I don't understand your reasoning...what does The "B" in NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc stand for??

The GOP broadcasts nothing. Clearly if they did, they would not have had the folks on MSNBC trashing their every word as they spoke.

Ann will vote anyway you want if you promise her a cheeseburger.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1220841733.jpg

Nancy and Ann Wilson playing at a charity concert for the Canary Foundation 28 July 2007

Holy Hypothecate, Holmes!

...


Can we stop for just a second, and have somebody concisely relate the facts in this case?

B---sh-t.

I agree. "Freedom of political action" is severely hampered when mega-rich, corporate-sponsored political parties cannot use intellectual property w/o permission.

That's a freaking knee-slapper, John. You are normally a lot more cogent than this. Though I guess that if you were defending them in court, you'd have to throw some goofy slop at the wall and hope that something sticks. :)

Wow. You removed your post. Should have quoted it, that was comedy.

Nothing personal Denis, I just realized I was repeating the same point I made earlier.

As in "if you say it enough times it must be true"? ;)

It would be interesting to know how many of the people who posted on this thread are "artists" (broadly construed) and how that lines up with the sentiments. While I have sold some of my art and given other bits away, I can say that the thought of someone using my art in a way that others thought I was endorsing that person or idea is pretty chilling. Hence the laws about using copyrighted material for advertisements (ie Latham Act). The whole political convention thing is an interesting question, and I don't know that it has been sorted in the courts yet...

Exactly, if the other side is unpersuaded the first couple times this is a sign to move on, a new futile rancorous screaming match is opening in the neighborhood soon. (A view not shared by all particpants here . . . :))

Facts??

Is the song licensed? Who holds the copyright?

A corporation can develop something, market it, sell it.......and then refuse to sell it to certain buyers. Let's say it is a product that, falling into the hands of your major competitors, could erode your competitive position with them. Reasonable? Sure.

Now let's look at someone who wants to use my song in a way that will create a bad impression of me. Let's say I wrote a song (let's call it "Barracuda") in which I lament the role of corporations and greed and unfairness in the music industry. Now let's imagine that a political party which many people believe represents interests like corporations, greed and unfairness, uses that song in a sense that is virtually the opposite of its intended message, and the opposite of my (the artist) creative message and the principles on which I have written all my songs and developed my career.

Okay, so is it okay for a corporation to protect itself by refusing to sell or license its product where that usage will damage it? Is it not okay for people to have the same protection?

Just askin'

Let's say I use the Mickey Mouse character to advertise an extermination service and ....................

.... and I send Disney 20 million dollars after the fact.

How many times would Walt rotate in his grave?

Sherwood

Not nearly as many as I'm sure he does after Disney started hosting gay days and giving special benefits to gays.

Ahh, Intellectual Property. Where is the outrage, gentlemen, over Senator Obama's uncredited appropriation of the exact text of a political cartoon?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/obama-repeatedly-quotes-cartoonist-while-on-campaign-trail/

How about the outrage over someone's photoshop of a copyrighted photograph for the purposes of defaming Governor Palin?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/cnn-reports-palin-bikini-photo-but-fails-to-tell-viewers-its-a-fake/