<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Copyrights Meet Politics: Joe Walsh (Rockstar) v. Joe Walsh (Republican)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:58:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/#comment-11553</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:11:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8736#comment-11553</guid>
		<description>An agenda?  For what?  I don&#039;t know either JW, I don&#039;t know you, and I don&#039;t live in Illinois.  Nor am I anything resembling a political junkie.  I came across your website because I did a google news search for Paterno and Joe Walsh to see if anything had happened since JW (the Republican) posted his response letter.  I did that because I found the Paterno letter to be a light-hearted, humorous letter in the otherwise drab world of legal writing.  If anything, my agenda is I prefer plain english to legalese when it comes to legal writing and that &quot;agenda&quot; led me to have a passing interest in this matter, which led me to your website.  Nobody is out to get you or whatever agenda you&#039;re pushing.  In fact, I have no idea what your agenda might be - this is the sole portion of your website that I&#039;ve seen.  I hope you take the following as the lighthearted humor it is meant to be - take off the tinfoil hat man!. ;-)

You say I am &quot;sure enough&quot; that you are misplaced.  Read again what I said.  I said &quot;If that is indeed the case, then Paterno is right and your reliance on Campbell... is entirely misplaced.&quot;  I&#039;m not sure of anything because, as I noted, I&#039;ve not heard the song.  You understand what the qualifier &quot;if that is indeed the case&quot; meant, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An agenda?  For what?  I don&#8217;t know either JW, I don&#8217;t know you, and I don&#8217;t live in Illinois.  Nor am I anything resembling a political junkie.  I came across your website because I did a google news search for Paterno and Joe Walsh to see if anything had happened since JW (the Republican) posted his response letter.  I did that because I found the Paterno letter to be a light-hearted, humorous letter in the otherwise drab world of legal writing.  If anything, my agenda is I prefer plain english to legalese when it comes to legal writing and that &#8220;agenda&#8221; led me to have a passing interest in this matter, which led me to your website.  Nobody is out to get you or whatever agenda you&#8217;re pushing.  In fact, I have no idea what your agenda might be &#8211; this is the sole portion of your website that I&#8217;ve seen.  I hope you take the following as the lighthearted humor it is meant to be &#8211; take off the tinfoil hat man!. <img src='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>You say I am &#8220;sure enough&#8221; that you are misplaced.  Read again what I said.  I said &#8220;If that is indeed the case, then Paterno is right and your reliance on Campbell&#8230; is entirely misplaced.&#8221;  I&#8217;m not sure of anything because, as I noted, I&#8217;ve not heard the song.  You understand what the qualifier &#8220;if that is indeed the case&#8221; meant, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene Quinn</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/#comment-11550</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:59:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8736#comment-11550</guid>
		<description>Jim-

We are going to have to agree to disagree.  2 Live Crew took the opening bass and repeated.  The law in this area clearly allows the taking of enough to conjure up the image of that which is being parodied.  I really don&#039;t understand your objection to what I said because it is clear as a result of Campbell that you can &quot;take music and change the lyrics...&quot;  That is exactly what 2 Live Crew did, and many other parodies.  

The fact that we cannot do an analysis because the song is not available doesn&#039;t suggest that this obnoxious cease and desist letter is accurate.  You seem to be using a clearly obnoxious, over bearing and grandiose letter that has a lot of statements that are over broad and not true as evidence that what Walsh (the Republican) did was inappropriate.  You simply cannot do that.  Cease and desist letters are a dime a dozen and are almost always written over broad with outright incorrect statements of law in them.  So giving any credence to a cease and desist letter is what is misplaced.

So while you have not heard the song you are sure enough that I am misplaced and Paterno&#039;s obnoxious letter is correct.  Seems to me like you have an agenda.

-Gene</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim-</p>
<p>We are going to have to agree to disagree.  2 Live Crew took the opening bass and repeated.  The law in this area clearly allows the taking of enough to conjure up the image of that which is being parodied.  I really don&#8217;t understand your objection to what I said because it is clear as a result of Campbell that you can &#8220;take music and change the lyrics&#8230;&#8221;  That is exactly what 2 Live Crew did, and many other parodies.  </p>
<p>The fact that we cannot do an analysis because the song is not available doesn&#8217;t suggest that this obnoxious cease and desist letter is accurate.  You seem to be using a clearly obnoxious, over bearing and grandiose letter that has a lot of statements that are over broad and not true as evidence that what Walsh (the Republican) did was inappropriate.  You simply cannot do that.  Cease and desist letters are a dime a dozen and are almost always written over broad with outright incorrect statements of law in them.  So giving any credence to a cease and desist letter is what is misplaced.</p>
<p>So while you have not heard the song you are sure enough that I am misplaced and Paterno&#8217;s obnoxious letter is correct.  Seems to me like you have an agenda.</p>
<p>-Gene</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/#comment-11548</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:32:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8736#comment-11548</guid>
		<description>You say &quot;Any law student who has taken a basic Copyright Law class would know that copyright fair use and parody protections do, in fact, allow artists to take music and change the lyrics to their own.&quot; citing Cambell in support.  But Campbell certainly doesn&#039;t say that.  In fact, the Campbell decision made a big point of the fact that 2 Live Crew essentially only used the opening lyrics and opening bass line from Roy&#039;s song.  The rest of their song departed markedly from Roy&#039;s song.  

Here, while you and I have not heard the song as used by JW (the Republican), attorney Paterno apparently has and it certainly the implication in his letter that JW (the Republican) used the entirety of the music to Walk Away in his song.  If that is indeed the case, then Paterno is right and your reliance on Cambell to show Paterno is wrong is entirely misplaced.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You say &#8220;Any law student who has taken a basic Copyright Law class would know that copyright fair use and parody protections do, in fact, allow artists to take music and change the lyrics to their own.&#8221; citing Cambell in support.  But Campbell certainly doesn&#8217;t say that.  In fact, the Campbell decision made a big point of the fact that 2 Live Crew essentially only used the opening lyrics and opening bass line from Roy&#8217;s song.  The rest of their song departed markedly from Roy&#8217;s song.  </p>
<p>Here, while you and I have not heard the song as used by JW (the Republican), attorney Paterno apparently has and it certainly the implication in his letter that JW (the Republican) used the entirety of the music to Walk Away in his song.  If that is indeed the case, then Paterno is right and your reliance on Cambell to show Paterno is wrong is entirely misplaced.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: broje</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/#comment-10940</link>
		<dc:creator>broje</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8736#comment-10940</guid>
		<description>Any word on how many bars of music they used?  I recall from copyright law class that 4 bars is the limit on fair use, even if it is used for parody, or education or whatever.  Also, did the person singing the new lyrics sound enough like Joe Walsh (the musician) for anyone to be confused that he was singing it, and if so, was there a notice that the vocals were a celebrity impersonation?   If not, depending on the laws of the state in question, there may be a right of personality claim.  This has not been legal advice.  I&#039;m just asking for more facts please.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any word on how many bars of music they used?  I recall from copyright law class that 4 bars is the limit on fair use, even if it is used for parody, or education or whatever.  Also, did the person singing the new lyrics sound enough like Joe Walsh (the musician) for anyone to be confused that he was singing it, and if so, was there a notice that the vocals were a celebrity impersonation?   If not, depending on the laws of the state in question, there may be a right of personality claim.  This has not been legal advice.  I&#8217;m just asking for more facts please.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/#comment-10916</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8736#comment-10916</guid>
		<description>
&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog: Copyright Politics: Joe Walsh (Rockstar) v. Joe Walsh (Republican). Rockstar lawyer says 1st Amendment for scoundrels. http://bit.ly/ackv7L...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog: Copyright Politics: Joe Walsh (Rockstar) v. Joe Walsh (Republican). Rockstar lawyer says 1st Amendment for scoundrels. <a href="http://bit.ly/ackv7L.." rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/ackv7L..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/#comment-10911</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8736#comment-10911</guid>
		<description>ABA link must&#039;ve been cut off...
http://www.abanet.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ABA link must&#8217;ve been cut off&#8230;<br />
<a href="http://www.abanet.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.abanet.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/#comment-10910</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:04:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8736#comment-10910</guid>
		<description>But Joe Walsh (republican) is clearly playing off of the image and music developed by Joe Walsh (ROCKER).  Wierd Al does the same thing, and works with the musicians, developing both an income for Wierd Al and credit for the original artist.  Here Joe Walsh (republican) wanted to use anothers work, he could have checked with Joe Walsh (ROCKER) first, saved himself a lot of time and headache.  Whether or not Joe Walsh (ROCKER) has a claim, wouldn&#039;t it have just been easier to get permission first, or at least see what the ROCKER&#039;s reaction would be first?

There is a fine line we walk with copyrights, where protection for the owner is contrasted with fair use.  Some cases clearly favor parody (no time for citations now), some clearly prevent other uses even if funny (no time for citations now), and some cases clearly fall in the gray area between protection and fair use (no time for citations).  This I would say is not clear cut because it implies the ROCKER supports the Republican, who is not just making a parody, but using the song to promote his political activities.   His use of a Joe Walsh song was also not random, but instead plays on the fame of the ROCKER.  

Here&#039;s an ABA summary of the issue (circa 2005) </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But Joe Walsh (republican) is clearly playing off of the image and music developed by Joe Walsh (ROCKER).  Wierd Al does the same thing, and works with the musicians, developing both an income for Wierd Al and credit for the original artist.  Here Joe Walsh (republican) wanted to use anothers work, he could have checked with Joe Walsh (ROCKER) first, saved himself a lot of time and headache.  Whether or not Joe Walsh (ROCKER) has a claim, wouldn&#8217;t it have just been easier to get permission first, or at least see what the ROCKER&#8217;s reaction would be first?</p>
<p>There is a fine line we walk with copyrights, where protection for the owner is contrasted with fair use.  Some cases clearly favor parody (no time for citations now), some clearly prevent other uses even if funny (no time for citations now), and some cases clearly fall in the gray area between protection and fair use (no time for citations).  This I would say is not clear cut because it implies the ROCKER supports the Republican, who is not just making a parody, but using the song to promote his political activities.   His use of a Joe Walsh song was also not random, but instead plays on the fame of the ROCKER.  </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an ABA summary of the issue (circa 2005)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene Quinn</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/#comment-10909</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:55:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8736#comment-10909</guid>
		<description>Mike-

I would agree with you regarding using music as a backdrop, but that wasn&#039;t what happened here.  Joe Walsh (the Republican) took a Joe Walsh (Rockstar) song and changed it around and put new lyrics to the song.  Whether that is legal or not, the letter from Rockstar&#039;s attorney gets the law wrong and makes bold statements that are without legal support.

I also agree that DC should make some good, sustainable decisions.  That would be change to believe in!

-Gene</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike-</p>
<p>I would agree with you regarding using music as a backdrop, but that wasn&#8217;t what happened here.  Joe Walsh (the Republican) took a Joe Walsh (Rockstar) song and changed it around and put new lyrics to the song.  Whether that is legal or not, the letter from Rockstar&#8217;s attorney gets the law wrong and makes bold statements that are without legal support.</p>
<p>I also agree that DC should make some good, sustainable decisions.  That would be change to believe in!</p>
<p>-Gene</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/#comment-10907</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8736#comment-10907</guid>
		<description>What about TED NUGENT?  He has his own right-of-right philosophies and is frequently used by a variety of right wing politicians.  

You&#039;d think that if a politician for a public office were going to use a song as backdrop for a campaign they would simply ask permission to use the song prior to use.  This &#039;mistake&#039; should not be occuring in today&#039;s copyright saavy society.  It is simply a ploy by politicians to either at least use the artists work for free or at worst create a &#039;buzz&#039; around their campaign. 

What ever happened to the middle ground? We&#039;ve had 12 yrs of this my-side/your-side antics and nothing has gotten done.  Politicians get a life-long paycheck and insurance for just 1 term in office.  They have no incentive to improve the system and continue to dicker about playground games while we pay their salaries to get absolutely NOTHING done.  It&#039;s easy to analyze problems/solutions and make informed decisions about costs, benefit, and outcome.  Tell Washington to quit complaining, get up and make some good sustainable decisions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about TED NUGENT?  He has his own right-of-right philosophies and is frequently used by a variety of right wing politicians.  </p>
<p>You&#8217;d think that if a politician for a public office were going to use a song as backdrop for a campaign they would simply ask permission to use the song prior to use.  This &#8216;mistake&#8217; should not be occuring in today&#8217;s copyright saavy society.  It is simply a ploy by politicians to either at least use the artists work for free or at worst create a &#8216;buzz&#8217; around their campaign. </p>
<p>What ever happened to the middle ground? We&#8217;ve had 12 yrs of this my-side/your-side antics and nothing has gotten done.  Politicians get a life-long paycheck and insurance for just 1 term in office.  They have no incentive to improve the system and continue to dicker about playground games while we pay their salaries to get absolutely NOTHING done.  It&#8217;s easy to analyze problems/solutions and make informed decisions about costs, benefit, and outcome.  Tell Washington to quit complaining, get up and make some good sustainable decisions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pop</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/#comment-10894</link>
		<dc:creator>pop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 02:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8736#comment-10894</guid>
		<description>I agree with you completely. Copyright isn&#039;t as mysterious and controversial as patents are. I took the time to read the copyright law once and I seem to know better than this lawyer. It&#039;s almost like this guy has never even heard of fair use. Look at the daily show, fair use is the only thing keeping that show running. 

&quot;Now, I know why you used Joe’s music — it’s undoubtedly because it’s a lot better than any music you or your staff could have written. &quot; 

There isn&#039;t any reason to throw insults around in a cease and desist order! What an asshole.

On a side note, I actually really like Joe Walsh (Rockstar). Not only do I love the Eagles, but he is also from Wichita, KS, which is right near where I grew up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you completely. Copyright isn&#8217;t as mysterious and controversial as patents are. I took the time to read the copyright law once and I seem to know better than this lawyer. It&#8217;s almost like this guy has never even heard of fair use. Look at the daily show, fair use is the only thing keeping that show running. </p>
<p>&#8220;Now, I know why you used Joe’s music — it’s undoubtedly because it’s a lot better than any music you or your staff could have written. &#8221; </p>
<p>There isn&#8217;t any reason to throw insults around in a cease and desist order! What an asshole.</p>
<p>On a side note, I actually really like Joe Walsh (Rockstar). Not only do I love the Eagles, but he is also from Wichita, KS, which is right near where I grew up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

