Henley v. DeVore

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well, I always try to avoid all discussions about religion and politics here because I think they inevitably turn out to be "no win" topics.

However, I am going to say a word to defend Don. I can definitely put myself in his shoes here. An artist's work is a very personal thing to them. I can totally understand why they would not want someone using their creation to further causes that they do not believe in. To try to draw an analogy a little bit closer to home - what if someone made a porn parody of this message board and posted it on YouTube. I'm guessing we would all be pretty upset, especially Soda since she created and owns the site.

[TimothyBFan]

To try to draw an analogy a little bit closer to home - what if someone made a porn parody of this message board and posted it on YouTube. I'm guessing we would all be pretty upset, especially Soda since she created and owns the site.

Where do I sign up to see it? (quit snickering at me--you knew as soon as you typed it, that I would jump all over it!)

I can totally understand why they would not want someone using their creation to further causes that they do not believe in.

You make a very valid point. But I have to ask, if this DeVore had been a democrat and had a lot of the same beliefs that Don has, would Don have been so quick to file a lawsuit do you think?

[pueblo47]

Where do I sign up to see it? (quit snickering at me--you knew as soon as you typed it, that I would jump all over it!)



You make a very valid point. But I have to ask, if this DeVore had been a democrat and had a lot of the same beliefs that Don has, would Don have been so quick to file a lawsuit do you think?

No, just MY opinion

[bernie's bender]

You make a very valid point. But I have to ask, if this DeVore had been a democrat and had a lot of the same beliefs that Don has, would Don have been so quick to file a lawsuit do you think?

Don doesn't dig republicans.

if it had been a democratic candidate or cause, he probably would have re recorded it!

The 'theme song' thing got really big during the Reagan run when he took Springsteen's "Born in the USA" and twisted it to fit his needs (even though the lyrics were completely counter to Reagan's positions.) Lots of people assumed that it meant that Springsteen supported Reagan (which he actually opposed Reagan) and the lesson learned was that an oft told lie can become truth.

To that end, several republican campaigns have been asked not to appropriate songs because the artists were not in support of the candidate. Sometimes it is successfu, sometimes not.

What I find puzzling is why the republican campaigns would want to be associated with songs and artists who clearly do not like them nor support their positions? Weird!

The Devore argument that it was parody or 'fun' to poke Henley in the eye by taking his and Campbell's song knowing that they disagreed with the republicans and doing the song would add insult to injury is kind of twisted and mean spirited... But, I know that folks often get sucked into the 'whatever it takes to win' thing....

It is a big ol mean world full of ruthless people... I don't know whether art can be controlled once it is out... but, I don't guess I'd be of a mind to take someone's work that was clearly not intended for my cause and twist it to fit.....

Why not get a nice song from a republican artist... why not use "Wang Dang sweet poontang" from Ted Nugent and rework the lyrics for a republican cause?

[sodascouts]

Dreamer's analogy reminds me... It's a staple of porn to rip off plots and titles from other movies, with an X-rated twist. You know, something like calling a movie "Forrest Hump" and making it about a mentally challenged guy who dresses and talks like Forrest Gump accidentally stumbling into a brothel. I wonder if anybody ever sues over that - I'm sure writers can't all be happy about their creations being used in such a sordid way, but since it happens all the time, presumably it's legal...

[bernie's bender]

Dreamer's analogy reminds me... It's a staple of porn to rip off plots and titles from other movies, with an X-rated twist. You know, something like calling a movie "Forrest Hump" and making it about a mentally challenged guy who dresses and talks like Forrest Gump accidentally stumbling into a brothel. I wonder if anybody ever sues over that - I'm sure writers can't all be happy about their creations being used in such a sordid way, but since it happens all the time, presumably it's legal...

Oh gosh, I'm not sure I'm ready to compare republicans to pornographers... I think the legal part of it has to do with 'deep pockets'.... suing someone who is also usually one step ahead of the law would be a waste of time and money... the pornographers tend to not be remotely interested in right and wrong... they are solely interested in making money on the fringe.

The difference here is pretty stark... one venture is for 'entertainment' and 'pleasure' (self pleasure?) and the other is for ruling the most powerful nation on the planet.

I remember my brother saying (when we were in our teens) to my grandmother "Grandma, I checked and it is LEGAL!" and she muttered, returning to the stove, "Well, it may be legal, but that doesn't make it right."

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I remember my brother saying (when we were in our teens) to my grandmother "Grandma, I checked and it is LEGAL!" and she muttered, returning to the stove, "Well, it may be legal, but that doesn't make it right."

That is exactly my point, bender. It's a matter of doing the right thing. To me, I don't know why someone in a position of notoriety would want to use someone's intellectual property when they know the individual does not approve. But, that's just me. My Mom used to explain it to me this way "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

[bernie's bender]

yup. we agree.

[sodascouts]

I'm also of the opinion that one should do the right thing regardless of whether or not one is legally compelled to do so. In fact, I once told a lawyer that. lol

Here's the thing though... DeVore obviously doesn't believe he's doing anything wrong. So the whole "legal vs. right" issue doesn't exist for him. He believes what he is doing is BOTH legal AND right.

[Nobody'sBeach]

If Mr.DeVore has chosen a different song by another artist who probably would have let it go, people would not still be talking about it a year or so later and he would have been out all that publicity. Seems to me that his actions were an intentional act to keep his name in the papers (and in the discussions), regardless of whom he drags along with him. It’s just blatant self-promotion (i.e., politics as usual).