Friday, June 13, 2008

I'm sorry mom, but...

This has to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. What a fucktarded thing to get your panties in a bunch about...

Dude needs to let it go. I'm sure there are more pressing matters for him to be concerned with. Christ.

13 comments:

You Rang said...

I would agree with you if, like Arlen Spectre and spygate, this guy had no monetary interest in this. But he owns the copyright to the song, and by using the song McCain implies that the songwriter and/or copyright owner have given him permission (sort of a backdoor endorsement) to use the song.

Faith said...

I would no more see a song being played at a political hooha of any sort as an endorsement by the songwriter than I would an endorsement of a bar that it gets played at, or a birthday party at someone's house, or of my SINGING ALONG WITH IT in the goddammed car.

It's ridiculous, and the guy needs to find some better issue to fluff his feathers at. Jeezy chreezy. (Oh, I'd better watch it, or Eddie Izzard might come after me for STEALING his material!)

You Rang said...

Most bars don't just "play music". Someone pays for the right to play a song, whether it is via a juke box, or by paying a band to play. Same with the radio... the station pays for the right to play the song (or songs by that publishing company). The birthday party scenario isn't in the same ballpark, because no one is making money on that. McCain is fundraising at these events.

Faith said...

Ok, let's seriously consider this, cranky. If I were to go to a political fundraiser (which I personally have never paid to do, but I've been stuck in one at the Moose before for some chick that was supported by that dickweed Dennis Moore...GAH!) , chances are I wouldn't listen to the music being played before or after their speech, or anytime during the partay, and think, "Hm. This song is written by blahblahblah. They must support said political person I'm here to support, and this makes me even MORE interested in supporting them!"

I just don't subscribe to that logic. Call me retarded or wrong or whatever you want, but I just don't. It's plain silly.

Dude is looking for something to complain about, plain and simple.

You Rang said...

"Dude is looking for something to complain about, plain and simple."

Aren't we all? I mean, your blog actually uses that premise (whether its poop or drivers) as some of its drawing power... and for that fact so does mine, although I've tried to stay out of the old fart bowels, tempting as the topic might be.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to be cranky. I just honestly think the guy has a reason for doing what he is doing. A legal reason involving copyright. So I'll leave it at that.

Faith said...

Sorry! I meant Grumbling. (Your sign-in name for comments being different from your blog name kinda throws me off...)

And yeah, my blog premise is all about bitching for bitching's sake. But guess what? I have NO political agenda. I'm not trying to influence any of the masses, or make big decisions about bills and such that will perhaps affect said masses, and I certainly don't give a flying shit about much of said masses, actually. So I think it's perfectly fine for me to get up in arms about, oh, how the person in front of me on Nall Ave. just blocked my ability to turn left and possibly make it to work on time.

Again, it's ridiculous to think that ANYONE at any political rally of any sort even fucking KNOWS who the original songwriter is, and that they would be automatically adding their support to someone's campaign by allowing their song to be played during the rally or fundraiser or town hall meeting they happened to attend. Now, if McCain is specifically pointing out the song, saying, "Isn't this great? John Hall backing me up there from the loudspeakers, everyone! Let's give him a hand for the song he wrote and performed in 1976! Woo! Thanks John!" then perhaps he'd have a point. Otherwise, it's sillier bitching than even my latest story about the women in the ladies' room that can't seem to make sure their toilet seat cover flushes along with the shit they just took.

Hell, even the STORY I linked to appears to be making fun of his ass! This wasn't just my perception of a wasted panty bunching, ok? I just saw the title and felt intrigued enough to read it.

You leave it where you leave it, and I'm not gonna back down from my stance. John Hall needs to relax a bit. He sounds like his priorities aren't all that straight.

faithstwin said...

Dang it all to heck...I hate it when you are obviously smarter than me.

Dan said...

Interesting - are you okay with candidates you oppose putting bumper stickers on your car? Same thing - using your property to advance an agenda you don't like.

It cuts both ways - Obama can't use any of Ted Nugent's music in his campaign.

Faith said...

Dan, I think that comparison isn't the same.

I would love to dare either you or Grumbling to go into a rally, town hall meeting, or whatever kind of function that McCain is playing that song at in the future, and ask people if they even know who the hell wrote it/performed it, and whether they think that since it's being played at the rally/meeting/random function if they think it means that said sognwriter/performer is thereby supporting McCain, and I'm willing to bet not only would 99% of the people not have a fucking clue who wrote it (it's not like it's a fucking BEATLES tune, y'all!), but they wouldn't give a second thought to whether it meant that person was supporting McCain by having their song played.

The ridiculous obscurity of the band and the writer is what makes it non-comparable. And if someone slapped a bumper sticker of any kind on my car without my permission, that would be vandalism. Very, very different situation, IMO.

red said...

I believe the artist has a right to how his song is used. It would be like if Fred Phelps had a blog and he put your blog on his blogroll. Everybody hates Fred Phelps, and now you're associated with him. You would have a justifiable right to ask him to remove your blog from his blogroll. It has nothing to do with how the song affected the crowd at a political function. If the artist doesn't want to be associated with John McCain through his song, he doesn't have to.

Faith said...

Let me set this straight: I have no problem with the artist asking McCain to stop using his song.

I DO have a problem with the whole ridiculousness of a cease & decist order being sent instead of the dude making a simple phone call or sending an email.

He got ridiculously up in arms about something that, in the scheme of things, really isn't that big of a deal.

And really? Fred Phelps is comparable to McCain for you? Dayum.

Dan said...

Fred Phelps is less dangerous to the country than John McCain . . .

But, back to the point, Faith, nobody knows who owns your car, either. A few people might - about the same number of people that know who wrote the song - but that's not the point, is it? You just don't want the bumper sticker on your car because it's VANDALISM!

How is converting your intellectual property to support a cause you oppose anything other than VANDALISM?

And, FWIW, you didn't say the artist should politely ask the vandal to stop vandalizing his song. You said he should "let it go".

Sounds like you are the one who got ridiculously up in arms about something you were kind of wrong about.

Faith said...

This is why I don't give a hoot about politics. (Good job there...always fun to push someone that is already pretty apathetic about politics into an even MORE apathetic state. Fantastico...) You guys love to dance around the issue (i.e. John Hall going above and beyond with what should have been a simple request to McCain's team to stop playing his song at rallies and other political parties) and try to twist my words into something that makes no sense.

Down to basics: He acted retarded about it, and got all worked up because he thinks he's more recognizable and important than he actually is. Am I making it simple enough now for you guys to see what my whole point was? Or do you want to continue to try to make it into a stupidly-long-nothing-having-to-do-with-the-issue issue again?

I'm not getting "ridiculously up in arms" about anything. I'm responding to YOU guys who are trying to make it into something it really isn't. You all are the ones that brought up random other things to compare it to. Not me. Freakos. :P

(Dan, someone slapping a sticker on my car, regardless of whether people know who own it, is an act of vandalism. You brought it up as a comparison, I just pointed out how it really isn't a valid one in this case. Because it's vandalism vs copyright infringement. Two very, very different things. So don't try to make them into one and the same, mkay? Bad idea jeans, dude.)