APCs (Amusing Persecution Complexes) are a dime a dozen anymore. Any time you turn on the television, or go to any Right-Wing webpage, you'll hear them. Some of them are just the end results of narcissistic egos who believe the world should revolve around them. Others are paranoia-induced. All of them tend to be amusing, and invoke cries of "shut up and grow up" from those of us who read them.
So with that in mind, I wouldn't normally even bother, unless I was just trying to make them look silly (because they need the help). However, when I found this over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, I couldn't resist. This is just too much to pass up. I'm convinced this is genetic - these people must be missing a gene that lets them discern "irony" or something.
Do Musicians Block Republican Candidates From Using Their Songs?
FOX News is protesting that song-writers won't let Republican candidates pirate their songs. And as a result, because the singers an musicians won't let Republicans pirate their music, Republican candidates are so persecuted. Those damn librrrl musicians hate us Republicans. Hell, look at what the Dixie Chicks did to Bush! And now they won't let Republicans pirate their music for the campaign trail. Imagine that. The nerve of those songwriters, thinking that you should ask their permission before publicly reproducing any of their songs. You'd think those arrogant bastards thought they owned it or something.
It could also be the fact that, y'know, Romney asked first. Like you said, right there in the opening paragraph. But hey, don't let your own contradictions stand in the way of a perfectly good delusional persecution complex.
On average, artists tend to be more liberal. This comes from being more empathetic and intelligent, a haul mark individuals who are more in tune with themselves and their emotions and, as a result, other people. Note that this isn't always the case, but speaking in broad generalizations, this is largely the case. You learn to empathize with other people. That's the first step in becoming a liberal.
It's because we don't like flag, mind you. Wave it around like a mindless drone, scream at the top of your lungs how patriotic you are, and how you wish gays would be thrown in jail, and that Muslims should be deported and executed, and that Obama is a secret Kenyan-born Muslim, and that Blacks are responsible for their own poverty and that they're just lazy, that the Earth is 6-10,000 years old, and that God came down and personally poured the Holy Oil of the Blessed Constitution on George Washington's forehead to decree that women were wombs with feet. When you do stuff like that, it's no wonder liberals don't want to be seen anywhere near a flag.
You defiled it with your mere presence. Burn that boy. Get rid of it. It's contaminated with conservative stupid. It'll never be the same flag again.
It's not that we aren't patriotic - liberals are far more patriotic than anything you'll find out of the Right, because we criticize the country and don't blindly follow authority. Not that I'd even want to wear the label. Not after the mess that these fools made in it.
So with that in mind, I wouldn't normally even bother, unless I was just trying to make them look silly (because they need the help). However, when I found this over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, I couldn't resist. This is just too much to pass up. I'm convinced this is genetic - these people must be missing a gene that lets them discern "irony" or something.
Do Musicians Block Republican Candidates From Using Their Songs?
FOX News is protesting that song-writers won't let Republican candidates pirate their songs. And as a result, because the singers an musicians won't let Republicans pirate their music, Republican candidates are so persecuted. Those damn librrrl musicians hate us Republicans. Hell, look at what the Dixie Chicks did to Bush! And now they won't let Republicans pirate their music for the campaign trail. Imagine that. The nerve of those songwriters, thinking that you should ask their permission before publicly reproducing any of their songs. You'd think those arrogant bastards thought they owned it or something.
When GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s team was looking for a theme song for his campaign, Kid Rock’s hit “Born Free” hit a chord. But instead of doing what countless other politicians before him had done, simply take the song and start blasting it at events, Romney first asked Rock’s permission.
Attorney Larry Iser is taking credit for Romney’s ask first, use song later approach.
“I can proudly say it was primarily the two pieces of litigation that we handled on a national scale, Browne versus McCain, and David Byrne versus Charlie Christ, that have served to educate the political community and their ad agencies,” said Iser, a partner at the L.A. law firm Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump and Aldisert. “The fact that Mitt Romney asked for and actually got permission from Kid Rock is a giant leap forward for the rights of musicians and songwriters.”
Romney’s approach does seem to be the exception to the politicians’ rule. But could he have taken this tack because musicians often seem to lean anti-GOP?
On average, artists tend to be more liberal. This comes from being more empathetic and intelligent, a haul mark individuals who are more in tune with themselves and their emotions and, as a result, other people. Note that this isn't always the case, but speaking in broad generalizations, this is largely the case. You learn to empathize with other people. That's the first step in becoming a liberal.
“Musicians are part of the entertainment industry which is mostly anti-Republican. So lefty performers hate having conservatives use their music,” says Vice President of the Business & Media Institute and political commentator, Dan Gainor. “There's definitely a PR component to complaining about politicians using your music. If you have a hardcore lefty base of listeners and you bash Michele Bachmann, then you score points. Imagine if a liberal tried to use Toby Keith's ‘Courtesy Of The Red, White, And Blue.’ Keith and his fans would rightly be upset. But that never happens since liberals don't like images of the flag.”I can imagine what would happen if a liberal tried to use that horrible song. They'd get laughed off the face of this planet.
It's because we don't like flag, mind you. Wave it around like a mindless drone, scream at the top of your lungs how patriotic you are, and how you wish gays would be thrown in jail, and that Muslims should be deported and executed, and that Obama is a secret Kenyan-born Muslim, and that Blacks are responsible for their own poverty and that they're just lazy, that the Earth is 6-10,000 years old, and that God came down and personally poured the Holy Oil of the Blessed Constitution on George Washington's forehead to decree that women were wombs with feet. When you do stuff like that, it's no wonder liberals don't want to be seen anywhere near a flag.
You defiled it with your mere presence. Burn that boy. Get rid of it. It's contaminated with conservative stupid. It'll never be the same flag again.
It's not that we aren't patriotic - liberals are far more patriotic than anything you'll find out of the Right, because we criticize the country and don't blindly follow authority. Not that I'd even want to wear the label. Not after the mess that these fools made in it.
Iser disgarees.
“I would say certainly in recent years, there's been a greater unlicensed use of songs by Republican candidates,” Iser, said. “The point that the musician is making is not about the [political] party. The position they're taking is: This is what we do for a living, we are protected by copyright, and if you're running for election, you need to respect the law. It just is a coincidence really, simple as that.”
Iser stresses that when it comes to music and campaigns, artists and songwriters only want to protect their intellectual property rights and ensure that they aren’t involuntary endorsers of candidates and campaign messages.
“If you're Jackson Browne or you're David Byrne or if you're Kid Rock, you have the right, just like you and I have, to choose to endorse somebody or not,” he continued. “When the song is used without permission, you've taken away the choice that the songwriter has to say 'yes' or say 'no.' Another reason, which is more fundamental, is that when you take somebody's song and use it without permission, then the songwriter and the singer, the performer, they don't get paid. People often forget that writing songs and performing them and selling records and actually licensing music for use in advertising, that's how these guys make a living. That’s how they put food on the table.”This is a total non-issue and they know it. They're just looking for something - anything - to fuel their post-War on Christmas persecution withdrawal.
No comments:
Post a Comment