Nobody wants to be mocked. And if you’re a rock star, surrounded by sycophants for the better part of 35 years, it must be especially hard to deal with being mocked. It makes sense, then, that Don Henley does not like the parody of his song “Boys of Summer,” penned by Chuck DeVore, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, and Justin Hart, his advisor. But Henley’s copyright-infringement lawsuit is far bigger than one rock star or his feelings. Henley’s lawsuit undermines the First Amendment right to speak freely.
Don Henley makes no effort to hide his political leanings. In addition to performing at scores of fundraisers, Henley has given about $750,000 to partisan, liberal causes, including $10,000 to Barack Obama and $9,000 to DeVore’s soon-to-be opponent, Barbara Boxer. Henley also exploits his music to advance a liberal, political agenda.
Henley’s “Boys of Summer” is no exception. On the surface, “Boys of Summer” is a wistful look at an old romance, a fling between two kids, now grown, who have moved on with their lives. But the song also has a clear political message. Henley says that the second verse of the song-the one with the famous line about seeing “a Dead Head sticker on a Cadillac”-was about the essential failure of Sixties’ politics: “I don’t think we changed a damn thing, frankly…. After all our marching and shouting and screaming didn’t work, we withdrew and became yuppies and got into the Me Decade.”
DeVore and Hart’s parody turns “Boys of Summer” on its head. It substitutes Barack Obama for the singer’s love interest and has Henley (and other outspoken celebrity liberals) dreaming wistfully of the time before President Obama’s election: “We will never forget those nights/ We wonder if it was a dream/ Remember how you made us crazy?/ Remember how we made you beam.” The song asks whether the parties’ naïve love affair can survive the circumstances since, particularly President Obama’s broken promises and failure to deliver on the promised “hope.”
DeVore and Hart’s parody is not for everybody. Hart’s vocal performance may not be for anybody. It may be bad art. But it’s not copyright infringement. As Henley’s own lawyer puts it, “[T]he purpose of copyright law is to encourage the production of new, original works….” But DeVore and Hart have done nothing to discourage the creation of new, original works. They have not reduced the value of Henley’s song; they have not made Henley or anybody else less likely to create pop songs in the future. Copyright law has no legitimate interest here.
But the First Amendment does. This country was, in Lincoln’s famous phrase, “conceived in liberty,” and our national constitution contains a very clear protection of every Americans’ right to speak freely. This protection applies with special importance to political speech. DeVore and Hart’s parody is core political speech, a creative effort to reach voters with a message. Don Henley is free to dislike the parody. Everybody is free to dislike the parody. But nobody has the right to suppress DeVore’s speech.
Chris Arledge is a partner of Turner Green LLP, an Orange-County based intellectual property firm. He represents Chuck DeVore and Justin Hart in the Don Henley lawsuit. He can be reached at carledge@turnergreen.com.
Originally published May 5, 2009, at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'm torn on this one --
May 5, 2009 - 10:56 ET by Jack BauerI'm torn on this one -- parody is a well established form of satire. I've done a fair bit myself.
But as a creative person and writer I do think artists (whatever their politics) deserve protection for their creativity. I assume the song has to use the same melody as written by Henley.
Didn't the late George Harrison have to defend a case that he unconsciously stole the melody for My Sweet Lord?
This would be a conscious rip of an original melody. Isn't that a breach of copyright?
Henley has an uphill battle on this one
May 5, 2009 - 11:20 ET by allanfThe use of parody -- even for commercial purposes is well settled. The seminal court case is
US Sup. No. 92–1292 LUTHER R. CAMPBELL aka LUKE SKYYWALKER, et al., PETITIONERS v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC
allanf -- thanks for the
May 5, 2009 - 12:07 ET by Jack Bauerallanf -- thanks for the legal facts.
I second allanf's
May 5, 2009 - 11:26 ET by moderncommentaries83I second allanf's comments.
George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" wasn't a parody. It was a "straight" song with the melody of "He's So Fine".
Parodies are another thing.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
I love this stuff
May 5, 2009 - 11:00 ET by dvdaughtryI've done a couple spoofs in regards to some Chicago Cub stuff.
This is funny.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Henley co-wrote "Get Over
May 5, 2009 - 11:01 ET by mattmHenley co-wrote "Get Over It," a song with a conservative message. These people don't even realize what their own beliefs really are.
"Turn on the tube and what do I see, a whole lotta people crying 'don't blame me.' ...feeling sorry for themselves.....a victim of this and victim of that....get over it."
If Savage had said this, they'd probably ban him from the Hotel California.....
If Savage had said this,
May 5, 2009 - 13:00 ET by Dan The Man 2If Savage had said this, they'd probably ban him from the Hotel California
I wont even have to see the Hotel California; Im booked with an all inclusive resort that is free.
Parodies are protected speech
May 5, 2009 - 11:01 ET by moderncommentaries83"Weird Al" Yankovic has made a career out of writing song parodies. I believe that, out of courtesy, Yankovic does contact the singers/songwriters/groups whose songs he wishes to parody for permission and gives them kudos in the liner notes, but I don't believe he's required by law to obtain permission (see the whole misunderstanding with him, Coolio, and the parody of "Gangsta's Paradise", "Amish Paradise").
This is a non-issue, but typical of a liberal who doesn't like conservatives.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Moron
May 5, 2009 - 11:01 ET by Ozark_SunshineIf Henley wants to sell albums he needs to keep his mouth shut about politics and his lifestyle. Without the rest of the Eagles, he's a mediocre talent.
Henley, Joel, Springsteen.....
May 5, 2009 - 11:21 ET by Lord ErondYou know, growing up on Long Island, being an especially large Billy Joel fan, it's dissappointed me to no end that they have drank the liberal kool aid. This should be protected though under the right of free speech and parody and as usual, the big stars think that if they throw a high powered attorney at this, it will shut up whoever.
Besides, when was the last hit that Joel or Henley had? Oh that's right, the Piano Man is too busy doing 'classical' music.
"They'll know we were right in the end"
-Harry Potter, The Order of the Phoenix-
The whole Long Island/Billy
May 5, 2009 - 11:39 ET by fitzfongThe whole Long Island/Billy Joel love affair is really strange to me. My wife is from Long Island, and we're living there now. She's a huge Billy Joel fan to the point of being defensive at the slightest put-down of his self-indulgent musical theater. I could never stand BJ's music, but people here seem to defend him like he's sacred. I always hated Springsteen, too...before I knew his political leanings. That Jersey blue collar "storytelling" nonsense always struck me as phony...turns out it is.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Yep
May 5, 2009 - 21:40 ET by doug1950They all sit on the same shelf as that singing icon of the working stiff....John "Pussy Cat" Mellencamp.
Erased
May 5, 2009 - 11:26 ET by slickwillie2001They've done a good job of purging it, I can find no trace of the original youtube clip of Justin Hart doing the parody, or any clones of it. Henley forced youtube to take it down, but if you see that coming you can host it yourself as with the Perez Hilton takedowns, as a way around it. If anyone finds a clip, please post link.
First of all, the Eagles
May 5, 2009 - 11:30 ET by fitzfongFirst of all, the Eagles suck. Some of the most tortured, overrated crap ever to hit the airwaves...Hotel California was pure musical masturbation. Don't even get me started on Peaceful, Easy Feeling; The Last Resort; New Kid in Town or Desperado. And good God are they smug? How about giving the title "Hell Freezes Over" to their reunion album...as if anyone really gave a rat's a** whether or not they reformed to do a self-serving reunion tour. The only tolerable Eagle was Joe Walsh, the rest are a bunch of hippie retreads without the slightest relevance since the mid-1980s. Don Henley is the most arrogant a-hole of the bunch. But if he doesn't want his precious song used for political purposes (and, really, he sang lead on the song...Mike Campbell provided all the musical talent), he has a right to raise an objection...suing, however, just shows him to be the douchebag he is.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Now don't hold back buddy.
May 5, 2009 - 11:32 ET by PewahNow don't hold back buddy. What do you really think of the Eagles?
Well, other than that,
May 5, 2009 - 11:41 ET by fitzfongWell, other than that, they're fantastic! :-)
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
LOL!
May 6, 2009 - 08:51 ET by nofateI just got around to this and was LOL'ing and thinking the same thing. You beat me to it by about 24 hrs.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Is there anything more
May 5, 2009 - 11:31 ET by PewahIs there anything more disingenuous and whiney than a liberal when the tables are turned on them?
For a group of people who are constantly attempting to rewrite the words and intent of other authors, like our founding fathers, they certainly appear hypocritical in instances like these, don't they?
Copyright law
May 5, 2009 - 11:32 ET by adamsmithIf they credit Henley as a writer, isn't this okay? Henley should be happy about this, he hasn't had a hit for awhile...Joe Walsh wrote the best songs in that band anyway............
“I don’t think we
May 5, 2009 - 11:41 ET by lotrIt never ceases to amaze me just how much limousine-liberals are so self-righteous as to be utterly blind. They didn't "change a damn thing" because their "protests" were only made possible by the very things they were "protesting" against -- unprecedented prosperity, brought on by hundreds of years of discipline, hard work, patriotism, and love and fear of the Almighty.
They "rebelled" because they had the luxury to do so. Their "marching and shouting and screaming" was the herald of the Me Generation.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Me, Me, Me! So says Don!
May 5, 2009 - 11:45 ET by CobraMan"After all our marching and shouting and screaming didn’t work, we withdrew and became yuppies and got into the Me Decade."
That's right, Don, and you proved this by starting a lawsuit over the unauthorized use of "YOUR" song. What's the lawsuit about, if not protecting "YOUR" song ("How dare they use MY song without MY permission That's MY song, it belongs to ME!") from the "abuse" of others? It's all about the ME, isn't it, Don, you little hypocrite!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
well it kind of is
May 5, 2009 - 11:56 ET by candanceIt is his song because he's the one who made it.
Tell you what. You spend hours and hours writing the lyrics and medlody to a song, recording it just right, mixing it just write, and singing it in concerts night after night. Then you wake up one morning and see that Obama's people took your song and made a few changes to use for their political gain. Then you go to on HuffPo and people are mocking you as a talentless loser who is only agry because you're a whiny jerk.
Then you can say Henley has no right to be annoyed.
Personally, I'd be happy
May 5, 2009 - 12:49 ET by CobraManMy song is being played in public, by the Obama Administration? I'd be HAPPY that it got that much exposure! You see, I don't write things for personal. monetary gain, I write them for public enjoyment. But that's just me. Dom on the other hand, is more concerned about his IMAGE. That's why he's complaining about a Republican using a parady of "his" song, he's worried about his liberal image!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Sorry Candance, but DON HENLEY is a whiny spoiled pissy
May 5, 2009 - 18:12 ET by pahuberself centered egotistical jerk.
I do not think many would disagree with me.
What was I thinking?
May 5, 2009 - 11:47 ET by easygoerI'm still can't believe there was a time when I was a teenager that I thought the Eagles were better than the Grateful Dead.
I blame Radio
May 5, 2009 - 11:53 ET by CobraManI used to think that too, but then, years later, I realized it was the Top 40 play list on radio (You hear that, KQRS? Enough of the Top 40 of the last 40 years!) that was determining for me who was a better band. I didn't hear much Grateful Dead in those days, but I heard the Eagles every day. Then I discover Jimmy Hendricks, and the World Changed! Are you Experienced? Get Experienced! Heh!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
D... D.. WHO?
May 5, 2009 - 11:48 ET by someloudthunderI have no idea who this man is, or his music. A vain attempt to get back into the spot light in my eyes.
still disagree with NB
May 5, 2009 - 11:49 ET by candanceParodies and remixes fall into a gray area of the law. Yes they are fun, but they can also be mocking and annoying. It's simple common courtesy to ask permission.
If DKos produced a parody making fun of The Jonas Brothers, I doubt people here would be laughing about it.
Henley's lawsuit probably won't succeed (and I'm not saying a lawsuit is justified) but that doesn't mean we should all start bashing him as a no-talent hack or immediately accuse him of trying to censor people.
These kinds of lawsuits get started all the time, some over politics and some not. To me it doesn't say anything more than Don Henley hates annoying parodies.
Agree, candance. I can't
May 5, 2009 - 11:53 ET by QueenMumAgree, candance. I can't fault someone for trying to protect their intellectual property no matter what the reason. If I bake a dozen cookies for a church bake sale and leave them on the table near the back door and someone comes in and steals them to sell themselves, they've not just stolen my property. They've also stolen my work.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Copyrite laws don't extend forever.
May 5, 2009 - 12:01 ET by CobraManCopyright laws aren't meant to extend forever. The Constitution states that they will extend for "limited times." I highly doubt that, 20 years later, Don can argue that the copyrights laws are still in effect for "limited times." I think 20 years is reasonable enough.
Look at it this way, using your cookie analogy, how long would you consider those cookies to be your property and would you be concerned if someone "sold" them after they become stale and unappetizing?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
wow
May 5, 2009 - 12:12 ET by candanceSo now we have a law professor here?
According to Cornell University, Henley can secure a copyright up to 70 years after his death.
The issue is not whether the song is copyrighted, but if a parody intrudes on a copyright.
Professors are wrong too
May 5, 2009 - 12:22 ET by CobraManI hate to burst your elitist bubble, but professors can be wrong too. It's POLITICS that extended a copyright past the life of an artist. The original copyright laws, enacted just after the adoption of the Constitution, didn't even APPLY to songs and the like, they only applied to things like Maps and Inventions. Music was considered PUBLIC property and, as such, didn't NEED copyright protections. It was the entertainment industry that lobbied for those inclusions and extensions, purely for monetary reasons.
It's obvious that the copyright laws have been turned into a PARODY of their original intent. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at this blatant disregard for the Constitution and its intent.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
how are those professors wrong?
May 5, 2009 - 12:42 ET by candanceAll they did was show us the laws on our books. Unless you plan on arguing that Congress never passed those acts, this has nothing to do with Cornell being "wrong."
So copyright laws evolved over the course of 200 years. Wow! No, that couldn't have had anything to do with the invention of recording devices, expensive studios, complex record deal contracts, etc.
Much of our everyday laws were borrowed from the common laws of England. I fail to see how copyright reform (which was designed to go from collective to private property) would be seen as such a travesty.
I'm wrong because I'mnot a professor.
May 5, 2009 - 14:24 ET by CobraManYou're intent was to imply that, since I'm NOT a professor, I can't have the ability to make a valid judgment in matters such as this. You attempted to negate my arguments because I'm not, in your opinion, a VALID judge of the law simply because I don;t have a law degree. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it, correct?
I am simply pointing out that being a professor doesn't make one automatically right. As I have said, professors can be wrong too, just like the rest of us.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
hang on Cobra... as a
May 5, 2009 - 13:37 ET by Jack Bauerhang on Cobra... as a professional writer I have to respectfully disagree with your dismissal of ownership and assigning it some sort of communal imprimatur. Buddy, you sound like a commie! No offense. Think it through.
The US is also founded on property rights. My work, created originally in my mind is my property. What right does anyone have to seize what I created and own in the name of the "community?
First they came for my poem. And nobody... etc
LIMITED copyrights
May 5, 2009 - 13:52 ET by CobraManThe Constitution makes those types of "property" rights LIMITED in time, in order that the PUBLIC may benefit from those original works, works that are intended for public display, while protecting your right to produce your own works without coercion and/or censorship.
That's NOT saying you don't have those rights, but you can't hold on to them forever. I would say that 20 years is long enough. This isn't your house we're dealing with here, some PRIVATE personal property that is NOT intended for public use and/or display. We're dealing with something that is INTENDED to be shared publicly, intended to be distributed to the public. That's a BIG difference! How is that communism? Think it through!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
public use
May 5, 2009 - 14:06 ET by candanceEvery product that hits the market is intended for public consumption. Whether a tangible thing or an intellectual thing, it's a product people make to sell.
You seem to have this notion that artists create things as gifts to society instead of a way to earn a living. If I create anything from my own self, it's mine. If I choose to sell it for a profit that's great, but it's mine. It is an asset I created. Just as Jack said, no one has the right to take my product away from me. As long as I am alive, my property is mine.
I said I was leaving this thread, and now I am. Good luck.
Products get copied all the time
May 5, 2009 - 14:29 ET by CobraMan"Every product that hits the market is intended for public consumption."
And those products get copied all the time. How many different car manufactures are there again? They all use the same general principles, do they not? They all use the same general designs, do they not? Why can Chevy make a car similar to a Ford yet I can't make a song, or write a story, or paint a a painting similar to one you create?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobra: Making something
May 5, 2009 - 14:52 ET by QueenMumCobra: Making something similar is not the same as taking something that's been produced by someone else and putting your name on it.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
I was under
May 5, 2009 - 17:53 ET by RowaneI was under the impression that if you changed at least 10% then it was yours.
no use Jack
May 5, 2009 - 13:54 ET by candanceIt's interesting to note how this issue often breaks down to artists vs everyone else.
Those of us who have worked hard to create an intellectual product immediately feel where Henley is coming from. Others apparently don't get it.
Everyone an artist
May 5, 2009 - 14:05 ET by CobraManEveryone's an artist, in their own way. Just not everyone intends their 'art" to be both shared with the public and held as their own intellectual property for the life of the artist, plus 70 years! Not everyone is as hypocritical as that. Don't be so limited in your thinking.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
candance -- so I
May 5, 2009 - 14:28 ET by Jack Bauercandance -- so I see!
When I was in advertising I created hundreds of ads, books of copy.. but I DIDN'T OWN THE COPYRIGHT, because I created all that work for an employer who created it for a client.
I once did an X-Files spoof for Hitachi -- followed shortly after by a cease and desist from Warner Bros. or whoever owned that intellectual property.
I am a strong supporter of property rights. As should be every conservative.
And now I write films, fiction and TV stuff for ME, myself, I'm an even stronger advocate. Hopefully one day I'll actually make some money as living on gruel and water is starting to produce some alarming affects.
BTW, We DO have an expert here....
May 5, 2009 - 12:35 ET by CobraManBTW, we DO have an expert on intellectual property rights law here, and he's that author of this thread. Read his byline: "Chris Arledge is a partner of Turner Green LLP, an Orange-County based intellectual property firm." it's obvious that e's more of an expert than ether you or I concerning copyright laws, and HE agrees that no law was violated, which is why his firm is defending Chuck DeVore and Justin Hart .
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
wait just a second
May 5, 2009 - 12:49 ET by candanceYou conveniently left out the fact that the author's firm is representing the defendant. So we're not getting a neutral account of this - we're getting the best case a defense lawyer can make, combined with a little flair about Henley being on some censorship campaign.
I already said the lawsuit probably won't work because parodies are usually given a lot of leeway. My only point is that Henley has my sympathy, and a lot of the comments here are vicious.
Cab you read?
May 5, 2009 - 12:50 ET by CobraManCan you read? I didn't leave that out! I said his firm is representing the defendants!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
apologies Cobra
May 5, 2009 - 12:56 ET by candanceI had a brain fart, and then you replied too quickly for me to change it.
My point still stands.
ETA: I can see where this issue will become a Catch 22. You assert they're defending the men because they feel strongly about protecting parodies. I assert they wrote such an impassioned article because they're defending someone.
A neutral observation of this case would be nice.
What is your point?
May 5, 2009 - 12:57 ET by CobraManWhat is your point, other than sympathizing with Henley? I don;t sympathize with any "artist ' who's trying to "defend" their 20 year old works. The song is 20 years old and has generated about as much income for Henley as can be expected. I mean, really, what's left to protect, other than his image?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
you just made my point for me
May 5, 2009 - 13:06 ET by candanceYou don't sympathize with artists. I do. You don't see why artists want to protect themselves. I do.
He's made all the money he can make off it? Hardly. Henley can spend the rest of his life selling permission to use the song to movies, TV shows, advertisers, you name it. As long as he is breathing, that song is an asset.
If you buy a house and pay off a mortage, should you only be allowed to collect rent for 20 years? If you write a book, should you stop expecting people to pay for it after 20 years? Why is songwriting any different?
Sympitise with artists?
May 5, 2009 - 13:28 ET by CobraManSympathize with artists who insists that others can't parody their songs? That's like sympathizing with someone who insists that I cant paint my house with colors similar to theirs! That is , in itself, is a parody of sympathy!
This isn't about protecting his "rights." It's about protecting his image! If he was so concerned about his "rights," as he, and you, insist, he'd grant them permission to parody "his song," (as the added exposure can only HELP him financially) and insist upon his name being mentioned. But that's not what concerns him. He's concerned about his IMAGE, and that doesn't engender him to sympathy. I don' t CARE about his "image," not in the least.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobra: So how about
May 5, 2009 - 14:02 ET by QueenMumCobra: So how about protecting the property until the person dies? That would take care of the matter of depriving the artist of income.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
I guess it's life pluse 70 now
May 5, 2009 - 14:10 ET by CobraManI still think 20 years of private ownership should suffice, for something you INTEND to be made public anyways.
That's what I don't understand, "artists' intend their "art" to be "public" AND "private" at the same time. I can understand about wanting to make a profit off of one's own labor, but the fruits of one's labor that is intended to be public should BECOME publicly owned after a reasonable period of time. I guess we just disagree on how long that 'reasonable' period of time should be.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
He included Don's laywer's remarks
May 5, 2009 - 12:54 ET by CobraManYo may have missed this as well, but he included Don's lawyer's remarks, and even remarks by Don himself. That, in my mind, gives a lot of creditably to this being far more neutral that you're willing to admit.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
so?
May 5, 2009 - 12:59 ET by candanceThe MSM includes quotes from Republicans all the time in the middle of an article that bashes them.
This very headline tells you right off the bat that mean ole Don Henley is going on a witch hunt to silence conservatives. The entire tone is a defense of the men involved. Adding some token replies from Henley's side does not make it an unbiased article.
That IS what;s he's trying to do
May 5, 2009 - 13:10 ET by CobraManThat IS what he's trying to do, silence Conservatives. This isn't HIS song, it's a PARODY of "his" song. The only reason for bringing up the lawsuit is to stop a Conservative from using what HE considers to be HIS song, even though it's NOT his song. Don DIDN'T write the parody, someone else did, yet DON is trying to stop them from using it! That makes DON the biased one here!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
so there you are
May 5, 2009 - 13:20 ET by candanceThe primary reason you are criticizing Henley is because he's a liberal. That's it. You have no sympathy becaus you dislike him as a person.
So let's see, NB posts an article written by a defense attorney that mocks Henley in several passages, and your only reply is that Henley is biased because he has the nerve to push a lawsuit.
Lawsuits happen in the music industry almost on a daily basis, for a variety of reasons and against a variety of defendants. Just over a year ago, a liberal TV show was sued over a parody. Parody lawsuits happen all the time. The ONLY reason you care about THIS is because it pits the left against the right.
So why did they sue? The
May 5, 2009 - 13:26 ET by Dan The Man 2So why did they sue? The sued because Family Guy is a money making enterprise and highly visible. I bet ya that they wouldnt have bothered if some yoputoobe yahoo had done it.
And It doesnt matter if the person is lib or conservative or brain dead; it is fair use. The same fair use that Wierd Al uses; I love Weird Al paradies.
Youn have it wrong
May 5, 2009 - 13:35 ET by CobraManYou have it wrong, I'm criticizing him because he's a fool. I am criticizing him because he insists that he, and only he, can determine who can write songs that parody his original works, or is even similar to his. That's NOT what copyright laws are intended to do. They are intended to protect ORIGINAL works from unauthorized copy and distribution for commercial gain. By producing a parody, that "copy' definition is negated as Henley DIDN'T write that parody, someone else did! That makes it an original work by someone else! He's trying to stop someone else from using THEIR original works because HE doesn't like the content! What is this so hard for you to understand?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Hummm. the lawsuit was dismissed!
May 5, 2009 - 13:44 ET by CobraManThere was also a copyright lawsuit against Family Guy by Carol Burnett, and that lawsuit was dismissed! It looks like this lawsuit will be dismissed as well. So, what does that do to your argument, other than to show that these types of lawsuits are frivolous at best? The lawsuits may happen, as you claim, but what good do they do, other than to harass the defendants?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
my final point
May 5, 2009 - 14:00 ET by candanceThe lawsuits may happen, as you claim, but what good do they do, other than to harass the defendants?
Show me one person on NB who cared about the Family Guy lawsuits or bothered to defend the show. If freedom of speech is really what's at stake here, then it should make no difference how the lawsuit came about.
On the other hand, if such frivilous lawsuits are a waste of time and will quickly be dismissed, then why does this NB article drum up so much fear about censoring conservatives?
The only reason this article make it on NB is because no one here likes Don Henley. Period.
You're fighting the wrong battle here.
May 5, 2009 - 14:14 ET by CobraManDon Henley is trying to stifle freedom of speech here, speech made by the conservatives, speeches which are NOT FOR PROFIT!. The Family Guy lawsuits were about MONEY, the show making MONEY off the images and writing of others! If you can't see that, then there's no arguing with you.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobra Man....
May 5, 2009 - 18:06 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonYou keep leaving out an important part of the legal issue that needs to be brought forward.
In order for there to be 'infringement' there needs to be a profit motive.
if there is no 'profit motive' there is no infringement, merely casual use for the nonprofit motives.
Ok, DING, round three begins....
http://gjresult.com
not necessarily
May 5, 2009 - 19:13 ET by candanceNonprofit groups get caught stealing material all the time. The issue boils down to whether or not Henley's privacy was encroached, regardless of what the supposed criminal intends to do with it.
ETA: Also keep in mind, this is not some little old ladies using the song for a bake sale. This is a Republican candidate using the song to possibly win an election.
oh, well in that case
May 5, 2009 - 23:29 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonWe're all just thankful it wasn't another liberal stealing for their profit.
You chose a very bad comparison.
http://gjresult.com
Candance, please, other people deserve more sympathy than
May 5, 2009 - 18:17 ET by pahuberthis spoiled angry jerky brat of a mediocre musician.
justice isn't blind?
May 5, 2009 - 19:20 ET by candanceSorry pahuber. I sympathize with anyone who is taken advantage of, regardless if they are a jerk or not. Someone's personality should not exclude them from fairness.
I respect your opinion, but I believe that "fairness" and
May 5, 2009 - 19:31 ET by pahuber"justice" can unfortunately (or not) be two different things.
Once this plays out I know it will go against henny.
The MSM loves to make hay of these types of things like when the lead singer (Mr. Ed facial features) of the group Boston asked Huckabee to not play "Don't look back" at his rallies.
I know these are two different things. When/if henny loses I will bet we never hear about it unless it somehow becomes some sort of a ground breaking case... the MSM is counting on this.
thanks pahuber
May 5, 2009 - 19:48 ET by candanceLike I said on here before, I don't seriously think Henley will win because the law regarding parodies is so lax. Sometimes there is a gap because justice and fairness, and this is one of those times. It's not illegal for a politician to rip of a song without permission, but it's not really the right thing to do.
But this has nothing to do with the MSM. No one in the news has made hay about this at all. This NB entry was written by the defense attorney and then sent to conservie blogs for us to make hay about it. No one in the MSM is 'counting' on anything here.
You too candance :) I am surprised they have not picked up
May 5, 2009 - 19:59 ET by pahuberon this yet... even though different they tried to with the Huckabee/Boston thing.
Cookies
May 5, 2009 - 14:23 ET by QueenMumCobra: Yes. I would be concerned if someone sold my cookies even after they were stale and unappetizing. They were still stolen and sold for the purpose of making a profit off my hard work. Whether anyone's music is stale and unappetizing is a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with their political leanings.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
I would
May 5, 2009 - 11:55 ET by CobraMan"If DKos produced a parody making fun of The Jonas Brothers, I doubt people here would be laughing about it."
I would, but I laugh at the Jonas Brothers anyways, so the point is moot. Who is Disney trying to fool, anyways, the Liberals?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
well well
May 5, 2009 - 12:01 ET by candanceI knew that comment would show up even as I was typing the post. Nice to know conservatives believe in maturity.
Humm...
May 5, 2009 - 12:06 ET by CobraManSorry to offend your sensibilities, but we're all entitled to our own opinions. especially on subjects as varied and as PERSONAL as musical tastes. You may not be aware of this, but there's nothing "conservative" or "liberal" about liking or disliking a particular band, no matter what their chosen genera is. But hay, feel free to be offended if I mention that I don't think their songs are worth the plastic their CD's are sold on.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
that is not the point, cobra
May 5, 2009 - 12:18 ET by candanceI have a feeling these kinds of articles on NB involve more than taste. Every single time an actor or musician is revealed as a lefty, it's the same story: they're washed-up hacks who were never that talented anyway. And God forbid a lefty would attempt to protect their art - then they are old, angry, bitter washed up hacks who were never that talented anyway.
But that's what he is!
May 5, 2009 - 12:29 ET by CobraManHe IS a washed-up hack who's only concern is promoting his LEFT WING ideology, which is why he included comments about that ideology in his "statement" about this lawsuit. He wouldn't even have complained, let alone start a lawsuit, if it was a LIBERAL who "stole" his song, as long as that LIBERAL promoted his ideology.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
copyright is copyright
May 5, 2009 - 12:03 ET by katainkentif its the law it will hold. Don't discount the importance of this law until you've had to use it yourself. Nation of laws, people.
Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall
Question
May 5, 2009 - 12:51 ET by dvdaughtryIf the parody writer is not turning a dime on the tune, can there be a monatary award?
It sounds to me like poor Donnie got his feelwings huert.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Sure, I suppose
May 5, 2009 - 12:38 ET by Chris NormanSure, I suppose that, technically, Henley can assert his rights under the copyright laws. However, I saw not too long ago where a conservative singer/songwrite was asked (by Hannity I think) if he was offended when the Obama campaign used a version of his song. He smiled, shrugged, and said something like he was flattered. I think these reactions vary according to which side is suffering from a Hatred Syndrome. I think most of us here know which side that is. At any rate, Henley's reaction makes him look less than big.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
it's not "his" song anymore
May 5, 2009 - 12:42 ET by UndercoverConservativethis whole attitude of "my" song, "my" movie (looking ay YOU, Lucas!) is bunk.You sold it to the public, thousands and thousands of times, and collected money on that song thousands of times. Your fans MADE you what you are.
And even beyond that, it's not "your" song, it belongs to the record company or recording house that published it for you. You SOLD it to them on whatever agreement you made with them. Money changed hands long ago. If you can't milk any more money out of it, try producing something that isn't ephemeral brain f@rt? If anyone thought a parody song was worth more money than your "original", then who the f**k are you to demand they prefer, choose, and believe otherwise? It's not a copy of "your" song. It's not a bootleg. I don't care if it "sounds the same". Because you're using instruments created by others, words and language created by others, technology created by others, how DARE Hollywood and musician types suddenly believe no one should build off of those who built everything they sell of of others in turn?!
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)
when you sign work over
May 5, 2009 - 12:55 ET by katainkentto a publishing company (or record company, ad agency, etc.) for the sake of being used by someone else you can specify how (what format you want it to be sold in) and how long it can be used for.
Fair Use & Parody law can be found here if you're interested in reading up on it.
Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall
He's already lost
May 5, 2009 - 13:05 ET by CobraManIt looks like Don has already lost: From the link you provided: "The importance of the Acuff-Rose case, even though segments of the case were remanded for further findings was that the Supreme Court reached the unequivocal conclusion that a parody falls within the scope of the fair-use defense."
That case dealt with the commercial use of parody. This case deals with the public use of parody ( and I would classify that running for public office was PUBLIC USE, but I guess the courts will decide that once and for all). It looks to me that this case is even weaker than the cited case. Don hasn't got a prayer here, so to speak.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
if he does, he does
May 5, 2009 - 13:08 ET by katainkentI actually kinda like the Eagles. but whatever... kinda tainted now.
Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall
This isn;t about the Eagles
May 5, 2009 - 13:12 ET by CobraManThis isn't about the Eagles, it's about one man, Don Henley and his "original" works.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
I understand that
May 5, 2009 - 13:15 ET by katainkentIt was simply a reflective statement.
Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall
I've got 3 words for this A$$, FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOLS
May 5, 2009 - 13:38 ET by upcountrywaterIn the land of sue, one needs money...And this is a way to SUCK all the money out of this music business.
Oh all sorts of FTP. Stop then if you can, ha ha ha!!
Primarily used with TCP/IP
I'm sure the OAF and his budddies are looking for a way to close the internet.
After all the internet isn't very GREEN.
Reagan VS 0bama
Don Henley
May 5, 2009 - 14:25 ET by beauxdogGreetings. This is my first post.
Don Henley has every right to whine and complain about his work being used to support a cause he finds objectionable. If a Christian writer writes a song to the glory of his God, he is going to be upset if some vulgar, foulmouthed punk band makes a parody of it tearing his God down.
Whether you like his music or not... whether he is a hasbeen or a hack, he managed to make his band a household name which is more than most of us can say.
As an American, he is entitled to his opinion and if he feels he has been wronged, he has the right to pursue remedy in the courts.
I do not think he will win. I am not sure how I feel about whether he should win or not. I guess the real question is whether parody and satire should be protected forms of speech. That is what we should be discussing.
One last thought, though. If he is entitled to protect his work from parody, then all forms and derivatives of his work are an asset. A popular song is a very valuable asset. Wouldn't letting the liberals use your work be the same as a monetary donation? Should it not follow the same rules?
Thank you for listening to me babble.
Beauxdog
welcome beauxdog
May 5, 2009 - 15:08 ET by candanceWe always welcome the chance to have reasonable discussion here.
Your analogy about a Christian song is on point. In these cases I always ask folks to remove how they feel about Don Henley and see how they would react with the shoe on the other foot.
I guess the real question is whether parody and satire should be protected forms of speech. That is what we should be discussing.
That is indeed the real issue here - how much legal footing should an artist be given. I'm not going to say you have to agree with my theory point blank, but I do not think it's fair to mock and ridicule Henley for having his own opinion, and that's what this thread has become.
Wouldn't letting the liberals use your work be the same as a monetary donation? Should it not follow the same rules?
This falls under any other asset someone might have. If I own an extra house, I have the priviledge of letting my brother live there for free, but I am not bound to give that same luxury to Joe Blow down the street. If I write a novel, I can choose to show it to close friends for free, but I have the right of expecting strangers to pay for it.
Private property means the owner can sell it at their own discretion for whatever price they like.
Thank You
May 5, 2009 - 21:35 ET by beauxdogThank you for your welcome, candance and QueenMum.
Welcome beauxdog. Your
May 5, 2009 - 15:24 ET by QueenMumWelcome beauxdog. Your first post is very well presented. It looks like you're going to be an asset to N.B. Looking forward to "getting to know you" better.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Welcome to the Democratic Party
May 5, 2009 - 18:21 ET by slickwillie2001So this has me thinking, maybe we should put together a parody for Senator Specter called 'Welcome to the Democratic Party'. You can check in but you can never leave.
I can understand Henley not
May 5, 2009 - 18:51 ET by balboaI can understand Henley not wanting something he created being used in such a way, but it _is_ fair use, so there doesn't seem to be much he can do about it.
Boo fricken hoo. Henley
May 5, 2009 - 19:33 ET by RogerCfromSDBoo fricken hoo. Henley parodies himself with this self-righteous indignation. A nation cannot be free without a free, unbiased media. We are not free.
you're right roger
May 5, 2009 - 19:52 ET by candanceA politician who rips of a famous song for laughs is a real martyr for having a free press.
Music stinks
May 5, 2009 - 19:49 ET by ammo johnNever cared for Henley. Wasn't the"'Boys of Summer" about his boyfriends in San Fransissyco?
→ Henley
May 5, 2009 - 19:57 ET by Cool ArrowHenley's a Liberal, but I think he's a great poet.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Music teacher?
May 5, 2009 - 21:00 ET by easygoerIn November of 1980, Henley was charged with contributing to the
delinquency of a minor and possession of marijuana, cocaine, and
Quaaludes after paramedics treated a 16-year-old girl suffering from
drug intoxication at his Los Angeles home. Just drum lessons, I suppose.
Link Please
May 6, 2009 - 09:14 ET by nofateDocumentation needed.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Here they are
May 6, 2009 - 10:08 ET by easygoerThere's not much info out there. But I rememer hearing about it in college. This is what I found:
http://www.mix.com.a... ( bottom of photo)
http://oldies.about....
http://www.philbrodieband.com/music_trivia-yesterdays_november.htm (scroll down to Nov 21)
http://idolator.com/401103/the-end-of-the-innocence-contd (scroll down to post by someone calling themself T'Challa
Speaking of Henley’s run-in with under-aged prostitutes:
“In 1980, Don Henley was arrested after a naked 16-year old girl was
found at his home in Los Angeles suffering from a drug over-dose, he
received a $2,000 fine with two years probation.
As Henley later explained.
“I didn’t have sex with her: Yes, she was a hooker. Yes, I called a
madam. Yes, there were roadies and guys at my house…I was lost for a
while there, drinking heavily, doing a lot of drugs.”
Henley was busted by officer Mike Brambles of the LAPD’s Sexually
Exploited Child Unit, a cop who later was convicted in LA County on 18
counts of robbery, six sexual-assault-related charges and assault with
a firearm.
Brambles is serving a 102 year sentance, while Don Henley has been
enjoying life back on the road with The Eagles, and being one of the
most successful and biggest selling musical groups in history. He’s
left L.A for Texas, become an outspoken and wallet wielding
environmentalist, major Democratic fundraiser, philanthropist and
sponsor of Walden Woods Project & The Thoreau Institute.
Mr.Henley was able to get this nasty child prositute, Quaaludes and
cocaine episode behind him, and omitted from a later book about The
Eagles, using his pull within the Warners empire, who also owned the
publishing company handling the book…
Outstanding!
May 6, 2009 - 10:21 ET by nofateI ask for a link, you give me a library! I used to think he was a gifted artist. Now all I can think if is, what a scumbag piece of human debris.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
nofate
May 6, 2009 - 11:51 ET by easygoerI agree. But you have to admit he's been very good at sweeping it under the rug. With the help of the big shots at his record label.
I love his explanation, which is, in effect: I didn't have sex with her she was just naked and wasted in my bed. But hey, I was wasted too. So we're all cool, right? Now I've got to get on with my life's work of making millions and saving the planet.
Hey, thanks for that comment tracking thing. Former hippie myself. 292 Grateful Dead concerts between 1979-1995. My first vote was also for Reagan in 1980. Even when I was a hippie I just believed in a strong defense and low taxes. A strong defense meant it kept America free so I could pursue my dreams. Which, at that time, meant seeing as many Dead shows as possible. And what resonated to me about Reagan's (and Kemp's) low tax vision was- if I was gonna travel the country seeing concerts, it just made sense to me to have as much money in my pocket as possible.
"292 Grateful Dead
May 6, 2009 - 12:15 ET by lotrAwesome -- I envy you bigtime.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
easy
May 6, 2009 - 13:05 ET by nofateThanks. I thought the comment tracking thing had died a natural death. I still use it 'cause it takes me to precise comments rather than just *New stuff. It just depends on what I'm trying to accomplish as to which search function I use.
I love your take on it. I shudder to think how easy it was to get sucked into that world just a little bit at a time. Between a good woman and Ronald Reagan, with a little help from Jimma's lunacy, I was saved. It's really too bad that Henley didn't get nailed for his "indiscretions", but hey, at least they got the cop, right? But, what the heck, he's just a cop and not doing anything to save the planet, so no big deal, right? It all just makes me sick. I suppose if I was more of a gossip monger I would probably feel like this about a lot more of these old rockers. I listen to music that I grew up on, and now I can't listen to it with the same pleasant feelings anymore because the lyrics are almost without exception, anethema to everything I believe now. BTW, I use that word "anathema" purposely, as I believe that a lot of that music fulfills a function that matches the etymological foundation of the word: "anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil". This turning away from enjoying rock music has been going on for a while, this Henley thing you pointed out is just more repulsive icing on the cake. It is a separate issue from the copyright/personal property debate.
Edit: BTW, can you still hear? I went to one Dead concert and walked out feeling like my ears were blasted. But it was a great time. Nothing like a misspent youth to teach you how wrong you can be. Like eating humble pie, if you have the ability to learn from your mistakes.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
To me it's the stunning
May 5, 2009 - 22:47 ET by RR GOPTo me it's the stunning hypocrisy of these rockers..."Yeah, we're so anti-establishment, Man...we don't give a F---! We're open-minded and free of the world of the suits...blah, blah, friggin, blah."
And they're the first ones to cry 'foul' when someone goes anti-establishment on them. They run for their well-tailored lawyers and whine to the RIAA when they think they're being cheated out of the Almighty Dollar that their scene claims is of no consequence.
What Henley and these others don't realize is that they became what they said they were against. Never fails. Ian from Minor Threat became a music company A&R man...Lars from Metallica was the one who screwed Napster and its users and got the RIAA to start bringing lawsuits against people with little evidence...Keith Richards was all pissed off and brought a lawsuit against The Verve because they sampled "too much" of the melody of Bittersweet Symphony (which became far more famous because of The Verve's use of the song-actually, the usage had been negotiated beforehand, but when it became a big hit, they wanted a bigger cut).
It's only art when they are trying to get away with this or that and by pushing the envelope, but all of a sudden it's business when someone wants to take one of their works in a different direction or on a new level.
Sad to see once creative youth with something to say turn old and bitter. Like I've long thought, some punk in his mid to late teens has a lot to say...but by their mid-twenties they've pretty much said it all.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
good points
May 6, 2009 - 12:10 ET by lotrAnd let us not forget "start-a-revolution" Madonna, "small town" John Cougar and "blue-collar" Bruce.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Question:
May 6, 2009 - 09:41 ET by nofateI've read through the comments and if this has been discussed, I missed it, but...
Parodies are used all the time. Rush has made a career for Paul Shanklin and they play whole songs over and over again, it's just the lyrics that are different, but sometimes even that change is not very substantial. It is my understanding, as someone who has never created anything with a copyright, that these songs get a fee for every play they get on the radio, or every download off of iTunes or whatever. Correct? So if a politician or whoever makes a parody of anyone's song, if they pay the "fair usage"(?) fees, what's the harm? Otherwise how could Rush get away with what he does? He is too big and too controversial to get away with that for long if it were truly even a "gray" area.
Don't know if it's relevant, but when "Get Over It" came out, Rush played it a number of times. I can also remember when, for a brief period, Rush took down his theme song, The Pretenders "My City Was Gone" due to some controversy over "fair use", I suppose, but it was back up again after a few days/weeks.
As for wether the songs belong to the artist, I go with the property rights side. Doesn't matter if it's real property or intellectual property, if it's yours, it's yours and if someone else wants to use it, you have the right to be paid for the use of it. Doesn't matter what your politics are. Does the name Kelo mean anything around here?
More Than 3-1/2 Years After Kelo, New London Paper Contrives ...
Susette Kelo and other Fort Trumbull residents pushed back and sued to try to stop the city's plans. Ultimately, the Supreme Court rendered its 5-4 decision ...
newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/02/15/over-3-1-2-years-after-i-kelo-i-ruling-new-london-paper-contrives-reason
The Kelo-New London Calamity Continues ('Barren Land ...
It has been nearly three years since the Kelo v. New London ruling by the US Supreme Court, and just short of two years since the city of ...
newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/06/03/kelo-new-london-calamity-continues-barren-land
Kelo Update: Media Ignores Latest New London Development Setback ...
Nearly 2-1/2 years after the US Supreme Court ruled that the city could evict Susette Kelo and other holdouts and take their homes, ...
newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2007/11/30/kelo-update-media-ignores-latest-new-london-development-setback
Nearly 10 Years Later, Monument to Favoritism in Kelo Ruling Still ...
The story stands as a bitter reminder of the blatant favoritism that took place during the sad saga of Susette Kelo and her neighbors in the ...
newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/07/nearly-10-years-later-monument-favoritism-kelo-ruling-still-stands
Just a sample from a search here on NewsBusters. Obama would love those of you who think Mr. Henley is not entitled to a return from his property, aside from the fact that he is a nutball. Let's see how happy he is with his contributions when Obama does go that direction, which I'm sure is where he is headed before this is all over. We must all "sacrifice" doncha know.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
well nofate
May 6, 2009 - 13:04 ET by candanceIt is very rare for someone to win a parody lawsuit, even if the act is done to make a profit. These lawsuits usually pop up as a scare tactic more than anything. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Websites like YouTube are quick to pull off any material involved in a lawsuit because that is easier than fending off a case in court. On the other hand, artists won't bother suing Rush unless they know they can definitely win (like the Pretenders song) because he has deep enough pockets to fend them off.
Paying the proper fee is a separate issue. Wal Mart, for example, can't just put Brad Pitt's face on their advertising and then send him a check in the mail to make up for it.
You can read more about the details here.
I get it...
May 6, 2009 - 13:13 ET by nofateit's a matter of having enough money to fend off frivolous, harassing lawsuits. If you aint got the dough, don't bake the bread.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com