Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

At the very least it would be hilarious to see someone switch out his "I Believe I Can Fly" soundtrack to "Weird Al's Greatest Hits."


McCain: "Thank you, my friends! My friends, you will always be my friends! Goodnight, my friends!"

Soundtrack: "It's Christmas at ground zero! All the people have run away! What a crazy fluke, we're gonna get nuked on this jolly holiday!"

They could, but they're under no obligation to do so. They have control over who can and cannot use their songs, and if they don't want a candidate they don't support to use their songs, they have every right to not only demand they stop using their music illegally, but to also bring those responsible to court. It doesn't matter whether this was a mistake or not; the law doesn't care if you didn't intend to break it or not, but only if you did. And, in this case, they did. If Obama's campaign has done likewise, then I would hope that whatever artists had their music used illegally would take those responsible to court as well.

Lookit what I found. If the foofighters go after McCain, can Sam go after Obama?

Of course. Legally, Obama (or his campaign rather, as Obama himself didn't put the video together, same as McCain) is in the wrong.

someone agrees. Yes i think that too. The artist should take the people to court...funny thing is...both campaigns tank with lawsuits and then nader would win XD

personally I am insulted by the republican party for doing this three times..and the democrats for doing that however many times (I am a musician myself) (SHOW TOMARROW :D) and I would take people to court for doing that.

Lies!! You can't touch the SOUL MAN!! *ba-da-da, ba-na-da-da-da!!*

How can ANYONE possibly be this anal about something they made? If it were me, I wouldn't be mad in the least.

So if someone stole YOUR work you would not be mad? I know where the Foo Fighter's are comming from since im in a band and i would not want my stuff taken without permission. Think about it that way.

I think it is totally within their right to be angry, especially if they happen to not support what that person was doing.

I mean if you made a song and the "Murders and Muggers" chapter at your town used it for recruitment, chances are you wouldn't be very happy about it. If they don't support something it is within their right. Or if they'd just to make some money off of their work technically they have the right to that too.

yep. They have the right to by angry or not support McCain and let him use the song. and rofl at the 2nd part.

I also love how McCain uses a song about ordinary people and how extraordinary they are. HOW is McCain an ordinary person. He has money (and something like 9 houses). Bah he tarnishes good lyrics. And as the Foo Fighter's said

Haha you are right there. We all have used music without paying royaltys. But there has to be some limit i believe. Yea we all are wrong when we play other band's music at partys and shows without paying royaltys but i think there is a limit...Like if it was me i would not care if a highschool dance played my song because first its obvious they cant afford to pay thousands to play the song ONCE, 2nd its not like I would know that this highschool would be playing my song. Now McCain CAN afford to pay the royaltys to borrow the songs for a few weeks and it was played on his commercials so I can see why the Foo Fighters would get mad. And Obama is at fault to...he should have paid for the song he took. But McCain's and Obama's campaign could have afforded royaly charges so there guilty. And what annoys me...is that the Republican party did this THREE times...I can see the mistake happening once...maybe even twice...but common three times...they have to know there lesson. Even I know that if its something major you ask to borrow the song. Been there done that XD. It would delay the commercial by AT MOST a few days. =\

Depending on when and where the instances of infringement occurred, it might be misleading to blame the campaign. Most rallies and the like aren't really put together by the campaign; they're mostly the responsibility of the party branch for that state. So you're almost always dealing with a new set of potential boneheads who aren't necessarily familiar with these cases. It makes it much easier for repeated mistakes to be made. Now, if we're talking about the use of songs in commercials, those (usually) must be reviewed and approved by the campaign, so it's at the very least negligence on their part (at best, they're just getting an ad spot from the ad agency and just rubberstamping it, trusting the agency to have handled everything). It's possible that that is part of their contract with the ad agencies, and the agencies are at fault for not getting license for the songs.

-- huh --
Both sides have run afoul of YouTube pulling videos under the DMCA. McCain's campaign is challenging YouTube, claiming Fair Use and that the companies invoking the DMCA are overreaching their copyright.