PDA

View Full Version : Joe Walsh (rock star) v. Joe Walsh (candidate)



MikeA
01-27-2010, 01:00 PM
I kept watching for something like this to happen. I keep getting Google notices concerning the politician Joe Walsh (not our Joe!)

I got this from

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/news/2013573,5_1_WA27_WALSH_S1-100127.article

sodascouts
01-27-2010, 02:32 PM
To: Joe Walsh
P.O. Box 56
830 W. Route 22
Lake Zurich, IL 60047
Info@walshforcongress.com

Re: "Walk Away:

Dear Mr. Walsh:

We represent Joe Walsh -- not you, but the musician who plays guitar with the Eagles. Joe wrote a song called "Walk Away." A lot of people know this song. That's why when they heard your campaign song, "Lead The Way," they noticed it was the same song as "Walk Away," but with peculiar lyrics.

As a candidate for Congress, you probably have a passing familiarity with many of the laws of this great country of ours. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on. We're writing because we think laws are important, and it might be beneficial to your potential future career as a congressman if you were more aware of them.

First, there's the United States Copyright Act. It says a lot of things, but one of the things it says is that you can't use someone else's song for your political campaign promotions unless you get permission from the owner of the copyright in the song. As far as we can tell, you didn't do that. Maybe you got so busy with the campaign that you just forgot. But that's no OK.

Second, under that same United State Copyright Act, you're not allowed to take someone's song and change the lyrics. This is not to say you're not allowed to write silly lyrics, you just have to write them to your own music. 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. But that's the point. Since Joe writes better songs than you do, the Copyright Act rewards him by letting him decide who gets to use the songs he writes.

You might also want to check out the trademark laws. They're there to protect the public from being confused as to the source of goods or services or as to whether someone endorses particular goods or services. Given that your name is Joe Walsh, I'd think you'd want to be extra careful about using Joe's music in case the public might think that Joe is endorsing your campaign or, God forbid, is you. Or maybe you intended that. But you shouldn't have.

I'm sure that when you take this letter to a lawyer with a passing knowledge of copyright and trademark law, he'll give you some good lawyer words to put in a letter back to us -- things like "First Amendment," fair use," "parody" and "so's your old man." Having dealt with situations like this in past, we know that the first refuge of political scoundrels is the First Amendment. Just know that this is an area in which I've practiced my entire career and I can promise you that none of those buzzwords (or the law that they represent) works for you here.

In fact, if you check with your own Republican National Committee (the "RNC"), they can confirm this for you. You may recall that, during his 2008 campaign, Senator John McCain used Jackson Browne's song "Running On Empty" without permission. A lawsuit ensued, following which Senator McCain, the Ohio Republican Party and the RNC apologized for misusing the song. They "pledge(d)" in future election campaigns to respect and uphold the rights of artists and to obtain permissions and/or licenses for coyprighted works where appropriate." It's appropriate here, so we'd appreciate it if you'd get on board with your party.

As a former Presidential candidate, Joe Walsh knows how tough it is to ge elected. But he always played by the rules. And so should you. Therefore, we must insist that you discontinue using in your campaign any material that infringes the copyright in "Walk Away" (or any of Joe's other songs).

We trust that you will promptly comply with this request so that we don't have to go all Jackson Browne on you. Further to that thought, please note that nothing conatined in this letter should be construed as a waiver of any rights, remedies or claims that Joe Walsh (again, the musician, not you) may have. Accordingly, all those rights, remedies and claims are expressly reserved.


Sincerely,

Peter T. Paterno
of King, Holmes, Paterno & Berliner, LLP


Ouch!! I'm sure Paterno fancies himself quite clever and funny with the above. I will admit that I did get a chuckle out of some of it. But since when has Joe Walsh "always played by the rules" regarding campaigning? If I recall correctly, he promised free gas for everyone if he were elected.... of course, that was a parody, so perhaps the rules don't apply.... Hmmm. ;)

Oh well. Undoubtedly the Joe Walshes (and their lawyers) will work something out.

(Mike - I too have found it tiresome to wade through all the articles on candidate Joe Walsh when looking for info on our guy).

Prettymaid
01-27-2010, 02:44 PM
I'm sure that when you take this letter to a lawyer with a passing knowledge of copyright and trademark law, he'll give you some good lawyer words to put in a letter back to us -- things like "First Amendment," fair use," "parody" and "so's your old man."

We trust that you will promptly comply with this request so that we don't have to go all Jackson Browne on you.



I found these two parts to be funny, but overall Paterno came off pretty condescending.

sodascouts
01-27-2010, 02:49 PM
As a former Presidential candidate, Joe Walsh knows how tough it is to get elected.

I thought this line was pretty funny!

But I agree with PM - overall Paterno laid it on too thick and came off sounding rather snotty.

sodascouts
01-27-2010, 04:09 PM
Found the video for it on YouTube. I have to say, it's pretty lame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rqy6Vx-yHo

It's like Henley v. DeVore (https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1919) all over again! BTW, wonder how that lawsuit is progressing? It's been a while since we've heard anything.

MikeA
01-27-2010, 04:20 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that IF Rocker Joe Walsh had been elected President, he WOULD have given free gas. It might have been in the form of complimentary Tex-Mex chili though.

sodascouts
01-28-2010, 01:11 PM
Mike - LOL!!!!

Anyway, here's the latest:

Candidate Walsh Won't Walk Away (http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/news/2016125,5_1_WA28_MOREJOE_S1-100128.article)

By JIM NEWTON jnewton@scn1.com

sodascouts
01-28-2010, 01:13 PM
Responding to Thacker's claims, King also said Paterno would not be asking Walsh whether he really cared about the music video.

WTH?? This seems to imply that Joe doesn't even know this is happening and he just gives his lawyers a free hand to do whatever they deem necessary in his name! Surely not! Surely he would not entrust his reputation to a bunch of entertainment lawyers without even bothering to keep track of what they are doing. Surely Joe understands that when his lawyer writes "I represent Joe Walsh" it is he, not his lawyers, who has to accept responsibility regardless of whether or not he has a clue about what those lawyers are doing.

It would explain a lot though...

Ive always been a dreamer
01-28-2010, 10:52 PM
Unfortunately, soda I think that could very likely be the case here. Entertainers, sports figures, and other wealthy people often hire these lawyers under a retainer agreement that includes general guidelines and pre-authorization for the attorney to act on certain legal issues. I'm not saying that is the case here, but it is certainly possible. Even though the letter did have some funny moments, overall, I thought it came across as very unprofessional. And, of course, the video that you posted has been taken down from YouTube.

sodascouts
01-29-2010, 02:17 AM
If that's the case, Dreamer, then I think Joe would be well-advised to keep himself a bit more informed. I know if it were me I'd want to be darn sure I specifically approved any aggressive action taken by someone in my name, especially the kind that gets splashed all over the news.

At any rate, here is Candidate Joe Walsh's response to Paterno (http://walshforcongress.com/2010/01/28/walsh-vs-walsh-ii-the-candidate-defends-the-tea-party-movement/):
January 28, 2010

Mr. Peter T. Paterno
(Attorney for Joe Walsh, the Rockstar)
Kings, Holmes, Paterno, & Berliner, LLP
Los Angeles, CA

Dear Mr. Paterno,

I hope all is well. I’m writing for myself, Joe Walsh, a Republican Candidate for Congress in Illinois 8th District. You know where that is, don’t you? It’s that wide-open part of the country you fly over on your way from Los Angeles to New York. I’m writing in response to your letter addressed to me, which was printed in the Waukegan News Sun yesterday, January 27. That’s the first we ever saw of your letter.

As a candidate for U.S. Congress, I do have a passing familiarity with many of our Country’s laws. But I have a strong familiarity with our Constitution and our freedoms. In fact, one of the main reasons I’m running is to get all of us to start paying more attention to that 220-some year old document. We’ve got folks in Washington who for too long have been passing legislation that has no basis in the Constitution and have for years been eroding our freedoms. I want to put a stop to that.

First off, I’ll be happy to add a disclaimer to the video that says Joe Walsh, the Rockstar, is not affiliated with and is in no way endorsing Joe Walsh, the candidate. Though I’d be happy to sit down with Joe one day soon to discuss his possible endorsement. I have to think he’d be somewhat intrigued.

Second, a good friend of mine, professional musician, and huge Joe Walsh (the rockstar) fan, Joe Cantafio performed this song and he had great fun in doing so. Joe is an amazing guy — he’s lead guitarist and singer for the 101st Rock Division, and they entertain our troops around the world. They performed in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2004. Joe is also the Executive Director of the National Veteran’s Museum and he promotes jobs, education, and health programs for our veterans. I’m sure Joe Walsh (the rockstar) would appreciate the work that Mr. Cantafio does and when this is all over, perhaps he’d consider a donation to the Veteran’s Museum.

Joe had great fun doing this parody song of the political process. With so much negativity in politics, he thought — and I agreed — that it would be a wonderful breather to do something fun and positive for a change. I find it really funny that you’d let “leftist” Hollywood-think affect your enjoyment of our parody. But, to be honest, and I mean no disrespect, I am not in this race to win the approval of a Hollywood entertainment attorney. I realize that you all have fun with us in “fly over” country and must be having a good chuckle over the fact that I’m a “tea party” candidate ( I won’t repeat the term most of your Hollywood friends use). Well, here in the 8th District of Illinois, we have a whole bunch of us tea party folks — we’re actually Republicans, Independents, and quite a few Democrats who are pretty upset with the way our government is growing and the way our freedoms are eroding. I have to believe that even Joe Walsh (the rockstar) would agree with that sentiment.

A few other points: first, I am a political candidate, not a rock star (though always dreamed of being one). I have always been a big Eagles fan. In fact, the Eagles are my son’s (currently 22 years old) favorite rock band — he fell in love with Hotel California when he was ten years old. I thought our song was perfectly fine music and I actually don’t think you’re even close to correct on the law. Copyright laws protect expression, they don’t protect ideas. The lyrics for the song were entirely ours, and that included everything that was said in the video, not just sung.

We are not making any money off of the video, are not taking any money away from Joe Walsh (the rockstar), the lyrics are distinct, and another band recorded this video. Anyone can do a “cover” of the song. By the way, if you were actually considering a lawsuit, you probably want to be suing Joe Cantafio separately and equally, but be careful on that one, Joe is more outspoken than I am.

This video is a parody, protected by the Supreme Court.

Your reference to the Jackson Browne/John McCain dust-up up is silly. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) was a US Supreme Court case that clearly established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. What you obviously missed in the Jackson Browne case is that Sen John McCain was using the actual recording of Jackson Browne unedited as a campaign song. Here, we are using the Karaoke version of a song, with our own lyrics, that even viewed in the most favorable light by your side is clearly parody, and hence, protected.

Peter, I have to say that I’m surprised you and Joe Walsh (the rockstar) even made an issue of this. I encourage you and everyone else who is learning about this in the media (because, again, that’s where we first learned of it!) should go watch the video and determine for yourself what it’s all about. I must admit, I’m beginning to think that because I’ve been out there for a few months as a “tea party conservative” candidate, all you liberals out in Hollywood are using this to attack someone whose beliefs you don’t understand and always disrespect (can you say Sarah Palin?). I hope the Democratic National Committee and Nancy Pelosi didn’t put you up to this. As the frontrunner to take on Nancy’s Democrat Incumbent Melissa Bean this year, I wonder if I’m a threat to a whole bunch of liberal interests here who want to take down a tea party candidate. With what happened in Massachusetts last week with Scott Brown’s big upset, the tide is turning.

Peter, this tea party movement is made up of great patriotic folks who really do believe we’re losing what makes this country great and we’re robbing our kids and our grandkids of their futures if we don’t stop and reverse this immoral government spending path we’re on. The movement is growing, and it’s not at all the fringe element your friends in the media portray it to be. It’s going to have a real impact on our elections this year — which is a good thing. I don’t mean any disrespect, but I do trust the folks of Illinois 8th District much more than I trust an attorney from Hollywood.

Lastly, please convey the following message directly from me, Joe Walsh (the candidate) to Joe Walsh (the rockstar). This is all about freedom. Joe Walsh (the rockstar) has been a big proponent of freedom his whole life. I hope you’re not going to sue my parents for giving me the name they did. This is the United States of America, where we’re free to express ourselves however we want — especially when it comes to politics. Political satire and parody are staples of our culture. I intend to go to Washington to ensure that all Americans enjoy these freedoms that both Joe Walshes have enjoyed all of our lives. I’ve always been a fan of Joe’s (the rockstar) and would actually enjoy sitting down with him sometime soon over a beer and hashing this thing out.

Assuming he still believes in freedom, I’m hoping he’d be open to something like that. But if I have to fight and take a stand here, I will. I’m not going to just sit back and be attacked for my “tea party conservative” political beliefs. I share those beliefs with too many folks around here so that’s an attack on a whole bunch of us.


Sincerely,
Joe Walsh
(the Candidate)

MikeA
01-29-2010, 08:49 AM
I've got a pretty strong feeling that Paterno will retract that threat of lawsuit in this particular case. Seriously doubt that our "Joe" had much to do with the decision to pursue it.

This ties back to discussions we've had in another thread on Copyright. There were some things in that letter that Candidate "Walsh" wrote that I don't think he's right about:

"We are not making any money off of the video, are not taking any money away from Joe Walsh (the rockstar), the lyrics are distinct, and another band recorded this video. Anyone can do a “cover” of the song. By the way, if you were actually considering a lawsuit, you probably want to be suing Joe Cantafio separately and equally, but be careful on that one, Joe is more outspoken than I am."

Technically, that is not correct as pointed out by BerniesBender. The "covers" done by "anyone" are generally done in Bars or Night Clubs and the owners have paid for the right to allow bands to cover songs legally.

I guess here the question is whether use of the instrumental part that is Joe Walsh's property is legal when the lyrics in use are unique. I seem to recall a lawsuit in which a drum track from an artist was looped by a Rapper. There was one little change in the loop...a tiny 1/32 or something beat that the Rapper claimed made the loop HIS and thereby legal to use without paying royalties. I don't remember how that lawsuit was settled.

TimothyBFan
01-29-2010, 09:37 AM
I'd like to think that Joe (the rockstar) would think this all kind of trivial and would probably get a kick out of Joe (the candidate) using the song in this way. I also have to wonder if Joe (the rockstar) is aware that the lawyer is doing this. I agree that the letter seemed a bit unprofessional for a lawyer. I know he was trying to be funny but a lawsuit is really not something to be comical about.

sodascouts
01-29-2010, 10:14 AM
"We are not making any money off of the video, are not taking any money away from Joe Walsh (the rockstar), the lyrics are distinct, and another band recorded this video. Anyone can do a “cover” of the song. By the way, if you were actually considering a lawsuit, you probably want to be suing Joe Cantafio separately and equally, but be careful on that one, Joe is more outspoken than I am."

Technically, that is not correct as pointed out by BerniesBender. The "covers" done by "anyone" are generally done in Bars or Night Clubs and the owners have paid for the right to allow bands to cover songs legally.

I guess here the question is whether use of the instrumental part that is Joe Walsh's property is legal when the lyrics in use are unique. I seem to recall a lawsuit in which a drum track from an artist was looped by a Rapper. There was one little change in the loop...a tiny 1/32 or something beat that the Rapper claimed made the loop HIS and thereby legal to use without paying royalties. I don't remember how that lawsuit was settled.

But in this case, the music used in the video WAS licensed for covers - it was a karaoke track, not the original. The makers of the karaoke track had compensated the songwriters for its inclusion on their disc, just as night club owners do in order to allow covers in their bars.

This is related to the compulsory license law we spoke about in another thread a while back, where songwriters cannot prevent the licensing of their songs by those wishing to cover them as long as they are compensated according to the standard rate determined by law. The entire business of karaoke is built upon this law.

That doesn't mean someone can do whatever they want with a karaoke track and it's fair use. For instance, you couldn't take a karaoke track, record yourself over it, and sell it. The commercial/profit aspect IS relevant for Joe Walsh (Candidate) to bring up. When someone is seeking to profit monetarily from the work of another, there are laws that come into play which are different from those that apply to a non-profit venture.

And non-profit parody IS protected. In recognition of this, Henley's lawyers in Henley v. Devore produced a nuanced definition of "parody" which attempted to exclude this type of political campaign video, but its applicability is arguable. ETA: Indeed, it is very possible that this song is not "parody" but "satire" which is less protected.

Paterno calls the First Amendment the "first refuge of political scoundrels." I call it the first refuge of those who seek the protection of their free speech. While it is fair to say that there are people who abuse the right to free speech, it certainly is not the default assumption whenever someone - including a politician - invokes it. I found that unqualified statement in Paterno's letter downright disturbing.

I think Paterno et. al knew all along their case was weak at best. Lawyers often make noise about lawsuits they have no intention of carrying out, hoping to intimidate their target into compliance. They know the word "lawsuit" will frighten most people. The lawyers take advantage of these people's fear, their ignorance of their rights, and their naive trust that lawyers wouldn't misrepresent the law in order to deceive them. I find such tactics loathsome, and I wish the Eagles would not give their lawyers a free hand to employ them.

The fact that the letter was sent to the news before it was sent to Joe Walsh (Candidate) is telling - it reeks of an intimidation and "court of public opinion" technique. I doubt they ever intended to sue.

I suppose Joe's lawyers could have pulled a Henley and invoked the Lanham Act or something, but is it really worth their time when they are not assured of a win and they must know in their hearts that very few, if any, people think that Joe Walsh (candidate) is endorsed by Joe Walsh (rock star) simply because the Candidate used a karaoke track of Joe's music for a parody? I doubt it.

Even Henley did not wish to pursue a lawsuit against DeVore at first, but when DeVore refused to remove the video from YouTube or his site, Henley felt forced to take action. Perhaps, despite his "fighting" words, Joe Walsh (Candidate) will quietly leave the video off of his site (it's not there now).

After all, he's already gotten some good political mileage out of it. Ironically, Paterno has enabled a new campaign speech talking point for the Candidate. Obviously, the Candidate's reply to Paterno is designed to get his political base energized and hopefully attract new voters by presenting himself as a "regular guy" being attacked by wealthy "Hollywood" lawyers whom he represents as having nothing but scorn for the residents of Illinois. Notice how he focuses on disparaging Paterno rather than the more beloved Joe Walsh (rock star), of whom the Candidate himself professes to be a fan and compliments more than once. Notice how he characterizes this as an attack on his political beliefs rather than a copyright issue.

The "Hollywood lawyer" who is contemptuous of Mid-Westerners is a reductive generalization, but it's an effective one, greatly aided by the condescending nature of Paterno's letter (it seems that might have backfired). If a Republican can divorce himself from the stereotype that "the GOP only cares about the rich" - which this letter attempts to do for Joe Walsh (Candidate) - he has a greater chance of political success.

I wouldn't be surprised if this got him the GOP nomination to run against the Democratic hopeful - at this point, he doesn't even have that nomination! He may not even be the GOP candidate for this district, so I find his "you're doing this because I'm a threat to liberals" claim to be hilariously overblown and the least convincing aspect of his reply...but that's just me.

Plus, the Candidate brings up a good point - in Henley v. DeVore, DeVore was the one singing. That is not the case here. Joe Walsh (candidate) did not perform this, and his letter implies that he did not hire Cantafio to do so. Cantafio performed the song because he was Walsh (candidate)'s friend and supporter. Of course, the Candidate did use Cantafio's work in his campaign... but it does complicate things legally that he was not involved in the performance of the music that the lawyers claim violates copyright.

And while the fact that Cantafio is a blue-collar guy who runs a charity benefiting veterans has no relevance legally, it is a bit of an ouchie PR-wise. If they were to sue Cantafio, Paterno et al (and honestly, by extension, our own Joe) would look like douchebags.

I do think that it is possible that stupid people might believe that Joe Walsh (Candidate) is Joe Walsh the rock star because, well, they are stupid. But the law is not designed to cater to a small minority of morons, is it? It is not the fault of Joe Walsh (Candidate) that there are stupid people out there. Their misunderstanding is not automatically indicative of wrongdoing on the Candidate's part. It would have to be proven that he was intentionally trying to mislead the morons.

Of course, I must end this by saying that I am not a legal expert and the above is simply my understanding of the law. I invite anyone who has a different interpretation to reply!

tbs fanatic
01-29-2010, 01:16 PM
Just a couple of days ago in our newspaper was an article about ASCAP: The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. It had told a local bar that it would have to pay licensing fees if it wanted to continue hosting live music. The bar decided it couldn't afford it and stopped the music. Apparently ASCAP have these undercover agents who go around to bars with live music to check if the music being played is causing any copyright infringement. If so the bar has to pay up or stop or have a hefty lawsuit on its hands. Yikes! Fortunately, another place that could afford the fees opened up and the music continues.

sodascouts
01-29-2010, 03:23 PM
Wow, TBSF! It's the ASCAP shakedown! lol! But I guess they must get a lot of money that way to make such "undercover operations" profitable.

MikeA
01-29-2010, 03:39 PM
I'm arguing to be arguing Nanc. He IS using it for profit. He benefits if he is elected and if he improves his chances of getting elected by using the song, then he is profiting by it.

Lots of angles on this one!

sodascouts
01-29-2010, 04:09 PM
I considered that, Mike. However, we have to distinguish between "profit" and "benefit." They're not the same. I benefit from running this site because it gratifies me to run it, but I don't profit from it monetarily. Heck, I don't even do those kick-back from Ticketmaster and Amazon links (not that there's anything wrong with that). Therefore, even though I benefit from the site in an intangible "feel good" manner, it is still a non-profit venture.

The benefit Candidate Joe Walsh receives from that song parody is that people like Joe's music, so their ears maybe perk up and it makes them listen to views expressed in the song more closely. Also, it makes them remember the candidate's name more easily. Does this amount to a tangible, commercial "profit"? That would be difficult to prove. Again, "benefit" and "profit" are not interchangeable terms.

One could argue that the Candidate profits monetarily from the song if someone donated money to him for the sole reason that he used that song. That's not a very reasonable argument, though, because one would donate to the man because one agrees with his views, even if one was introduced to those views through the song.

Again, let's do a parallel with this site. Say I met a person because of this site and we made friends and this person gave me a ticket to a show. Could we call that a profit due to the site, or is it simply a gift because the person was my friend who happened to meet me through the site? I think we can all agree it's the latter. The same can be said for the song parody.

The thing about trying to prove/argue indirect profit is that it can be stretched to just about anything. This whole world is cause/effect. One thing leads to another leads to another leads to another. Where do we stop? Best to limit ourselves to the tangible and direct or we can get really out of control.

MikeA
01-29-2010, 07:01 PM
Does the song provide Mr. Candidate Walsh with a "profit"?

Some people are motivated by strictly altruistic motives. Money is not a factor. But I wonder if Mr. Walsh stands to make more money in income by occupying that Congressional Seat than he makes now in whatever position he is in?

He has to win that seat. Could he win it without using Mr. Rocker Walsh's property? If so then why is he using it. He is profiting from the use of it. It would be horribly difficult to guesstimate a quantitative value but value is there.

Now, on the other hand, if that song he used was a "Karaoke" version, and if he paid for that version, then I can see where there "might" be an argument in Mr Candidate Walsh's favor. But, I think of a Karaoke version being something that you play from a recording and sing along with. The Candidate is having a band play it and sing it using re-versed lyrics. He is not using it as was intended by the rights granted by Rocker Walsh...."entertainment".

Whatever the case, the song WAS selected because is was "invented" by an Artist who happened to have the same name as the Candidate and because it was a song that a lot of potential voters were familiar with. And, he is using that song without the consent of the Artist whose intellectual property it is!

As for songs used in Campaigns, I really have a problem with misuse such as this seems to be... assuming that Rocker Walsh does NOT want to endorse this Candidate Walsh. He may stand for everything Rocker Walsh stands against. Or they may be in perfect alignment. Whatever the case, Candidate Walsh should have gotten approval or release from the owner of the intellectual property before he used it.

I don't know if Rocker Walsh has been involved in this arbitration or not. Probably not. But I'm pretty sure that he is aware of it now <LOL> Who knows, we might see Rocker Joe Walsh running for office once more just to be sure his namesake doesn't win. I'll bet "free gas" will carry more weight than a plagiarized song will!

sodascouts
01-30-2010, 12:00 PM
The "profit" of the salary he would receive if elected cannot be proven to be solely a direct result of the video. That's very important legally.

Is what the Candidate doing ethical? That's another matter.

I love our Joe. I built a freaking site dedicated to him. I don't care about Candidate Joe Walsh. Politicians and lawyers are on the same page to me when it comes to ethics - a page that's full of holes.

I can understand why Joe Walsh (rock star) wouldn't be down with this - assuming, of course, he knows what's going on. lol

However, many times, what we feel is inappropriate/unethical and what is against the law are not the same.

What Paterno et al don't get is that they probably could have gotten this video removed using a little charm rather than a snotty open letter to the press. The Candidate says he's a fan, and Cantafio is, too. If Joe Walsh (rock star) had picked up the phone and said "Hi, how ya doin'? Hey, I wanna talk to you about that 'Lead the Way' video. You seem like a nice guy who listens to people, so I wanted to tell you that it kinda makes me uncomfortable. I know you probably worked hard on it and all, and I'm sure you didn't mean any harm, but wouldya take it down anyway? I would really appreciate it 'cause this is important to me. Consider it a personal favor, man. I'll even send ya a signed copy of Long Road Out of Eden."

I bet it would have been taken down without any hard feelings.

I've resolved (or downright avoided) many a conflict that way - honey instead of vinegar. Conversation instead of confrontation.

Joe has got starpower and he's got a way about him that people respond to positively. It would've at least been worth a try.

MikeA
01-30-2010, 02:29 PM
Can't disagree with that (Joe Rocker being nice and requesting removal). But like you said and I believe myself...Joe very likely had no idea that any of this was transpiring until it hit the fan...and I've seen no indication that he's aware of it now though I would find it hard to believe he doesn't know now.

I'm thinking that if I was Rocker Joe, I'd be thinking about a new legal representative for either of two reasons...bad personal technique and also the possibility that what The Candidate Joe did was not violating Joe Rocker's rights.

But that's just me. On second thought...maybe neither Joe Rocker nor Joe Candidate gives a hoot how it all boils out in the end. They are both getting a lot of publicity out of it and in both cases, this kind of publicity doesn't hurt either party.

Ive always been a dreamer
01-30-2010, 10:29 PM
I'm definitely in agreement that Joe Walsh (the rockstar) could maybe use some better legal representation. Very bad move by Mr. Paterno - maybe he'd rather be Peter (the comedian).

MikeA
01-31-2010, 10:22 AM
As a "legal document" that letter pretty much sucked. But it was, I think, maybe intended as a light hearted way of being to the point without being more threatening than he had to be.

In other ways, it sounded like it was from someone who truly thought that as soon as it was brought to the "alleged" violator's attention that the song would be dropped. You know, taken for granted. And as such, he decided to have a little fun with it.

On the other hand, he might just be a lawyer who is right half the time...a half wit.

sodascouts
02-01-2010, 11:55 AM
According to the Daily Herald (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=355300), Joe Walsh (Candidate) is going to pull a DeVore and put the video back up on his site in the next few days. If it becomes a matter of pride, Paterno et al might feel compelled to take it to court despite the unprofessional beginning of that snarky letter to the press.

As someone who has done a lot of debating, I know that there is always an angle you can work if you want to keep an argument going. This is especially true with regard to lawsuits, where law is mutable and new precedents can be set if you are able to win despite the fact that current laws don't quite line up with your argument.

I still don't understand why they didn't quietly approach the Candidate... maybe they wanted to deter other politicians from doing something similar lest they too suffer the public humiliation of being on the receiving end of Paterno's devastating sarcasm and falling prey to his razor-sharp wit? A fate worse than death! ;)

We'll see. One thing DeVore found out is these guys and their lawyers don't like to be publicly defied.

Since it appears this might drag on, I've made it into a separate thread as I did for Henley v. DeVore (https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1919).

sodascouts
02-02-2010, 03:10 PM
What is it with Joe Walsh tunes and political agendas? This person has re-written the lyrics to Life's Been Good to bash Sarah Palin, which is funny in some places but a bit grammatically awkward.

Sarah Palin: Show Me the Money (by lynnrockets) (http://lynnrockets.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/sarah-palin-show-me-the-money/)

sodascouts
02-07-2010, 01:35 PM
A conservative lawyer, Gene Quinn, opines on the case here (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/). He really rips Paterno a new one, lol.

However, I appreciate Quinn's clarification of the legal distinction between "satire" v. "parody" - according to this article, a satire is "a remake version used to criticize something other than the original song." Viewed in this light, I think that Joe Walsh (Candidate)'s song may qualify as satire and therefore not receive a parody's protection.

I don't know all the lyrics of the song because I didn't bother to write them down when I watched the video, but ones that are oft-cited in the press are these:

"We've all had enough / Of this health-care stuff / We're losing more jobs every day." "We've all been betrayed/by this cap and trade." "Pelosi and Reid wanna screw ya." "Joe Walsh is just the perfect guy to lead the way."

That does seem to lean towards satire as explained by Quinn, who has no reason to spin that particular aspect since it does not strengthen the Candidate's case.

Rene45nl
02-17-2010, 03:37 PM
I think all of this is only one thing... a good laugh!

I really can't believe a multi-multi-multi-millionaire rock-star is making an issue about this... :)

sodascouts
03-13-2010, 09:01 PM
Looks like the Candidate decided to go ahead and cooperate. Seems like he's been having a hard time politically lately so I guess he figured he didn't need one more problem.

Here's an interesting article on it that actually has a working link to the campaign video:

Candidate Joe Walsh vs. Rocker Joe Walsh: a DMCA Knockout (http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2010/candidate-joe-walsh-vs-rocker-joe-walsh-dmca-knockout)
by Justin Silverman

MikeA
03-14-2010, 08:16 AM
Goodonya Joe Walsh!!!!!!!!!! (the ROCKER!)

sodascouts
03-24-2010, 03:47 PM
This is only tangentially related but I found it hilarious nonetheless. These rock stars need to have less common names!

Elect Phil Collins (http://philcollinsfor17thdistrict.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-conservative-club.html)

Joe Walsh (the candidate) was an attendee at Phil Collins (the candidate)'s meeting. Gotta love it!

Prettymaid
03-24-2010, 07:37 PM
You're right Soda. You'd never hear a candidate named Axl Rose! (Or Slash) :wink:

TimothyBFan
03-25-2010, 07:11 AM
Now them I would vote for!! :thumbsup: