He pleads ignorance and is found GUILTY! [McCain]

[Lonestar]

McCain claims he was a puppet for the RNC

Infringement Case Against McCain Advances
By David Kravets February 23, 2009 | 5:41:28 PMCategories: Intellectual Property

John McCain says he was a puppet for the Republican National Committee and therefore should not be held accountable for a presidential campaign commercial that used the popular song "Running on Empty" by Jackson Browne without permission.

But the Los Angeles federal judge presiding over the copyright-infringement case was not buying it. The judge refused late Friday to remove the Arizona senator from the lawsuit in which he and the Republican National Committee are accused of violating the rights to Browne's 1977 hit.

Here's what McCain told the judge (.pdf) handling the case:

I was not involved at all in any way in the writing, creation, production, distribution or dissemination of the video, nor do I have any knowledge whatsoever of how this video was written, created, produced or disseminated or who was involved in any aspect of the writing, creation, production, distribution or dissemination of the video. I was completely unaware that this video even existed until I was informed of it after this lawsuit was filed.

Despite McCain's claims of being a hapless dupe for his party, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner said (.pdf) the RNC and McCain were so intertwined — what the judge called an "agency relationship" — that McCain stays in the case. The judge wrote that, even if McCain's statement were true, "once an agency relationship is established, the principal is liable for the acts of her agent, even if the principal does not expressly authorize or instruct her agent to take any action."

The judge also did not agree with the Republicans and McCain that Browne's lawsuit was bogus. Among other things, the judge kept the lawsuit alive to give the defendants a chance to demonstrate how using about 20 seconds of the song in the commercial was a fair use.

The August commercial was broadcast on YouTube and cable television. It played Browne's music in a McCain commercial criticizing Barack Obama's energy policy. The song was purchased on iTunes.

Browne claims that the commercial falsely suggested he endorsed McCain and the Republican Party. "Nothing could be further from the truth," Browne said.

The judge scheduled an April 20 hearing to determine how to proceed with Browne's lawsuit. The ad initially ran in Ohio, but the Ohio Republican Party was removed from the case.

"I'm John McCain, and I approve this message."

[CDiehl]

McCain really does look like a tool for trying to fob off responsibility for that ad on the RNC. It's incredibly hard to believe that a professional politician doesn't have any input on the ads run in his name by his own party. Either he's lying or he walked through his presidential campaign with his eyes shut.

As for Jackson Browne, I really can't imagine a reasonable person can think his song's presence in a McCain ad indicates his approval of McCain. Does anyone assume a popular song's use in a commercial of any other kind indicates that its performer or author approves of the product being advertised? No, it just indicates that someone paid money to use it, and that's what McCain should have done.

[General Zod]

I was not involved at all in any way in the writing, creation, production, distribution or dissemination of the video, nor do I have any knowledge whatsoever of how this video was written, created, produced or disseminated or who was involved in any aspect of the writing, creation, production, distribution or dissemination of the video. I was completely unaware that this video even existed until I was informed of it after this lawsuit was filed.

Oh really? So how come he tried claiming fair use at first? I hope the judge bitchslaps him for this.

[Edi]

Moved to N&P from Testing. The dangers of posting threads like this there is that they may be snatched away for serious discussion.

[Kanastrous]

As for Jackson Browne, I really can't imagine a reasonable person can think his song's presence in a McCain ad indicates his approval of McCain. Does anyone assume a popular song's use in a commercial of any other kind indicates that its performer or author approves of the product being advertised? No, it just indicates that someone paid money to use it, and that's what McCain should have done.

I'm not sure whether Brown would personally have had the right or opportunity to say "no" if the McCain campaign had pursued proper authorization to use the song but if that opportunity would have existed, then can I see why Brown might complain.

I hope the judge bitchslaps him for this.

Why? Because he made use of someone else's valuable intellectual property, without the rights-owners' permission? Or for other reasons?

[Coyote]

The very idea that "Running on Empty" was used to promote McCain seems ironically hilarious.

I hope he gets hammered for this, big time. They've been told to stop using a lot of songs during the campaign, I seem to recall, but mostly it was stuff used briefly at rallies, played on the speakers as out-loud performances rather than commercials.

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps McCain's illicit use of the music prompted other people hearing it to buy legitimate copies of the song, thereby adding royalties to the rights-holder's coffers. Really, they ought to be thanking McCain for having aired a song which was probably lagging in sales, anyway. He gave them free publicity and look at how they're rewarding him.

[General Zod]

Why? Because he made use of someone else's valuable intellectual property, without the rights-owners' permission? Or for other reasons?

Don't be such a cunt. I'm referring to McCain's rather obvious lying about knowing nothing about it. Even if he honestly knew nothing about it that has a whole host of other problems associated with it.

[Kanastrous]

Why? Because he made use of someone else's valuable intellectual property, without the rights-owners' permission? Or for other reasons?

Don't be such a cunt. I'm referring to McCain's rather obvious lying about knowing nothing about it. Even if he honestly knew nothing about it that has a whole host of other problems associated with it.

Evidence that he's 'obviously lying?'

Anyway, he must be 'obviously lying' about something of substance, in order for it to be worthy of discussion, so what exactly is the substance about which he is lying? Illicit use of a song, right?

[General Zod]

Evidence that he's 'obviously lying?'

The idea that McCain could be genuinely ignorant of not having the owner's permission to use it at his rally is ludicrous given how much he'd have to personally approve. If he was truly ignorant then it just emphasizes McCain's piss poor organizational skills even more.

Anyway, he must be 'obviously lying' about something of substance, in order for it to be worthy of discussion, so what exactly is the substance about which he is lying? Illicit use of a song, right?

If you'd bothered actually reading the article you'd realize the issue isn't "just" illicitly using the song without permission, and you'd realize that private copying is vastly different than using something in a political or a for profit campaign where the artist could wind up appearing to endorse the candidate. Instead you wind up coming off like you have a petty axe to grind.

[Kanastrous]

If he was truly ignorant then it just emphasizes McCain's piss poor organizational skills even more.

Yup.



The article - which I did read - does not appear to indicate that Brown's perception of his song suggesting an endorsement is part of the judge's consideration regarding the violation of copyright.

Although a more detailed article would probably nail that down, one way or the other.

[Manus Celer Dei]

Perhaps McCain's illicit use of the music prompted other people hearing it to buy legitimate copies of the song, thereby adding royalties to the rights-holder's coffers. Really, they ought to be thanking McCain for having aired a song which was probably lagging in sales, anyway. He gave them free publicity and look at how they're rewarding him.

ahahah what the fuck is this? Are you honestly saying artists shouldn't complain if their work is used without their permission because someone might possibly buy a copy because of it?

Is the artist not allowed to have an opinion? What if he didn't want his music to be associated with the Republican party?

Your statement is honestly quite baffling to me, unless I'm very much misinterpreting it.

[General Zod]

If he was truly ignorant then it just emphasizes McCain's piss poor organizational skills even more.

Yup.

The article - which I did read - does not appear to indicate that Brown's perception of his song suggesting an endorsement is part of the judge's consideration regarding the violation of copyright.

Although a more detailed article would probably nail that down, one way or the other.

Obviously you didn't bother reading it that carefully.

Browne claims that the commercial falsely suggested he endorsed McCain and the Republican Party. "Nothing could be further from the truth," Browne said.

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps McCain's illicit use of the music prompted other people hearing it to buy legitimate copies of the song, thereby adding royalties to the rights-holder's coffers. Really, they ought to be thanking McCain for having aired a song which was probably lagging in sales, anyway. He gave them free publicity and look at how they're rewarding him.

Are you honestly saying artists shouldn't complain if their work is used without their permission because someone might possibly buy a copy because of it?

^ That argument is apparently very popular when it comes to people stealing media, in other conversations. Why not here?

[General Zod]

^ That argument is apparently very popular when it comes to people stealing media, in other conversations. Why not here?

Because nobody's arguing for it in this thread, and bringing it up makes you look like a jackass.

[Manus Celer Dei]

Perhaps McCain's illicit use of the music prompted other people hearing it to buy legitimate copies of the song, thereby adding royalties to the rights-holder's coffers. Really, they ought to be thanking McCain for having aired a song which was probably lagging in sales, anyway. He gave them free publicity and look at how they're rewarding him.

Are you honestly saying artists shouldn't complain if their work is used without their permission because someone might possibly buy a copy because of it?

^ That argument is apparently very popular when it comes to people stealing media, in other conversations. Why not here?

Because someone downloading a song/album to see whether it's good is a bit different from someone using a song in a political ad, and you must a bit of a tool if you don't see that difference.

Plus it's kind of a bizarre non sequiter since that has absolutely nothing to do with this.

[Keevan_Colton]

Kana, I can see where you're going trying to turn it on it's head into an issue similar to those of piracy just to see how folk react to those arguments trotted out against them, but the difference is that McCain et al were using it to attempt some sort of gain. Despite the nonsense that political ads should get a fair use exemption (they're fucking adverts in the US! Not even party political broadcasts, they're on a par with Burger King ads...) which got kicked to the curb initially, they're not simply listening to a copy of the music, they're actually attempting to use it to achieve an arguably commercial gain (since frankly politics in America when it comes to the circus that is political campaigning is actually more a commercial enterprise than a social one).

So, you'd do better with some other kind of argument. An artist has a right not to have someone else profit off their work without their permission, which is what McCain et al were attempting to do.

[Uraniun235]

Perhaps McCain's illicit use of the music prompted other people hearing it to buy legitimate copies of the song, thereby adding royalties to the rights-holder's coffers. Really, they ought to be thanking McCain for having aired a song which was probably lagging in sales, anyway. He gave them free publicity and look at how they're rewarding him.

Are you honestly saying artists shouldn't complain if their work is used without their permission because someone might possibly buy a copy because of it?

^ That argument is apparently very popular when it comes to people stealing media, in other conversations. Why not here?

In those instances, the unauthorized use is not intended to produce any profit or commercial gain, and is unlikely to color the property by implied association with a person or organization.

In the McCain campaign instance, however, the unauthorized use of music is not only used for the profit and commercial gain of the people running McCain's campaign (and, depending on how cynical you want to view politics, also of McCain himself and his friends), but may also have the effect of associating the property with the political views and actions of McCain and his campaign; this could have a distinctly negative impact on the value of the property.

[Kanastrous]

I don't know enough about the functioning of political campaigns to be sure, but I don't think they are legally regarded as for-profit or commercial enterprises, are they?

As far as "gain" goes, enjoyment of the stolen property is a form of "gain," too. Even if one were to accept that the McCain campaign's use of the song constituted gain on their part, that wouldn't alter the fact that some individual illicitly obtaining a copy of the music for personal enjoyment is gaining by having done so too, simply in a different way.

As for the artist's objection to his work being associated with politics he doesn't like, it's unclear from the OP as to whether or not that is actually part of the legality of the case the judge decides. A musician's annoyance with the use to which his music was put is not necessarily a legal matter for the judge to consider while reviewing what is brought as a copyright-infringement case. Anyway, if artists object to their work being illicitly distributed as part of a file-sharing network's operation, should that objection not count just as much as an artist objecting that their work has been illicitly placed in the context of a political message that they don't like?

[Lonestar]

^ That argument is apparently very popular when it comes to people stealing media, in other conversations. Why not here?

It's already been said, but the big difference here is that the McCain campaign was using it to gain a tangible benefit, the possible misrepresentation of the original artist's political beliefs notwithstanding.

So if I'm handing out someone else's music for free, it's a bit different then playing someone's music at a rally for myself.

[Kanastrous]

^ That argument is apparently very popular when it comes to people stealing media, in other conversations. Why not here?

It's already been said, but the big difference here is that the McCain campaign was using it to gain a tangible benefit, the possible misrepresentation of the original artist's political beliefs notwithstanding.

Just like someone who illicitly takes some music or a movie without paying for it, is gaining a tangible benefit: they now hold a copy of the media and have gained the enjoyment of owning and viewing it. The original creators' and owners' beliefs notwithstanding.

[Keevan_Colton]

Enjoyment is an intangiable benefit. Getting a job isnt.

[Kanastrous]

Enjoyment is an intangiable benefit. Getting a job isnt.

Seems that the illictly obtained file residing on a hard drive, CD, or other storage media qualifies as 'tangible,' even if the enjoyment of listening to it may not.

*edit* so I hit a dictionary site to see how well their definition corresponded to Keevan's and to my own, and found

tan·gi·ble (tnj-bl)
adj.
1.
a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
b. Possible to touch.
c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.
3. Law That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.

Definition 1.c seems to support the idea that, since ownership of the rights to control and distribute a property is legally treated as fact, the property at issue could be described as 'tangible.'

Definition 3 seems clearer: since the material at issue can be valued monetarily, it qualifies as 'tangible' in that sense.

Someone with actual education in the law can probably set me straight on this.

[Nephtys]

^ That argument is apparently very popular when it comes to people stealing media, in other conversations. Why not here?

It's already been said, but the big difference here is that the McCain campaign was using it to gain a tangible benefit, the possible misrepresentation of the original artist's political beliefs notwithstanding.

Just like someone who illicitly takes some music or a movie without paying for it, is gaining a tangible benefit: they now hold a copy of the media and have gained the enjoyment of owning and viewing it. The original creators' and owners' beliefs notwithstanding.

This is completely different, and you're a block-headed, self-righteous moron if you don't realize it. It's the difference between 'Hey, I got something I may or may not have bought' and 'Hey, I got something AND AM USING IT TO INCREASE MY MATERIAL WEALTH/POWER.'

I don't get a shred of tangible benefit from song X if it's not my thing.. Being used in an unauthorized manner in an advertisement is not at all the same thing.

Seems that the illictly obtained file residing on a hard drive, CD, or other storage media qualifies as 'tangible,' even if the enjoyment of listening to it may not.

Sheesh, you're dense. OH NO. DATA MAY EXIST. We should outlaw unauthorized reproduction of magnetic fields of similar patterns! Having a song on your hard drive is not at all the same thing as using it in an advertisement.

[General Zod]

As far as "gain" goes, enjoyment of the stolen property is a form of "gain," too. Even if one were to accept that the McCain campaign's use of the song constituted gain on their part, that wouldn't alter the fact that some individual illicitly obtaining a copy of the music for personal enjoyment is gaining by having done so too, simply in a different way.

As for the artist's objection to his work being associated with politics he doesn't like, it's unclear from the OP as to whether or not that is actually part of the legality of the case the judge decides. A musician's annoyance with the use to which his music was put is not necessarily a legal matter for the judge to consider while reviewing what is brought as a copyright-infringement case. Anyway, if artists object to their work being illicitly distributed as part of a file-sharing network's operation, should that objection not count just as much as an artist objecting that their work has been illicitly placed in the context of a political message that they don't like?

Implicating an artist supports a political cause that they don't really endorse is arguably more damaging to their career than a few hundred people downloading a copy of their work for free off the internet. You're splitting hairs because you're too much of an idiot to see the difference in appreciable harm.