Text 7754, 72 rader
Skriven 2008-09-29 09:56:09 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Earl Croasmun
Ärende: Commom Ground
=====================
-> On 28 Sep 08  14:02:00, Earl Croasmun got back to Dan Ceppa 
-> Re: Commom Ground

 EC> Fact is, the Heart song was used even after the complaint.  It was not
 EC> in an ad that was pulled.  It was not in an ad at all.  It was reused
 EC> because the use of it was legal.  They paid for the license.

It is not legal use as the incidence of its use was in no way random 
nor with keeping with what really would be covered under Fair Use.  


 EC> The tire-inflation ad was used when Obama's claim about being able to
 EC> replace ALL the oil from increased drilling simply by inflating tires
 EC> was current.  The idea that the people in Ohio were going to run the
 EC> ad for several months, and were only stopped by some aging entertainer
 EC> trying to sue them, is laughable.  So much for your "guess."

Your problem is that the law suit is comtinuing.  As with many 
Republican transgressions, the Republicans are hoping it will just 
go away.  It's not happening this time.  Amd it's npot happening in 
the Trooper-Gate "partisan" investigation in Alaska.  That "partisan" 
indictictment consisted of 4 Democrats and 10(ten) Republicans voting 
to proceed with the investigation.  

 -> just where is the approval from Browne to use his material for
 -> an ad?

 EC> Either they paid ASCAP (or the holder of the rights to the song) or
 EC> they didn't.  His personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant unless he
 EC> held onto the rights himself.

He has those rights.  The ASCAP rights do not include the right to 
place that work in an ad.  And, in the case of the Heart song, the 
right to use their song as part of a branding attempt on Palin's 
nickname was never given.  Your interpretaion of "Fair Use" and 
"purchasing the rights to play the song" are completely wrong, 
though they are consistent with the McCain attempt to blow smoke 
over the issue.  

 -> EC> Wrong again.  "Fair use" covers use of copyrighted material
 -> WITHOUT EC> purchasing it at all!
 
 -> I already told you that you cannot use copyrighted material for free
 -> with few exceptions.

 EC> Another wildly random comment.  You were talking about "fair use." 
 EC> Fair use covers using material for free, such as making a single copy
 EC> for personal use or quoting a few lines from a written work in the
 EC> process of doing a review of it.  Using a song in a TV ad is NOT
 EC> covered by "fair use!"  Either they paid for the rights or they didn't!
 EC> News reports indicate that the McCain paid for the Heart song to be
 EC> used, and Heart seems resigned to the fact.  

You are so far wrong it's pathetic.  The licensing they purchased only 
gives them the right to play the song in the stadium.  It does not cede 
them the right to use that song as a branding for Palin.  Are you now 
going to tell me that something like _Like a Rock_ was used for free by 
Chevy under the Fair Use clause or standard licensing purchase?

 EC> The people in Ohio may or
 EC> may not have paid for the song in their ad.  There are a lot of stupid
 EC> people in Ohio, as you well know.

That's right.  Take a page from the RNC handbook and disparage a 
whole group of people.  What's next?  Call them "uppity"?  Oh, 
wait, you can't.  You just called the Republican election committee 
people stupid.  

Keep up the good work!  

--- OMX/Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
 * Origin: Soundly on the Fault Line (1:138/666.0)