Eagles' Joe Walsh Demands Politician Stop Using His Song

Clearly, attorney Peter T. Paterno, of King, Holmes, Paterno & Berliner, LLP, doesn’t know much about copyright law. Just read this, straight from his rather obnoxious cease and desist letter:
[U]nder that same United States 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.
Now let’s take these erroneous statements of the law from this single paragraph of the letter one at a time, shall we?
First, Attorney Paterno is obviously not at all familiar with fair use and probably isn’t familiar with the United States Supreme Court, or their decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), where the 2 Live Crew parody of Roy Orbison’s song “Oh, Pretty Woman” was at issue. Any law student who has taken a basic Copyright Law class would know that copyright fair use and parody protections do, in fact, allow artists to take music and change the lyrics to their own. Kinda makes you wonder what Attorney Paterno was thinking, or if he was thinking or just chest pounding.
Second, the Copyright Act does not give Joe Walsh (the Rockstar) the right to decide who gets to use the songs he writes. In fact, there are a tremendous number of fair uses that Joe Walsh (the Rockstar) or any other copyright owner for that matter, could never prevent. There are fair use rights to use music and lyrics for teaching purposes, there are well established rights for anyone to do cover versions of any songs, and then there are those pesky parody rights already mentioned. So, Attorney Paterno has once again well overstated his case, which is not at all surprising in a cease and desist letter unfortunately.
This ill informed paragraph aside, perhaps the most illuminating (and disgusting) thing that Attorney Paterno said in his cease and desist letter was:
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 the 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 they represent) works for you here.
So the First Amendment is refuge for scoundrels? Really? How interesting. Well let me say loud and clear — the First Amendment is one of the most precious rights we have and there is no room for ignorance or arrogance when it comes to restricting the First Amendment. It is naive and condescending all at the same time to suggest the First Amendment is for scoundrels. Yet this sadly seems to be the view of many, particularly those in the liberal fringe, who are “tolerant” and supportive of First Amendment rights only so long as they agree with the message. That is disgusting and there is no room for such hypocrisy in political debate, daily life or in the law, PERIOD.
Bogus, puffing, arrogant and condescending cease and desist letters are, in my opinion, the scourge of intellectual property practice. I am glad to see that Joe Walsh (the Republican) is not backing down and I hope he sticks to his principles and doesn’t let himself get bullied by someone who is more interested in grandstanding than resolving a matter for his client.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/

Copyright laws are there to protect the creator of any work of art. Just because you're campaigning for public office does not make you exempt from these laws. If you expect to be one of the elected lawmakers in Washington you should be educated enough to be aware of the nation's laws (be it copyright or other). It only takes 5 minutes on the Library of Congress website to learn what you need to know about copyright infringement. Joe Walsh, the politician, could be liable for a huge penalty under the copyright laws - $50,000 per infringement - that's not a one time penalty. That's for every time someone has viewed his video. There's also a second copyright holder who could also file for infringement - the creator of the karaoke track. They own the copyright to the sound recording of that song being used on the video. That was really stupid that Joe Walsh's staff would say that now they've publicly admitted to committing a second copyright infringement.

Good luck to him, let's hope his pockets are deep or his peers have enough pull to blackmail the record labels and RIAA the get him out of the mess he's in.

This is not about Republican or Democrat - This is about the sense of entitlement politicians feel the deserve. Many politicians think they should be allowed to do things that we as citizens are not simply because they are the ones who write and vote on laws for this nation. This Joe Walsh incident is another fine example of political feelings of entitlement. Bottom line here politicians, if you're going to make the law - obey the law.

Those nutty teabaggers! What a bunch of idiots! You really think you are a "party". Give me a break. How unoriginal, just like stealing a song! Write your own music, or are you too stupid!

I am a Republican, and Joe Walsh, friends of his, family, staff, etc. do not have the right to use this song without permission. My son was asked to write a song for his High School's graduation. He did, and would gladly allow other Schools to use his song. That is as far as it goes. He is 16 and the song is his. Both music and lyrics.

To be honest if Joe Walsh feels he can take liberties that are not his to begin with, then we do not need him elected. It's time for every politician to stand up and do the right thing. There is a reason that a lot of people from both parties would gladly vote for an Independent at this point.

There are a lot of exceptional artist that would gladly grant certain usage of their material. But ask first, then post on You Tube.

This is one of the values that I respect as a Republican. How can we respect a Republican candidate if he does not show respect for another person's ownership? If Joe Walsh firmly believes in transparency then it has to start with him.

the artists who complain when one party use there song in parady but not the other party show there ignorance in such issues. bruce springsteen is a kool aid drinking old man. THATS RIGHT OLD OLD OLD, MR WALSH IS ALSO A OLD OLD OLD MAN. THESE PEOPLE FROM THE SIXTIES ARE AKIN TO OUR PRESIDENT, DRUG USING, IGNORANT BOOBS. WHEN SOME ONE TELLS ME WHY ANYONE LISTENS TO THESE OLD OLD OLD WANNA BE HIPPIES OF THE OLD OLD OLD DAYS PLEASE TELL ME. JOE WALSH'S BRAIN IS FRIED, AND I CANNOT WAIT UNTIL THEY MOVE ON, PLEASE DEAR GOD GO INTO RETIREMENT BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IS OLD OLD OLD AND SO IRRELEVANT THAT YOU MAKE ME WANT TO BARF. AND IF I HAVE TO SEE ONE MORE IGNORAMOUS BAD MOUTH GOV. PALIN IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM MY HEAD IS GOING TO EXPLODE. GET A LIFE, GROW UP, AND MAYBE READ SOMETHING OTHER THAN A CHRIS MATTHEWS OR KEITH OBERMAN SOUND BITE ABOUT THE EX ALASKAN GOVERNOR.

who gives a rats a$$ about the Eagles anyway...except for Joe Walsh...any pot smoking musicians that can't come to an agreement on how to split 25 million dollars have really just become Rebublicans anyway...their bickering and squabbling over all their millions is almost as bad as the sports figures that act like spoiled brats...whenever I hear the "Egos" on the radio I cant wait to turn it off and slide in an Old Black Sabbath CD....like the saying from Saturday Night Live..."i got one word for the Eagles...Joe Walsh..."...go figure

joe...you should be glad that someone is using your songs....your real anger is that a Republican dared to use it....grow up you jerky adolescent...you are an old man...it's time

"I know a genius gone insane. Go steal the product of his brain."
From the poem THE MILLS OF THE GODS.
Indeed, the Mills of the Gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small.
If one can't speak for themself very well, what right does anyone have to take the words, the product of another's brain, to serve their own purpose? I write poetry and music, and I am well-protected by the copy right laws of this country. If you can't think for yourself, you have no right in the public eye, using another's well-chosen words to further your own purpose.

Posting a video of yourself on you tube singing karoke may not be a violation of copyright law...but changing the lyrics to the song is not just karoke,it is appropriating someone else's work for your own benefit. And changing lyrics to a song does not make it a parody..to wit: a parody is "a farcical imitation of a literary or musical work" according to Webster's. Without parody as a cover there is no gray area, there is only a question of whether or not the user, in this candidate Walsh is unethical, ignorant or both. Either way, composer Walsh has every right to demand he cease and desist in its use...something YouTube apparently thought was a strong enough argument to pull the video off its site. How long before it is reposted and re-removed is anyone's guess. But by all means, lets make it a liberal conspiracy to prevent conservatives from stealing music from artists who do not wish to associate with them. Ya can't whip the crowd up into a frothing frenzy without blaming the liberals and the media for something nefarious.

NO ONE has the right to STEAL-whether it be money, art, personal belongings or music. If he wanted to use it it dshould be bought and paid for or gotten permission at the very least-