He sings it high, he plays it low
I guess I don't see where either of the songs are relevent to a political campaign.
As far as the use of sharing artists material in general, I understand the frustration of the artists for losing the money from the individual units that could be sold if it weren't for copying and sharing. And the artist if they own the material has the right to prohibit and if needed litigate against those who violate that prohibition. I don't make the kind of money musicians make but can understand the frustration of looking at my bank account and seeing more - signs then + signs. I know most artists have enough money to spend the rest of their lives on but it still takes away the profits they are entitled to as artists.
Then there's this side of me that thinks,,I know technology has hydroplaned copyright infringement but what about those who can't afford to purchase the music?
Oh I did miss that.
I guess he doesn't want anyone getting the idea, and some would, that he is in support of this claim. I'm glad he's taking action. The use of the video in original format is one thing but to twist to suit the campaign is wrong.
McCain firing back at Jackson Brown says he didn't use it to gain profit,, but was used to gain public votes which to me in a political campaign is profit.
I don't know, I suppose if I didn't like the politics of the person using my song I would try to stop it too.
~ Cathy ~
And I dream I'm on vacation 'Cause I like the way that sounds,
It's a perfect occupation for me.
I think a very long bow was drawn by talking about Don's 'liberal politics' in Boys Of Summer. The only vaguely political comment in that song comes in the 'Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac' line. Don was once quoted as saying the Cadillac is a symbol of the political right. As a liberal myself I think it's somewhat ironic that in this case a conservative has to steal the ideas of a liberal instead of coming up with an idea of his own.
NB: I should state however that I'm not opposed per se to Don's 'liberal' opinions being parodied.
Though I am an independent who votes Republican and often disagree with Henley’s blind allegiance to the left, I consider him entirely justified in this endeavor. Speaking as an attorney, Henley could absolutely prevail on his claims; further, he only filed as a last resort (couldn’t help myself, sorry ), subsequent to Devore’s brash remove-then-repost youtube tap dance. Speaking as a fan, under what degree of clueless would one have to operate before it seemed prudent to appropriate a lifelong liberal’s songs in support of a right-wing campaign?
Welcome ABM and thanks for your comments. I hope you enjoy yourself here!
~ Cathy ~
And I dream I'm on vacation 'Cause I like the way that sounds,
It's a perfect occupation for me.
Welcome ABM!
I'm not sure Devore gave too much thought to grabbing Boys of Summer for his first parody. I have been reading Devore's interviews and even listening to the radio ones in an attempt to keep up with this matter. He has made several statements which I believe are somewhat damaging, or that at least render him less sympathetic even to a conservative.
He has said himself he got the idea while driving around and seeing an old faded bumper sticker for Obama leftover from the campaign on the back of a really nice car (the limousine liberal stereotype). It made him think of the line "Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac." He went from there. Thus, I don't believe he chose it deliberately because it is a Henley song, which strengthens Henley's claim in that regard. It is true, I suppose, that the fact that it was a Henley song might have been a nice "bonus." Almost everyone knows that Henley is a huge liberal.
I think the second parody, "All She Wants to Do Is Tax," was very deliberately chosen to be a slap in the face to Henley (it was done after the initial complaint), as Devore himself claimed. However, I think his claim that he was going to parody lots of Henley songs in so-called defiance of him was a smokescreen. Note that he has not done any more parodies, but instead only the one more. Why? I believe it is because Devore and his lawyers knew the lyrics and music were not copyrighted to Henley and therefore, by lumping it in with the Boys of Summer claim, Devore hopes to dilute the latter with the former. JMHO, but I think it was a mistake for Henley to let himself be manipulated into extending his lawsuit to include the second parody. His case is much stronger for the first.
It is true this lawsuit was a last resort. Henley asked YouTube to take Devore's video down. Devore challenged the removal. Once a removal has been challenged, YouTube's policy is that the offended party (in this case Henley) has ten days to file a lawsuit, or the video gets put back up. Henley filed the lawsuit in order to keep it down, but Devore states that Henley's lawyers then quietly approached Devore and offered to drop the lawsuit if he would agree not to repost the videos anywhere. Devore refused, calling it a "matter of principle."
I think it was matter of publicity. Devore is fighting an uphill battle for California senator and has nothing to lose except maybe some money (apparently he has enough so that the prospect of losing money doesn't concern him). Now, you and I know his name where we never would have before. He has accomplished that at least.
I'm no lawyer, but I think this lawsuit will boil down to whether or not the Boys of Summer spoof can be classified as legally protected parody. If it can be, then Henley's copyright is irrelevant under the special exception given to parody under free speech. If it can't be, then Devore is gonna have a lot of fines to pay. I think Henley has a chance to win here.
Regarding the spoof of All She Wants to Do Is Dance, I think Henley's claims are weaker and I do not think he will prevail there. Again, JMHO. The California courts are notoriously unpredictable. Many lawyers take a "throw everything at 'em and hope something will stick" approach, which unfortunately leads to a lot of frivolous lawsuits and suspect claims tossed in with legitimate ones. We'll see what happens.
Even if Devore loses this round, he has said he will appeal and take it all the way to the Supreme Court if he has to. I think Don Henley may find himself in lawbooks as a precedent setter, either as the loser or the winner, if Devore should go so far. Lawyers will cite "Henley v. Devore" as they do for Sinatra v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber, for instance. Interesting addition to his musical legacy, eh?
More on Henley v. Devore in the Daily Pilot