McCain and Palin once again play 'Barracuda' - part of the royalties will go to supporting Obama.

[jefferson_dem]

McCain and Palin once again play 'Barracuda'
Posted: 10:38 AM ET

From From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby
Former Heart guitarist says part of the royalties will go to supporting Obama.

LEBANON, Ohio (CNN) – The rock band "Heart" may have asked John McCain and Sarah Palin stop playing their song "Barracuda" at their rallies, but the campaign is apparently paying no heed.

The track — played at the Republican National Convention in honor of the Vice Presidential nominee, who earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" playing high school basketball in Alaska — was pumped through the streets of Lebanon, Ohio on Tuesday morning at an outdoor rally before the GOP ticket showed up.

When the song was played after Palin's convention speech last week, the band members quickly requested that McCain and Palin pull the plug.

"Sarah Palin's views and values in no way represent us as American women," Ann and Nancy Wilson told Entertainment Weekly. "We ask that our song 'Barracuda' no longer be used to promote her image."

But the McCain camp said last week that it had paid for and obtained all necessary licenses before using the song.

And the band's former guitarist, Roger Fisher, told Reuters last week that the McCain camp’s use of the song benefited both sides: Republicans get "the ingenious placement of a kick-ass song" — and Heart gets headlines and royalties. Part of that money, said Fisher, would be heading to the Arizona senator’s opponent: "With my contribution to Obama's campaign, the Republicans are now supporting Obama," he told Reuters.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/09/mccain-and-palin-once-again-play-barracuda/

[imax2268]

1. right on...

very nice, very nice...!!

ROCK AND ROLL!!!

[trueblue2007]

2. How did McIdiot get a license to use Barracuda if Heart objects??

I don't get it. Jackson Browne SUES McCain...and Heart just lets them get away with it??

That stinks. Heart should SUE McCain.

[eeyore]

3. Heart likely doesn't own all of the rights to that song...

Most musicians, especially of that era, don't own the publishing rights to their music. The McCain campaign just has to pay the publishing royalties to whoever gives them permission to use it. Likely Heart has very little to no say in where and how the song gets used, so all they can do is protest loudly that they don't approve.

[onenote]

10. Blanket licensing.

Its not so much a question of who owns the rights to the song, its that the right to "publicly perform" virtually any song can easily be obtained by getting a "blanket license" from one or more of the "performing rights societies" (ASCAP and BMI being the best known) what act as clearinghouses for composers/copyright owners with regard to the performance right. Radio stations, bars, etc etc would never be able to play recorded music if they had to go out and negotiate rights separately with each songwriter of each song. So Performing Rights Societies have emerged to provide a quick and easy way of clearing the rights to a large library of music.

So even if the members of Heart (and they are all listed as co-composers of Barracuda) still own the rights and wanted to block the campaign's use of the song there isn't much they can do since the song almost certainly is covered by a blanket license.

As for Jackson Browne, the differnce is that the campaign didn't just perform his song, they copied it and included it in a recorded campaign ad. The reproduction (copying) right is separately (and thus needs a separate license) from the performance right. And the blanket license from ascap/bmi is only a performance license.

[nc4bo]

19. Right back to the rights of musicians being trampled on (entirely different conversation though) nt

[onenote]

20. the composers voluntarily use performing rights societies

because without them, it would be impractical for them to license the performance of their music and to get any royalties for such performances.


Artists rights are trampled in a lot of ways. Not sure blanket licensing is one of them.

[nc4bo]

23. I guess that's why so many artists are all over the 'net trying to promote their own

creations rather than get boggled down in a greedy corporate machines?

For bands and individual artists, they practically have to sell their souls to make a living.

I guess you have a point though.

[Anexio]

4. //

"But the McCain camp said last week that it had paid for and obtained all necessary licenses before using the song."


So the Wilson sisters have no idea what is going on with their business then, right? They impressed me as nincompoops last week with their squawking and now they've confirmed it.

Conversely, I think it's wonderfully ironic that royalties for playing Barracuda will be donated to the Obama campaign. I wonder how much though? Is there anyway of checking?

On Edit: Upon re-reading the article it appears that only Roger Fisher is donating his portion of the royalties. The headline is misleading.

[Zuiderelle]

7. Nincompoops? Squawking? Who's side are you on anyway?

:eyes:

[Anexio]

15. I'm on the side...

I'm on the side of running an intelligent and profitable business. Clearly the sisters didn't check to see if there was a valid contract in place before they flapped their yap. They came off to me, last week, as people that were making a loud vocal stand without knowing the facts, now I know I was right.

If I ran my businesses like that I'd be out of business by lunchtime.

[Zuiderelle]

22. Doesn't matter if there was a valid contract in place. They still have a right to complain.

And I'm glad they did. It's most likely not them who wrote, signed, or even owns the contract. It would be impossible for them, the artists, to know who in the world might be using any one of their many songs in what manner. That's the job of the person who is making those contracts.

Their complaint is valid whether there was a valid contract or not. Because they were able to get by with getting the rights to the song, doesn't mean that the artists have to be happy about it. I doubt they have much to do with giving rights to their songs.

[progdonkey]

11. um, that's why it says "part of the royalties"....

The headline isn't misleading at all. :eyes:

And what's with all the hostility towards the Wilson sisters? The sad fact is that a musician's music isn't always their "business": others often own or co-own the copyrights (usually the record labels they were signed to). Why do you call them "squawking nincompoops" for asking that their song not be used in support of a person they themselves don't support?

[Anexio]

13. ..

Why do you call them "squawking nincompoops" for asking that their song not be used in support of a person they themselves don't support?

Because they didn't bother to check with their business manager(s) before they made public denunciations. The song, Barracuda is probably one of the most popular rock songs of all time, shouldn't they, (Wilsons), made it clear to the people that run their business that they don't want their songs used by certain people or causes?

I called them nincompoops because I don't think they know what is going on with their business, they didn't bother to check to see if the song was rightfully obtained and that a contract was in place.

In addition to nincompoops I'll also call them sloppy business people. They're great rock musicians but very sloppy business people.

[progdonkey]

21. see the post above by onenote about "blanket licenses"...

And, as I just said, musicians rarely have control over the use of their own music, so your argument about "making it clear to the people that run their business" is pointless. They're not the Disney Corporation, with ownership of everything they've ever produced, as well as full licensing and copyright authority, and an army of lawyers to enforce it. They're musicians who probably have one business lawyer and don't have ownership over the licensing rights to their own songs, and share copyright with other people, such as Roger Fisher. (Or, it's an all-or-nothing deal, where they can allow BMI or whichever it is handle all the licensing or none of it.)

Heart didn't sue McCain-Palin because they knew they didn't have any standing if the campaign did happen to go through the proper channels for licensing. That doesn't mean that Heart were consulted beforehand or even had any say in it.

Think about when Paul McCartney was upset that Nike (I believe) was using "Revolution" in one of their ad campaigns years ago. Nike had gone through the proper channels to get the right to have it in their ads (namely, through Michael Jackson's people), but that doesn't mean McCartney didn't have the right or a reason to be upset and make his feelings known publicly.

"I'll also call them sloppy business people." Maybe because they're not business people? They're musicians. Musicians upset that their music had been licensed to support a person/cause that they personally find abhorrent. They have every right to be upset and to voice their discontent about it.

[Anexio]

24. First off...

Thank you for your reply and taking the time to explain it to me in a civilized manner. Sometimes I'm not left wing enough for some of the members here so your reply to me was refreshing to read. Thanks again.

I agree pretty much with everything you said but I just think that if Heart gave up the rights to their song then they gave up the right to complain about where it gets used.

Of topic but I own three businesses and I get a little hot under the collar when I see people, (Heart), try to have things both ways. In Heart's case they gave up control over their song for the privileged of getting their song recorded and distributed by a gigantic music company. Now, the music company has licensed their song to a cause that Heart doesn't like and they're complaining loudly about it. Again, Heart cant have it both ways.

Same goes for Paul McCartney. He can't sell his entire share of Beatles music and then complain when the new owner uses it in a way that he doesn't like.

To attempt an analogy, if built a house and then sold it, do I have the right to complain when the new owner paints the house pink and orange? Of course not, it's the new owners house and I gave up the right to complain when I sold it.

[progdonkey]

25. sorry, your analogies are a little faulty... O:-)

(I'd also like to say it's nice to have a civil disagreement. ;-) )

For instance, McCartney never sold his rights to the Beatles catalog--he never owned them, which was the problem! He was actually attempting to buy the rights to his own music, because the copyright was owned by the record label, but the catalog was being auctioned off because the label was going under (I believe). Michael Jackson, after hearing from his then-friend McCartney about it, then swooped in and bought the whole catalog from right under him, ending McCartney's friendship with him almost immediately. McCartney, of course, has always received royalties (and done quite well :P), but that's different from actually owning the rights to the music and deciding what it gets associated with.

The house analogy doesn't really work because you're talking about real physical property instead of intellectual property. You can't really license a house around the world. Perhaps a nicer (though still rather clunky) analogy would be if you're the architect of a building, and the client/owner later decides to sell it to some idiot who decides to turn it into a whorehouse. You wouldn't really have a legal right to take ownership of the house, but you certainly have a right to complain.

Yes, Heart gave up their legal right to decided to whom their songs get licensed, but that was likely when they were just starting out and desperate to get their music made (and this was long before the days when you could record a professional sounding album with just a laptop and some production software, and search online for advice and different recording techniques--you HAD to pay for studio time, or else it would sound like shit, and even then, if you didn't have good sound engineer, it would still sound like shit and you'd be in the hole for tens of thousands of dollars, so you really also needed label backing). The label probably never saw a reason to sell the rights back to them and give Heart an opportunity to actually own their own music, like McCartney almost did. (I'm just guessing on that, though.) So, blaming them for signing over their rights is almost like blaming them for being exploited--they really had no choice (other than to starve).

I guess the main thing that seems to be causing confusion is that you're applying regular sale/ownership logic to intellectual property law, which is a whole other, strange beast. A loaf of bread from a baker, for instance, is a single physical object that can really only be made by that baker (that is, if you want the exact same taste/quality, etc.), but a book is just a bunch of ink arranged on a piece of paper (or dots on a screen!) that can be perfectly reproduced by anyone; a CD track can be played by any stereo with a CD drive and you get a perfect reproduction; a movie is really just a bunch of colored dots on a screen; etc. So the logic and assumptions regarding ownership and sale of physical objects of all sorts is quite different from the logic when dealing with ideas/art.

[RichardRay]

27. Generally, 'smart business people'

can't see past the end of the quarter, can't deal with real world uncertainty, don't know how to use the tools they are provided and generally blunder around claiming to be oh so smart while making one silly decision after another. (met any smart mortgage bankers lately?)

I slaughted a whole major investment bank full of 'smart business people' with first year linear algebra. Not a graduate class, nothing original, I just stated a problem they were stumped by in a fashion that could be solved with a simple matrix manipulation. As I was on the other side of the table from them and took several million dollars out of their pockets they're still wondering how it happened. The funny thing is, I gave them a complete explanation of how it happened, but the second they saw the phrase 'linear algebra' they ran screaming from the room yelling 'Oh no, MATH!!'.

I'm not impressed by 'smart business people', probably somewhat less impressed than you are by the folks from Heart.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. Yeah, them damn librul celebrities are all nincompoops.

Not like true artists Pat Boone and Ted Nugent. :eyes:

[spanone]

5. i'm in the publishing world and the royalties will be pennies.....

[LibraLiz1973]

6. Ann & Nancy aren't the only people who own the song... the co-writer, Roger Fisher

is an Obama supporter but says they can use the song.

[closeupready]

9. There's some bad blood between them, IIRC.

So this is why the band seems to be sending mixed messages.

[LibraLiz1973]

14. Exactly

[closeupready]

8. So not only do McCain and Palin disrespect voters' intelligence, they disrespect artists.

A real twofer. This really pisses me off.

[AuntPatsy]

12. I like that logic, in the end, Heart and Obama come out the winner...and its thanks to the repubs...

Irony at it's best...

[blogslut]

16. I have to wonder though, if the campaign has actually listened to the song

It's not very complimentary.

Reminds me of when someone wanted me to sing The Long and Winding Road at their wedding - until I showed them the lyrics.

[anigbrowl]

28. Like that makes a difference

a) people like that don't really listen to or think about lyrics
b) the lyrics don't make all that much sense unless you know the context
c) conservatives would somehow convince themselves that it refers to liberals
d) or what the conservatives are going to do to the liberals, or something
e) it's really all about the aggressive martial rhythm; music to shoot people by

[Froward69]

30. it would seem they

had not listened to the lyrics... Would it not be even better if they used "Magic man" as McSames theme? both songs are about non returned love. :rofl:

[Cha]

17. Yeah, mcpalin..take that you stupid fuckers.

You're helping contribute to the Obama Biden campaign. Thanks, ratholes.

[Egnever]

18. If I were Ann or Nancy would start attending these things and asking for my check on the spot.

:rofl:

[Statistical]

29. Good Headline. Dont a good fundraiser

It is a nice headline that they are giving the royalties to Obama but it won't do anything.

Royalties likely are <2 cents per usage.
So if they use it every day till Nov4th 10 per day that will rake it a whole $12.

Help Obama out and donate your $12 today!