contacted for permission to use the performance of "Don't Stop Believin" at the RNC.

That is a claim of copyright violation. Why bring that up unless it bothers him?

It bothers him because the guy doesn't want his music politicised, pure and simple. No mention of copyright, nor has he said that the Republicans can't use it. Simple statement of fact - the song has no political party affiliation.

[Lula]

I say, sue the RNC.

Most likely, they have a LOT of $$......

WTF, why? because all Republicans suck and shouldn't enjoy Journey music in public ?
I don't see why these musicians would care who uses their musically publically when
it gets people fired and talking about them=free publicity.
geez...

just speculating here, but perhaps some artists don't want anyone swayed one way or another because of their music being played at a convention or rally. there are plenty of artists who are willing to lend their music if asked i'm sure.

[annpea]

"Steve cannot speak for the current members of Journey but we have been told that Steve Perry as a Co-Writer and Singer was never contacted for permission to use the performance of "Don't Stop Believin" at the RNC.

As far as he is concerned, this song and his performance have NO political party affiliation. "

Can someone please find the part in this statement that says:

1. SP is suing anyone.

2. Copyright is being cited or violated.

3. SP is anti-Republican or pro-Democrat.

4. Anything at all that implies who SP votes for or supports politically.

Because I can't. But I think maybe some of you need to take a chill pill and read this bit again:

"As far as he is concerned, this song and his performance have NO political party affiliation"

Re-read your own post.

contacted for permission to use the performance of "Don't Stop Believin" at the RNC.

That is a claim of copyright violation. Why bring that up unless it bothers him?

10. I want to use music-on-hold in my business. Do I need permission?

Yes. When you place a caller on hold and transmit music via your telephone lines, that is a public performance of the music. It is your responsibility to obtain permission to perform ASCAP songs from ASCAP or directly from the copyright owner. ASCAP represents tens of thousands of copyright owners and millions of songs and an ASCAP license will give you the right to perform them all.

Public Performance or Performance Rights
A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.

[

quote]Steve Perry absolutely does NOT need to be contacted to have his songs played.

Does this look familiar: Love Batch Music (ASCAP

)

If not, look it up.[/quote)

Why does, it fucking matter; he said what wanted to the wilson girls said what they wanted to and we ain't getting a dime for acting a bunch of know it alls. Have a fucking happy day.

[Rick]

"Steve cannot speak for the current members of Journey but we have been told that Steve Perry as a Co-Writer and Singer was never contacted for permission to use the performance of "Don't Stop Believin" at the RNC.

As far as he is concerned, this song and his performance have NO political party affiliation. "

Can someone please find the part in this statement that says:

1. SP is suing anyone.

2. Copyright is being cited or violated.

3. SP is anti-Republican or pro-Democrat.

4. Anything at all that implies who SP votes for or supports politically.

Because I can't. But I think maybe some of you need to take a chill pill and read this bit again:

"As far as he is concerned, this song and his performance have NO political party affiliation"

Re-read your own post.

contacted for permission to use the performance of "Don't Stop Believin" at the RNC.

That is a claim of copyright violation. Why bring that up unless it bothers him?

10. I want to use music-on-hold in my business. Do I need permission?

Yes. When you place a caller on hold and transmit music via your telephone lines, that is a public performance of the music. It is your responsibility to obtain permission to perform ASCAP songs from ASCAP or directly from the copyright owner. ASCAP represents tens of thousands of copyright owners and millions of songs and an ASCAP license will give you the right to perform them all.

Public Performance or Performance Rights
A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.

[

quote]Steve Perry absolutely does NOT need to be contacted to have his songs played.

Does this look familiar: Love Batch Music (ASCAP

)

If not, look it up.[/quote)

Why does, it fucking matter; he said what wanted to the wilson girls said what they wanted to and we ain't getting a dime for acting a bunch of know it alls. Have a fucking happy day.

Wow, you fit in perfectly around here.

[donnaplease]

I was at a college football game yesterday, and during timeouts and TV breaks, music was being played over the intercom. "Respect" by Aretha Franklin, "ABC" by the Jackson 5, "Cotton-Eye Joe" by somebody, etc. I'm feeling pretty certain that no one contacted these artists to seek their permission before playing these songs. NOR did I take it to mean anything other than the venue wanted to play some feel-good music to get us through the breaks. People need to just lighten up and stop making something out of nothing. And I'm not talking about SP here.

[artist4perry]

Where in SP's statement is he saying he disapproves of the Republicans playing his song? He just wanted to set the record straight that he is not "endorsing" 1 party over another -- in case anyone were to misconstrue hearing that song playing at the RNC. What is wrong with that?

One time, in a past year, SP was asked who he was going to vote for, and his reply was ... it is a private decision, that's why you walk in a voting booth and pull the curtain behind you .... something in those kind of words. He also has said he did not believe in celebrities going out and using their fame/name for endorsements -- with the exception of charitable causes.

There is a big difference between SP's one-sentence blurp on FA and the Wilson sisters' blatant knockdown of the Republicans' ideology and "their beliefs." But, as usual, people want to over-react and jump on this and that. Par for the course around here, I guess.

It is a simple statement letting the public know that just because they hear a candidate, any candidate from any party, playing the music of an artist it does not mean that artist is endorsing them. Unfortunately, that is what many would assume. And yes, the usual cast of characters here want to make something else out of it. Quite predictable. Yawn.

Lora,
I love the cat in your avitar, very cute!

[Lora]

Lora,
I love the cat in your avitar, very cute!

Thanks. He was a little feral kitten that I rescued. I've had him 3 years now and he's pretty adorable.

[Eric]

and that useless cock-stain John Mellencamp are out of luck here...

I wish they would introduce him like this. Its perfect!

[Saint John]

I could see the need for a statement had the song been played during the immediate post-convention hoopla, but the fact that is was pretty much buried in the background as announcers critiqued the speech makes me believe that no statement would have been the best statement. And does this guy honestly believe that anyone actually goes and reads fucking Fan Asylum? Just because the site gets 8 million hits a day doesn't mean shit. Steve needs to realize that it's the same 30-40 people wearing Jordache Jeans and Member's Only jackets refreshing the site every 4 fucking seconds in 20 hour shifts.

[CatEyes]

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.

there was no one watching.

Cat

[Michigan Girl]

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.

there was no one watching.

Cat

[artist4perry]

Lora,
I love the cat in your avitar, very cute!

Thanks. He was a little feral kitten that I rescued. I've had him 3 years now and he's pretty adorable.

He looks very contented. Must have a happy home now!

[Tito]

I am the last one to wax political..I read every opinion & viewpoint that I can, includng many of the views expresses here. Except Niv's. lmao But this latest bit of the RNC using tracks by Journey, Heart & Van Halen without their permission or even a care, does show me that their party is clearly out of touch with something that affects ME directly - artistic rights. They use these artists messages from their songs, authenticated by their timeless classic rock legacy, to get us rallied to their causes. (C'mon, he used MESSAGE songs - it's not like they played Crazy on You, Runnin with the Devil or The Girl Can't Help It. hmm...

I know McCain is clueless about cyber issues (like privacy & identity theft), but artistic rights? Copyrights? What about illegal downloading? As someone who observes everything before taking a stance, I suspect the RNC will not be supporting laws to help musicians in this area.

Obama did the same thing except no one complained. Brooks and Dunn didn't know Obama was going to use their song after his speech, but they didn't care. DSB wasn't played until well after the fact - the speech was over and they were off the stage.