Musicians Fight Back

[followsthewolf]

 

[Locutus]

This is more like it when dealing with her.

[Sandy Eggo]

You are clueless beyond help. How you could possibly infer that from my postings in this thread is beyond me.

So what you're saying is that you pack your lunch because you walk to work.

[Locutus]

So what you're saying is that you pack your lunch because you walk to work.

You get an A on the test. 

[me]

^^ My question stands.   There is no way to infer from that statement that the following is my belief.  Hence Olias' comment about your inability to reason. 

I'm starting to think you really are as dense as some on here have claimed you to be. 

You made a statement that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs.  That is absolutely not true at all.

A song that has been recorded and put out for the public.  You knew what I meant so quit trying to make me look dumb here.

[Sandy Eggo]

 

[me]

Well I'm not as dumb as Troll looks at least.... 

[Locutus]

A song that has been recorded and put out for the public.   

A song that has been recorded, and put out for the public, does not automatically enter it into the public domain, and hence, up for anyone to take and use for whatever purposes suit them.  I know that, and you know that.

You knew what I meant so quit trying to make me look dumb here.

I don't have to try.  You're doing a perfectly good job on your own. 

[me]

A song that has been recorded, and put out for the public, does not automatically enter it into the public domain, and hence, up for anyone to take and use for whatever purposes suit them.  I know that, and you know that.

I don't have to try.  You're doing a perfectly good job on your own. 

As long as they aren't infringing on the copyright and it is being used legally, which it seems it was, there is nothing that states it can't be used by someone who has different political beliefs than the artist which is what this boils down to and you know it.

[Locutus]

As long as they aren't infringing on the copyright and it is being used legally, which it seems it was, there is nothing that states it can't be used by someone who has different political beliefs than the artist which is what this boils down to and you know it.

I agree with that, but that's not what you said originally.  This is what you said, and is what I took exception to.

Once it is put out there it is public.

[me]

I agree with that, but that's not what you said originally.  This is what you said, and is what I took exception to.

But you are taking it out of context because I went on to explain.

Wouldn't matter as long as it was being heard actually.  Once it is put out there it is public.  They evidently didn't infringe on the copyright since that doesn't seem to be an issue so to bitch makes them look petty and like cry babies.

Basically. It doesn't appear that any copyright laws were violated and Fox has stated they went through the proper channels to use it so the political reasonseems to be the only one which is not a valid one as far as I'm concerned.  They may not like it but too bad.

[Sandy Eggo]

So they're using it legally. Good for them, however, music is a business as well as an art. If the politicians are using the music in a way that bastardizes or distorts the intent of the music and/or artist, then they have a right to bitch. These artists have a demographic to protect as well. Perhaps they don't want to be associated with that politician and/or his beliefs? The artist should just stay quiet because the music was obtained legally?

I don't think so.

[Locutus]

But you are taking it out of context because I went on to explain.

Ok, you're off the hook on this one.  I agree as long as Fox paid the royalties to whomever they were owed, they're free and clear to use the music as they see fit.  That's why I pointed out on the very second post in this thread that Fox basically told them to shove it. 

[me]

So they're using it legally. Good for them, however, music is a business as well as an art. If the politicians are using the music in a way that bastardizes or distorts the intent of the music and/or artist, then they have a right to bitch. These artists have a demographic to protect as well. Perhaps they don't want to be associated with that politician and/or his beliefs? The artist should just stay quiet because the music was obtained legally?

I don't think so.

It's still petty and childish IMO.  If the artists are that touchy then maybe they should just quit putting songs out there or label their CD's "not to be used by or for anyone who has different political beliefs than artist."  Hey, problem solved.

[Sandy Eggo]

It's still petty and childish IMO.  If the artists are that touchy then maybe they should just quit putting songs out there or label their CD's "not to be used by or for anyone who has different political beliefs than artist."  Hey, problem solved.

You call it childish and I call it protecting their interests. Either way.... First amendment.