The REAL Issue With Music & Political Campaigns

Is it just me, or is the issue of music and political campaigns getting a tiny bit out of hand? Continuing the recent trend, Don Henley (The Eagles) has sued Charles Devore for use of The Eagles' "The Boys of Summer" as part of Devore's campaign on youtube.com The complaint alleges that Devore is using the song without permission, to which Devore has countered with his free speech rights. My personal take on the issue is that if Devore is using the song without a proper license, then yes, he should get one. We would all love to claim that our use of somone else's copyrighted work is our right as Americans - we should be entitled to express ourselves as we see fit. However, copyright law gives certain rights to copyright owners, including the use of their works when synched to audio visual content. Yes, there are certain exceptions to this right, but overall I can't see free speech being the vehicle that so broadly trumps this right - the concept of free speech is simply too amorphous.

That being said, Don Henley technically has the right to keep Devore from using the song, because sychronization rights must be negotiated straight with the copyright owner (I'm operating under the assumption Don Henley actually holds the copyright and hasn't sold it to his publishers). But really, gentlemen, aren't we skirting the real issue here? This isn't about licensing rights - it's about musicians not wanting to be associated with certain persons (be they political candidates or otherwise) that don't hold the same values and views as those musicians. We saw the same thing during the McCain campaign; artists alleging missuse of their copyrighted songs (through lack of licensing). The balance between artist's rights and the right of the public to exploit copyrighted works has always been delicate - that is why certain rights are statutory (meaning the artists has no say in the matter) and others must be sought by artist permission only. (There is also a tangle of contracts involved here with different companies that own a piece of the work, but I'm going to forego those issues for now... another blog, another time..) Should artists have the right to keep certain persons, here, politicians, from using music that have otherwise offered up to the public? They do currently posses this right - but where do we draw the line? Where does the burden become so onerous on the public and their rights that copyright should take a back seat to other forms of expression?

I certainly don't have the answer to these questions, but I find it to be an issue that has far-reaching consequences - how do we adequately balance private and public rights?