Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rock band (Rush) claims (Rand) Paul violated music copyright
AP via google ^ | June 3, 2010 | no byline

Posted on 06/03/2010 10:33:10 AM PDT by a fool in paradise

Edited on 06/03/2010 10:34:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

The Canadian rock band Rush has sent a letter to Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul, saying his campaign is violating copyright laws by playing their music without permission.

The Courier-Journal of Louisville reported that Rush's attorney, Robert Farmer of Toronto, had sent the letter to the Paul campaign. Farmer told the newspaper his objection is not political.


(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS: Music/Entertainment
KEYWORDS: copyright; copyrightlaw; publishing; randpaul; rush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 06/03/2010 10:33:10 AM PDT by a fool in paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 537cant be wrong; Aeronaut; bassmaner; Bella_Bru; Big Guy and Rusty 99; Brian Allen; cgk; ...

And a followup to this article:

David Byrne Sues Florida Gov. Charlie Crist For $1 Million
billboard.com ^ | May 24, 2010 | Gary Graff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2520443/posts

Why David Byrne Sued the Governor of Florida
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=[36885,163393]
RS: Would you sue a candidate that you supported if they also used your music without permission?
DB: Yes. This is not about politics or about Republicans, Democrats or Independents. This lawsuit is about maintaining control over the use of my identity and my music.


2 posted on 06/03/2010 10:34:53 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Throw the bums out in 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Kinda funny, Rush are known for being somewhat libertarian.


3 posted on 06/03/2010 10:36:56 AM PDT by Paradox (Socialism - trickle up poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

This could be series.


4 posted on 06/03/2010 10:37:46 AM PDT by boomop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

As I pointed out with the update quote from David Byrne, some of the artists do this to defend their songs against all infractions.


5 posted on 06/03/2010 10:38:07 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Throw the bums out in 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I didnt see which song?


6 posted on 06/03/2010 10:41:23 AM PDT by ▀udda▀udd (7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise; Paradox; All

I actually believe David Byrne regarding his position. As someone who has written songs while a member of a bar band, many years ago and no where in Mr. Byrne’s league, there is an attachment.


7 posted on 06/03/2010 10:44:11 AM PDT by j.argese (Liberal thought process = oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

They also had YouTube take down video clips of their two new singles.


8 posted on 06/03/2010 10:44:14 AM PDT by wastedyears (The Founders revolted for less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Same nonsense that Heart tried to play on Sarah Palin when the McCain Campaign played "Barracuda" at the 2008 GOP convention.

Heart to McCain/Palin: Back off on 'Barracuda'

These "artists" seem to be under the impression that they still own their songs rather than the record companies, which sell packages to radio stations, advertisers, campaigns, etc.

Paul should tell them to pound sand...

9 posted on 06/03/2010 10:44:41 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Thats correct, it sets a legal precedent if you DON'T defend your intellectual property..

10 posted on 06/03/2010 10:44:49 AM PDT by Paradox (Socialism - trickle up poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ├čudda├čudd

WSJ June 3, 2010, 1:25 PM ET Rush Plays Modern-Day Warrior, Slams Rand Paul Over Song Use
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/06/03/rush-plays-modern-day-warrior-slams-rand-paul-over-song-use/

In his letter, Farmer cited the Paul campaign’s use of a Rush song, “The Spirit of Radio,” to energize a rally.

According to the Courier-Journal Paul, also has used a line from that song in speeches: “Glittering prizes and endless compromises/shatter the illusion of integrity.” Farmer also cited the use of “Tom Sawyer,” another Rush song, in a fundraising video.


11 posted on 06/03/2010 10:45:43 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Throw the bums out in 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

I do think Rush owns their songs.

Speaking of the other Rush, he pays Chrissie Hynde to play “My City was Gone.” Chrissie hates Rush, but she’ll take the money.


12 posted on 06/03/2010 10:46:16 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

“This lawsuit is about maintaining control over the use of my identity and my music.”

I don’t know. If songs can be played willy-nilly on radio stations, in juke boxes, on commercials, in grocery stores, etc., so long as they are duly cleared or purchased or whatever with the controlling publisher, I don’t see why a campaign can’t use it.


13 posted on 06/03/2010 10:50:16 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Rush blows. Cheezy copy of Yes and early Gabriel Genesis. Rand Paul could do a lot better then Tom Saywer. Geedy Lee’s voice is grating.

Rush said he and Chrissie worked out a deal.


14 posted on 06/03/2010 10:51:10 AM PDT by Frantzie (Democrats = Party of I*lam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

I am no expert, but I seem to recall some sort of “time clip” limitation regarding copyright. That is, if you play less than 10 seconds of a song or something like that, you can treat it like public domain.

This is just some distant niggling memory though and I could have gotten it wrong.


15 posted on 06/03/2010 10:52:04 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

It is being played in association with a “pitch” for a product, political position, party, or candidate.


16 posted on 06/03/2010 10:52:11 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Throw the bums out in 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
"These "artists" seem to be under the impression that they still own their songs rather than the record companies, which sell packages to radio stations, advertisers, campaigns, etc."

It depends entirely on the artist and their contractual agreements with their label. Some do own, outright, they're copyrights. Others own either a portion, or none at all. Yes, they do sell these distribution packages, but they don't lose they're copyright, just like a movie producer doesn't lose his copyright when a signs with a movie distribution company.

The law is well-settled here. If the copyright owner doesn't want it played someplace (depending on certain circumstances), it won't be played. Many artists have prevailed at trial in precisely these kinds of political campaign suits.

17 posted on 06/03/2010 10:52:21 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Thanks!


18 posted on 06/03/2010 10:53:47 AM PDT by ▀udda▀udd (7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
"I am no expert, but I seem to recall some sort of “time clip” limitation regarding copyright. That is, if you play less than 10 seconds of a song or something like that, you can treat it like public domain."

It's called fair use, and there are some limitations. As an example, a television show or tv commercial can't play something under 10 seconds, and then claim "fair use". The provision is meant primarily to give news organizations some latitude when reporting or commenting on certain events.

19 posted on 06/03/2010 10:54:15 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

>>Rush blows. Cheezy copy of Yes and early Gabriel Genesis.<<

They don’t have Tony Banks’ rich chord progressions either.

A friend of mine gave me a copy of the DVD of Rush in Rio. I had heard of the band but wouldn’t know one of their songs. They seem to be pretty good musicians, especially the drummer, and I REALLY tried to like them, but it just ain’t working for me. Even the drumming, although technically amazing, is like watching high speed machinery. It just gets boring.


20 posted on 06/03/2010 10:55:01 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson