Username: Password: lost p/w?
home | help | subscribe | search | register
Sign of Apocolypse? Rush, a copyfighter?
Posted by OtherMike (Shmoo) in on June 19, 2005 at 8:34 AM



Rush Limbaugh, copyfighter
Farhad sez, "Rush Limbaugh is really upset that his podcasts can't include his song parodies. I didn't even know that he had podcasts. He sounds like an EFF attorney!"
"But I just want to tell you we're continually working on it, which at this point simply means monitoring developments in this whole copyright and piracy law. I know the Millennium Copyright Act is what this is all about, and until that's changed, none of this is going to change. In fact I just saw a story in my RSS reader today that Sony is coming out with a new system to copy-protect their CDs. There's software on their CDs that will allow a maximum of three dubs, three copies, and then it shuts down. So if somebody goes and buy a CD, they can copy it three times, but that's it and it's not on all their CDs. It's a new technology that they are embedding in the CDs, and of course the DVD industry has gotten even much tougher than the music industry has, but it's a huge deal and we have looked at it in every which way and that's what we have been told by the legal eagles. Whatever anybody else is doing out there is of no consequence to us. Based on what we have learned anybody else doing this is doing so at risk, and that's as much as I will say about it."



User Comments

Intermediateautodidact
Date: June 19, 2005 @ 9:29 AM
Well, Rush is selling his podcast, so that certainly puts it in a different category than those who are giving it away. Morally, if not legally. Rush doesn't argue that music rights deserve to be compensated. He is only saying that the price they are asking is out of line.
RockgdZiemann
Date: June 19, 2005 @ 12:18 PM
I think it's safe to say that whatever Rush Limburger is doing out there is of no consequence to us.
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: June 19, 2005 @ 1:33 PM
Thank you, George. I have to take a shower now. The stench is overpowering...
DMembergodless-heathen
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 4:55 AM
"I think it's safe to say that whatever Rush Limburger is doing out there is of no consequence to us."

I'd agree, but I'm always interested in any possible myocardial infarctions that might pass his way. And I'm still waiting for him to be caught in a sleezy motel with an underage boy. Other than that, yeah, I could give a crap what happens to Rush.
DMemberstevebugge
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 10:49 AM
I'll give you a reason you should care what Rush says and does:

25 Million Listeners, most of whom vote. If Linbaugh says on his show that the DMCA needs some tweaks you better believe someone will try to make it happen.
Intermediateautodidact
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 11:16 AM
In radio, Rush is the elephant in the room, metaphorically speaking (he is not so rotund as he once was). To dismiss Rush is to live in fantasy-land. He was instrumental in making conservatism a dominant force in this country. I am disappointed that these days he is more interested in defending Republicans and "Republicanism" than promoting conservatism. But to say he has no bearing on what we are trying to do is naive. When Rush talks, people listen. Over 20 million people, to be precise. How many people listen to Al Franken in the course of a week?

Another conservative-leaning pundit on our side is Matt Drudge. I heard him on the radio, guest hosting for another talk show host a few weeks ago, and he had disdain for the way the entertainment industry was trying to lock down the internet and suing people for listening to music.

In other words, show some respect. They say Republicans are mean-spirited? I certainly did not rejoice when Clinton had a heart problem, even though I disdain his administration, his policies, his rhetoric and his personal life. It is not righteous to rejoice when your enemy falls. I wish no ill toward you godless-heathen. Save your hatred for real monsters, like Saddam Hussein and his mutant offspring. Or that nutjob in North Korea, who is starving his entire country to death.
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 11:35 AM
Monsters come in all shapes and sizes. People who hear but don't listen, people who read but don't think are the monsters under MY bed. Hussein and his kind are right out there for everybody to see. It's the ones who aren't so obvious who scare me -- whether they are Republican, Democrat, Christian, Muslim, or atheist. If they manipulate facts and people (like Rush) they are monsters to me.
Advancedmroop
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 12:44 PM
"I am disappointed that these days he is more interested in defending Republicans and "Republicanism" than promoting conservatism."

You ain't kidding. He's lying blowhard mouthpiece for the Republicans. And just to spread the love around, that psycho hose beast Randi Rhodes is the same thing for the Democrats.

Although I am left leaning, I enjoy Michael Savage. He's a very entertaining radio man. I also like Janine and Sam on Air America. Laura Flanders on Air America is a step above all of these though, a very intelligent woman with an intelligent broadcast. No shouting and screaming and hyperbole though. : )
Advancedmroop
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 12:46 PM
"Another conservative-leaning pundit on our side is Matt Drudge."

I was listening to that closeted fag last night talk about the Grokster case for a little bit. Either he doesn't understand the case or he is another lying jerk.
RockgdZiemann
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 1:59 PM
"To dismiss Rush is to live in fantasy-land. He was instrumental in making conservatism a dominant force in this country."

Really? I thought it had something to do with all the tight-ass Bible-belt Democrats from the 50s who became Republicans to protest recognizing the civil rights of blacks.

Is Rush responsible for slavery, too?

"It is not righteous to rejoice when your enemy falls."

Which is why we always have a victory parade when the war is over. I think we still celebrate VE Day.

Did Rush fall down? I thought he just couldn't resell music he lifted from CDs for his podcast.

Is it okay to laugh when Chevy Chase or Buster Keaton falls down?
IntermediateINeedAlover
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 2:20 PM
"Rush Limbaugh is really upset that his podcasts can't include his song parodies. "

Gee, isn't that an easy one? Aren't paradies covered by fair use?? You mean, because the CD's have DRM, he can't make his paradies??? Is this yet another reason that DRM might be considered unconstitutional?
Advancedmroop
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 3:58 PM
"Aren't paradies covered by fair use??"

You can't use actual copyrighted materials in your parodies without permission. From what I've read, the Dickie Goodman novelty "break in" singles that were so popular cannot be reissued with the original samples because of copyright issues. He's the guy who did "Mr. Jaws".

We are here on the beach where a giant shark has just eaten a girl swimmer
Well Mr. Jaws, how was it?
"Dynomite"
And what did she say when you grabbed her?
"Please Mr. Please"
I know sharks are stupid, but what did you think when you took that first bite?
"How sweet it is"
Mr. Jaws, before you swim out to sea, have you anything else to say?
"Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends?"

: )
Intermediateautodidact
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 7:06 PM
"Really? I thought it had something to do with all the tight-ass Bible-belt Democrats from the 50s who became Republicans to protest recognizing the civil rights of blacks."

I really HOPE you're joking. Otherwise, that's a major insult to millions. It was a Republican who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The defection from Donkey to Elephant in the south simply is for other reasons -- not racism. Why would southern racists embrace the GOP, which helped pass the Civil Rights Act over the objections of Southern Democrats?

By the way, I am not a registered Republican, though I usually vote for them out of desperation.

"'It is not righteous to rejoice when your enemy falls.'

"Which is why we always have a victory parade when the war is over. I think we still celebrate VE Day."

There is a difference between being glad that a war is over, and that you won, and being happy that someone else is suffering, or hoping that some calamity befalls them. Someone said essentially they wished Rush would have a heart attack. Liberals are so loving and peaceful. And tolerant.
Intermediateautodidact
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 7:10 PM
mroop, I like Savage too, when he isn't shouting. I don't think we get Air America 'round here, so I'll have to take your word on Ms. Flanders.
RockgdZiemann
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 9:54 PM
"I really HOPE you're joking. Otherwise, that's a major insult to millions. It was a Republican who issued the Emancipation Proclamation."

I was talking about the 1950s, not the 1850s.

"The defection from Donkey to Elephant in the south simply is for other reasons -- not racism. Why would southern racists embrace the GOP, which helped pass the Civil Rights Act over the objections of Southern Democrats?"

Apparently you're reading a history book from some other country.

"The assassination of John Kennedy in November 1963 left most civil rights leaders grief-stricken. Kennedy had been the first president since Harry Truman to champion equal rights for black Americans, and they knew little about his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Although Johnson had helped engineer the Civil Rights Act of 1957, that had been a mild measure, and no one knew if the Texan would continue Kennedy's call for civil rights or move to placate his fellow southerners.

But on November 27, 1963, addressing the Congress and the nation for the first time as president, Johnson called for passage of the civil rights bill as a monument to the fallen Kennedy. "Let us continue," he declared, promising that "the ideas and the ideals which [Kennedy] so nobly represented must and will be translated into effective action." Moreover, where Kennedy had been sound on principle, Lyndon Johnson was the master of parliamentary procedure, and he used his considerable talents as well as the prestige of the presidency in support of the bill.

On February 10, 1964, the House of Representatives passed the measure by a lopsided 290-130 vote, but everyone knew that the real battle would be in the Senate, whose rules had allowed southerners in the past to mount filibusters that had effectively killed nearly all civil rights legislation. But Johnson pulled every string he knew, and had the civil rights leaders mount a massive lobbying campaign, including inundating the Capitol with religious leaders of all faiths and colors. The strategy paid off, and in June the Senate voted to close debate; a few weeks later, it passed the most important piece of civil rights legislation in the nation's history, and on July 2, 1964, President Johnson signed it into law."

Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats.

Source for above
RockgdZiemann
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 10:14 PM
Then there's this piece from CBS.

The first Republican elected to the Senate from the South was Texas' John Tower in 1961. For a hundred years following the Civil War (a.k.a. the War between the States), Southerners loathed the Republican Party, symbolized first by Abraham Lincoln and then by Herbert Hoover.

Prior to 1960, the national Democratic Party made an implicit pact with Southerners that they wouldn't tamper with segregation if southerners supported key economic legislation. But, by the '60s, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could no longer turn a blind eye to Southern racism and the Democratic domination of the South began to crumble.

One of the great quotes in the book comes from LBJ, a protégé of Georgia Democratic Sen. Richard Russell, who went along with segregationist policies in the early part of his career. But by 1964, Johnson concluded that it was time to pass a civil rights bill. "Dick, I love you. But I'm going to run over you if you challenge me or get in my way. I am going to pass the civil rights bill, only this time, Dick, there will be no compromise, no falling back. This bill is going to pass." And after a three-month filibuster and with the vote of only one Southern Democrat (liberal Texan Ralph Yarborough), it did. By 1982 the change in the Southern Democratic senatorial delegation was so huge that all 11 members – including old timers, Russell Long of Louisiana and John Stennis of Mississippi – voted for the extension of the Voting Rights Act.

According to the Blacks, the first shift by Southerners from hating the party of Lincoln and Hoover to loving the party of Goldwater started in the '60s. In 1968 and 1972 Richard Nixon and his team had a finely crafted Southern strategy, but Watergate thwarted the spread of the movement.

"The Great White Switch" didn't happen until the presidency of Ronald Reagan when massive numbers of white Southerners felt comfortable calling themselves Republicans "His optimistic conservatism and successful performance in office made the Republican Party respectable and useful for millions of Southern whites." A combination of positions on civil rights and demographic changes that brought a number of anti-government, anti-tax suburban voters into the South formed the basis of Republican Party's appeal.
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: June 20, 2005 @ 11:12 PM
You know, George, that explains something to me that made no real sense in the Florida elections. The northern part of the state (this is not a joke) is called South Georgia or Georgia South down here in my blue corner. The reason is the majority of voters in a lot of the really small counties up there are registered Democrats. But in 2000 and 2004 they supposedly voted for Bush. The official story was that they were simply following in their families' footsteps--they had always been registered Democrats, but regularly voted Republican. The "Great White Switch" explains why. One of life's great mysteries solved. But it kills one of my pet conspiracy theories, too. (Don't worry, I have many many more!)
RockgdZiemann
Date: June 21, 2005 @ 12:20 AM
Sorry about your pet.

The real point is that Limbaugh hasn't been "instrumental in making conservatism a dominant force in this country." He's not even in the story.
RockgdZiemann
Date: June 21, 2005 @ 12:25 AM
"You can't use actual copyrighted materials in your parodies without permission."

Are you sure about that mroop? Or do you just have to pay the compulsory royalty to the author of words/music?

Weird Al has done some stuff that the original people didn't approve of. But he didn't use their recordings. He made his own.
IntermediateINeedAlover
Date: June 21, 2005 @ 8:56 AM
You don't NEED someone's permission to cover a song. You just have to pay the royalties according to the law for doing so. People usually seek permission as a courtesy, likely with the idea that they can avoid paying for those additional royalties.
AdvancedLachatte
Date: June 21, 2005 @ 9:06 AM
Thanks for posting this article, Shmoo.
I enjoyed reading all of the posts. And special thanks for the history lesson, George.
RockgdZiemann
Date: June 21, 2005 @ 2:21 PM
There's actually a little more. I didn't even talk about how MCA's predators used Reagan as a pawn and why Reagan became a Republican, which is all the same story.
Advancedmroop
Date: June 21, 2005 @ 3:51 PM
"Are you sure about that mroop? Or do you just have to pay the compulsory royalty to the author of words/music?

Weird Al has done some stuff that the original people didn't approve of. But he didn't use their recordings. He made his own."

It's the same as using an actual sample for any product that you want to sell. I read that is the problem with Dickie Goodman. Also WKRP DVD's - they changed the music for the DVD's because of licensing problems. That's a problem with a lot of TV shows now being released on DVD's that used copyrighted music. The releases did not anticipate DVD releases so now they are having to go out and try and license the music again. Sometimes they just replace the original music.

Agreed on Weird Al - he doesn't sample the original recordings.
Advancedmroop
Date: June 21, 2005 @ 3:57 PM
Mr. Jaws streaming here. I haven't heard this since back in the day. What a goof!

http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/20020614.atc.goodman.29.ram
DMembergodless-heathen
Date: June 22, 2005 @ 8:05 AM
The idea that I should stand behind Rush because he's standing for this issue ignores the fact that my life does not revolve around this one issue. There are many miriad other areas where the idiotic rhetoric he's been spewing has done irrepairable damage to my liberties. I don't hold hands with someone just because they've stopped stabbing me in the back for one day. While I conscider myself fairly liberal, I hold that line with anyone who seeks to do me more harm than good. I have no particular feeling of loyalties to any party or singular entity, so don't make the assumption that simply because I hate someone on the Right I'm cuddled up with their "opposite number" on the Left.

Either you're for me and all I stand for, or you're against me, and I'm not going to stand for you, basically.

And as for being chastised for wishing Rush ill: I'm just returning the sentiment he's been throwing my way. Maybe if he tried being a little pro-woman I'd try being a little less anti-him.
IntermediateRaidHHI
Date: June 22, 2005 @ 10:44 AM
mroop,

"Agreed on Weird Al - he doesn't sample the original recordings."

Hmm. I used to have many of his recordings on cassette. :) (Smile) I believe his songs sounded the same as the one he was making fun of, with the lyrics changed and various sound effects added. But the general sound of the song was the same. For example, his rendition of Madonna's Like a virgin; Like a surgeon, the lyrics are different, it has additional sound effects (heart monitor, resperator, etc) but the sound itself is still there as it was in the original.

Some of his music is completely made up, but the rest of it is copying the beats, sound itself of the song it's paroding.
You must be logged in to post replies to news articles.
Log in or register with the form at the top of the page.

 

 

 

search

news tree


advertising



 

 
© DMusic LLC - Advertising | Employment | TOS | Subscribe