Sunday, September 07, 2008
Music rights
I'm writing this post because I'm lazy. Most people who are online enough to read my blog know about situation with the Republican National Convention playing Heart's song "Barracuda" as an intro for Sarah Palin, and Heart not being okay with that. (See some article here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/liberal-rock-st.html)
So. I am a little confused to how all this works. Clearly the RNC can't just play music in a public venue like that just because they bought the cd at target. If that is the case, then there are major legal issues at play. If, however, the RNC did pay the royalty fees to play music in a public venue, then I'm not sure that I understand what legal issues are at play. I can understand an artist requesting that a certain organization with which they disagree not publicly play a song that connects their song with that organization. That being the case, it does seem that it would be an honorable thing to do to not continue to play the song, even if Governor Palin continues to go by the nickname Barracuda, that just happens to be name of a song by Heart. Even if the RNC has deliberately gone ahead and chosen to play the song in spite of having received the request from the song's writers/original performers, if they have paid the royalty fees, I'm not sure that I understand why lawyers are getting involved. I suppose there may be something to a fear that the artist's reputation may be connected to the organization that is publicly using their song, but I wish understood how that was a legal issue.
Also, if the point really is about reputation, and not wanting to diminish the pool of potential buyers of music, it seems really silly to me that Heart has made it a point to distance themselves so publicly from the RNC. Their official statement is obviously pointed and biting (especially when compared to John Mellencamp's words). They aren't quite being Dixie Chicks, nor is their normal fan base so specifically one camp or the other, but it seems that publicly declining your support of a political candidate would do more to limit your fan base than actively supporting another candidate through music or staying neutral.
So. I am a little confused to how all this works. Clearly the RNC can't just play music in a public venue like that just because they bought the cd at target. If that is the case, then there are major legal issues at play. If, however, the RNC did pay the royalty fees to play music in a public venue, then I'm not sure that I understand what legal issues are at play. I can understand an artist requesting that a certain organization with which they disagree not publicly play a song that connects their song with that organization. That being the case, it does seem that it would be an honorable thing to do to not continue to play the song, even if Governor Palin continues to go by the nickname Barracuda, that just happens to be name of a song by Heart. Even if the RNC has deliberately gone ahead and chosen to play the song in spite of having received the request from the song's writers/original performers, if they have paid the royalty fees, I'm not sure that I understand why lawyers are getting involved. I suppose there may be something to a fear that the artist's reputation may be connected to the organization that is publicly using their song, but I wish understood how that was a legal issue.
Also, if the point really is about reputation, and not wanting to diminish the pool of potential buyers of music, it seems really silly to me that Heart has made it a point to distance themselves so publicly from the RNC. Their official statement is obviously pointed and biting (especially when compared to John Mellencamp's words). They aren't quite being Dixie Chicks, nor is their normal fan base so specifically one camp or the other, but it seems that publicly declining your support of a political candidate would do more to limit your fan base than actively supporting another candidate through music or staying neutral.
# posted by Adam @ 6:35 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
This has nothing to do with music rights...I just wanted to reply to your question about education and the candidates.
My short, pathetic answer is, "I really don't know enough to answer it thoroughly." I'm working 2 jobs to try to make ends meet and teaching is by far the hardest job ever. I haven't unfortunately had the time to research both of them on that topic specifically.
However, by and large the Dem's are friendlier to teachers and low wage earners in general. I'm a Democrat/Independent. I actually liked Ron Paul a little, even though he was a Rep, but he had a huge following in MT.
I don't think education is a huge issue this time around (sadly...bc Montana specifically is suffering) but because I've heard him speak, I know Obama supports public education and opposes the idea of taking funding away from failing schools. McCain supports Bush's asinine No Child Left Behind. He does see the system is flawed, but I don't think he gets what the problem is because he's pretty far detached from the world of education. His wife was a teacher awhile ago, and special ed at that, but in wealthy districts. He supports vouchers, which I don't, and he also supports charter schools, which I have mixed feelings about. Republicans think that the competition and all would improve the system, but it only would for the kids who are already doing OK, not the urban kids, not the rural kids, who don't have parents who would have a clue that a charter school was an option. Plus, anybody's cousin's brother can start up a charter school and that scares me!
Obama's sister is a teacher and, like most teachers, thinks that the NCLB act was a good theory and he's said multiple times that it was the act that left the money behind, which is totally true. It requires all sorts of requirements and impossible goals that are not only impossible regardless if you have 10 million dollar budgets, but simply impossible. His kids are school-age, and
He supports raising teacher salaries so we aren't working multiple jobs, and proposes $18B additional fed dollars in education. Of course Republicans will say that means higher taxes for those poor poor rich people but whatever.
So in that case, I want Obama. He wasn't handed his life on a platter, he had to work for it. He knows what the average person has had to go through, and how incredibly important his education was in getting him where he is. I'm sick of education lip service and fancy acts like NCLB that even the Sec of Ed Margaret Spellings said was Bush's greatest accomplishment...still haven't found out how much he paid her to say that! haha.
I will say this though. I want Obama, but I will not feel like running my car off a cliff if McCain wins. He's an intelligent and capable person, although I worry about his VP choice since he keeps bashing Obama's experience (which, I will say, does trouble me a little as well). Palin is waaaay too right-wing for me and her belief that our war in Iraq is "God's war" absolutely scares me.
I feel like this is the first election, like you said, where I'm not voting "against" someone. Finally! AND I finally feel that I can have good discussions with people because I'm positive where I'm voting but I don't feel like I abhor the other candidate, I merely disagree with him.
I wish I could give you more but that's what I know! Has the way you view public ed changes after working as a sub?
Post a Comment
My short, pathetic answer is, "I really don't know enough to answer it thoroughly." I'm working 2 jobs to try to make ends meet and teaching is by far the hardest job ever. I haven't unfortunately had the time to research both of them on that topic specifically.
However, by and large the Dem's are friendlier to teachers and low wage earners in general. I'm a Democrat/Independent. I actually liked Ron Paul a little, even though he was a Rep, but he had a huge following in MT.
I don't think education is a huge issue this time around (sadly...bc Montana specifically is suffering) but because I've heard him speak, I know Obama supports public education and opposes the idea of taking funding away from failing schools. McCain supports Bush's asinine No Child Left Behind. He does see the system is flawed, but I don't think he gets what the problem is because he's pretty far detached from the world of education. His wife was a teacher awhile ago, and special ed at that, but in wealthy districts. He supports vouchers, which I don't, and he also supports charter schools, which I have mixed feelings about. Republicans think that the competition and all would improve the system, but it only would for the kids who are already doing OK, not the urban kids, not the rural kids, who don't have parents who would have a clue that a charter school was an option. Plus, anybody's cousin's brother can start up a charter school and that scares me!
Obama's sister is a teacher and, like most teachers, thinks that the NCLB act was a good theory and he's said multiple times that it was the act that left the money behind, which is totally true. It requires all sorts of requirements and impossible goals that are not only impossible regardless if you have 10 million dollar budgets, but simply impossible. His kids are school-age, and
He supports raising teacher salaries so we aren't working multiple jobs, and proposes $18B additional fed dollars in education. Of course Republicans will say that means higher taxes for those poor poor rich people but whatever.
So in that case, I want Obama. He wasn't handed his life on a platter, he had to work for it. He knows what the average person has had to go through, and how incredibly important his education was in getting him where he is. I'm sick of education lip service and fancy acts like NCLB that even the Sec of Ed Margaret Spellings said was Bush's greatest accomplishment...still haven't found out how much he paid her to say that! haha.
I will say this though. I want Obama, but I will not feel like running my car off a cliff if McCain wins. He's an intelligent and capable person, although I worry about his VP choice since he keeps bashing Obama's experience (which, I will say, does trouble me a little as well). Palin is waaaay too right-wing for me and her belief that our war in Iraq is "God's war" absolutely scares me.
I feel like this is the first election, like you said, where I'm not voting "against" someone. Finally! AND I finally feel that I can have good discussions with people because I'm positive where I'm voting but I don't feel like I abhor the other candidate, I merely disagree with him.
I wish I could give you more but that's what I know! Has the way you view public ed changes after working as a sub?
# posted by 
: 9:51 PM
: 9:51 PM << Home
