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?

Legal Downloading Up 100% in Sweden - IPRED to thank?

According to The Local, an online news site in Sweden, legal downloading in Sweden is up 100% this week within the country. Is IPRED to blame (or thank)? It appears that way now, but my hunch is that the cause is simply because Swedes haven't yet found a loophole which enables them to sidestep the law and get access to decent P2P networks. Either that or consumers suddenly had a moral epiphany and decided to start paying for music (and which seems more likely to you...?).

As a legal professional and someone that specializes in helping artists protect their creative investments, I have mixed feelings about "illegal" downloading (in quotes because I firmly believe it won't be illegal for much longer...). On one hand, the bottom line is that it is illegal and I certainly can't condone it while it is. On the other hand, many times the vehicle for legal chance is a rebellion, and I believe most musicians and music consumers alike are screaming that the method of charging for recorded music is flawed in this new digital realm. Is the answer that consumers will completely stop paying for recorded music? Maybe not. But at the same time, the desire to consume entertainment has never been higher, and executives in the biz should be exploring alternative streams of revenue that people are still willing to pay for, instead of fighting the losing battle against one source.

Thoughts? Is the recording industry doomed to become a promotional tool for other sources of revenue? And with the consumer's desire to continue to USE recorded music, how will the recording industry get paid in order to meet that demand?

Sports, Twitter, and the 1st Amendment

I feel across a cool article on Richard Symmes entertainment blog about the friction between private sports organizations (cough - NBA - cough) and the rights of their players. The NCAA does regulate what its players can do, even in their private lives (to an extend)... is this simply the internet equivalent of this? Or is the NCAA overstepping their boundaries by becoming entangled in social media? (The peanut is neither a pea nor a nut. Discuss).

Internet Traffic Down in Sweden; Piracy Law to Blame?

I'm not sure if I shared this information, but I am currently teaching a music business course at Tufts University. It's been challenging to balance it with my full-time "lawyer" job, but my students make it completely worth it. They're insightful and innovative, and many of them go above and beyond the call of duty. For example, one of my best students just sent me this article, citing that internet traffic is down an amazing 33% since the passage Sweden's IPRED law, which permits copyright holders to force ISPs into giving them lists of computers that have shared their material (illegally) online. I found it especially interesting that the comments in the article suggest that the drop in traffic is temporary while people figure how to get around it. Doesn't that just prove that suing users is a lost cause? Or is this an effective way of stopping piracy? (I personally think the former, but I welcome a debate!)

Alice in Wonderland Gets 3-D IMAX Release

I'm obsessed with Alice in Wonderland, so this is possibly the most exciting bit of entertainment news I've gotten all year. Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" will be released simultaneously on both regular and IMAX 3-D screens on March 5, 2010. There's a great article with additional links to more information about the film here. I personally don't think any film lends itself better to 3-D than Alice's whacked-out story!