Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Eye of Tiger Composer Sues Gingrich To Stop Campaign From Using Song

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the it's-the-thrill-of-the-fight dept.

Music 452

First time accepted submitter Joe_Dragon writes "The composer of the Survivor hit Eye of the Tiger has sued Newt Gingrich to stop the Republican presidential candidate from using the Rocky III anthem at campaign events. The lawsuit was filed Monday in federal court in Chicago by Rude Music Inc., the Palatine-based music publishing company owned by Frank Sullivan, who, with Jim Peterik, composed the song and copyrighted it in 1982. The lawsuit states that as early as 2009, Gingrich has entered rallies and public events to the pulsing guitar riffs of the song. In a lengthy section of the five-page complaint, Rude's attorneys point out that Gingrich is well aware of copyright laws, noting he is listed as author or co-author of more than 40 published works and has earned between $500,000 to $1 million from Gingrich Productions, a company that sells his written work, documentaries and audio books. It also notes Gingrich's criticism of the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' during a recent debate in South Carolina, where Gingrich suggested the law was unnecessary because 'We have a patent office, we have copyright law. If a company finds it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue.' The suit asks for an injunction to prevent Gingrich from using the song, as well as damages and attorneys' fees to be determined by the court."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

oh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878185)


Get a real job (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878191)

You heard me! Do some work people will pay you for. Why should somebody profit indefinitely from a work they produced years ago? It makes no sense.
Yes, some works require decades of research. These need intellectual property rights. A song does not.

Re:Get a real job (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#38878625)

By the same logic, Gingrich should write his own song.

Re:Get a real job (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#38878885)

I don't follow.

My guess (5, Insightful)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 years ago | (#38878193)

Deep down inside they are suing because they don't like Gingrich. Just my guess though.

Re:My guess (5, Funny)

Talderas (1212466) | about 2 years ago | (#38878345)

My guess was that the Slashdot collective was going to have an anuerysm over deciding which side to pick. On one side of the ring you have despicable Republican Newt Gingrich. On the other side you have evil copyright.

Re:My guess (5, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 2 years ago | (#38878373)

...despicable Republican...

:-) Is there another kind?

Re:My guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878419)

The joke stops being funny when you point it out.

Re:My guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878557)

Dead ones?

Re:My guess (5, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#38878831)

:-) Is there another kind?

Yes, there are also despicable Democrats.

Re:My guess (1, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#38878487)

Indeed, Most of Slashdot will suffer the same fate as Norman []

Re:My guess (2)

Digital Vomit (891734) | about 2 years ago | (#38878583)

The outcome of this lawsuit is somewhat akin to the actual presidential race itself: whoever wins, we lose.

Re:My guess (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#38878785)

No, this one is easy. If we want both to lose, there's no problem. It's only when you want one side to win that there's a problem...

Re:My guess (1)

jaymzter (452402) | about 2 years ago | (#38878437)

Agreed. Without trying to be prejudicial, this comes across as a case of the artist trying to control how their work is interpreted by the observer (i.e. they don't want it associated with Gingrich). I think this type of mindset only serves to compromise the work.

Funny you never hear about Democrats being asked by a musician to stop using their music.

Re:My guess (1, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | about 2 years ago | (#38878585)

Funny you never hear about Democrats being asked by a musician to stop using their music.

Actually, yes you do. Most famously, Sam Moore asked the Obama campaign not to use the song "Hold on, I'm coming" at rallies. There was threat of a lawsuit if the campaign didn't desist.

The larger part is that most of these songs have lyrics and intentions to protest against common GOP policies and political positions. Having the refrain ripped off to further GOP election chances is spitting on the artist and the meaning of the lyrics themselves.

I'm sure that if he were still alive, the sculptor who crafted the Statue of Liberty would be aghast at the racist GOP's stance towards immigrant latinos today, and Emma Lazarus would be likewise horrified at the racist anti-immigrant sentiment stirred up by people who regularly plaster the face of the Statue of Liberty on their campaign posters while ignoring the meaning of the poem sitting at her feet.

Re:My guess (4, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#38878689)

Wanting to control our population numbers is NOT RACIST. Wanting to impose controls on how many bodies we let into the country is NOT RACIST. Dont you think as a sovereign nation, we have the right to say who can and cannot come here? We dont have a vast frontier anymore, we dont need nor want a flood of unskilled dregs added to our society. The poem at her feet is old, outdated and DOES NOT APPLY TO THE MODERN WORLD. I fucking hate people who think that if desired, the whole world could move to the US.

Relax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878877)

The poster is probably in a position where he regularly employs cheap foreign labor. Maybe he works in construction, for example, or hospitality. In either case, the more cheap unskilled labor available, the easier it is for them to cut costs and hit profit margins. So, naturally, they portray any effort at blocking this as racism, regardless of the real motivation.

Re:My guess (1)

afabbro (33948) | about 2 years ago | (#38878811)

Funny you never hear about Democrats being asked by a musician to stop using their music.

Chrissy Hynde sued Rush Limbaugh to stop using "My City Was Gone" as his show theme. Then when she won, she offered to license it to him and donated the money to PETA.

So now you've been given two counter-examples. Funny, you never hear Slashdot student posters admit they were wrong...

Re:My guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878827)

Rush Limbaugh is not a Democrat.

Re:My guess (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | about 2 years ago | (#38878507)

Oh, I'm sure you're right. Copyright law gives them the right to control distribution and public performance, however, and it makes no mention of what motives they may use to do so.

Frankly I consider it win-win: Either a judge finds copyright law absurd and lets Gingrich keep using it in pretty clear violation of copyright, or he orders him to stop and Gingrich gets spanked for his double standard. (Or he stops using it voluntarily, which I basically consider to be a non-judicial spanking in this case.)

Re:My guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878711)

Technically, the composers signed away performance rights to the song and are only entitled to standard rate reimbursement. Radio stations, for example, don't need to clear their playlists with all the composers. Politically, though, Gingrich will have to back down.

Re:My guess (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878611)

You've got a point. People regularly turn a blind eye to illegal and immoral acts done by people we like or agree with. It's the reason so many people supported the misleading information about Iraq WMD's, or are threatening a 16 y/o girl for objecting to an illegal prayer in a public school.

That doesn't change the fact that Gingrich knowingly used the music illegally. If he happened use music from a supported, they would have likely just given him a free pass.

Don't try to minimize Gingrich's crime by suggesting the rights-holder has a vendetta. It's entirely irrelevant and intellectually dishonest.

Perhaps he can follow Hulk Hogan's lead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878199)

And switch to the classic Real American [] .

Fair Use? (2, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#38878201)

Wouldn't his use of the song considered fair use?

He's not generating profit from this.

He's not playing the entire performance of the song...

Re:Fair Use? (5, Insightful)

morcego (260031) | about 2 years ago | (#38878263)

He's not generating profit from this.

EXCUSE ME ?!?!?!?!?!

Re:Fair Use? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878275)

Odds are it's not fair use, but they probably paid license fees to the necessary collection agencies to use the song. This is just the "creator" disliking the way the song is used which, despite bad publicity, is generally not illegal.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 years ago | (#38878341)

Fair use is slippery. There are situations where reproducing a whole text would be considered fair use, and situations where reproducing just a snippet would not be. In this instance a very distinctive part of the song is being used, promotionally, uncritically, and without modification so I'm not sure it really escapes.

Re:Fair Use? (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#38878351)

Wouldn't his use of the song considered fair use?

Probably not.

He's not generating profit from this.
He's not playing the entire performance of the song...

While those both relate to factors that are relevant to fair use determinations, the two of them together don't automatically mean that something is "fair use".

Re:Fair Use? (5, Interesting)

Phreakiture (547094) | about 2 years ago | (#38878407)

He's not generating profit from this.

I'm not sure that's a correct statement. Maybe it isn't direct, but he is using it in what essentially amounts to advertising. These events are not private parties, so the private party exemption (specific to music) is also gone.

I do believe, however, that Rude Music is in for a rude awakening because of a thing called compulsory licensing. In essence, they can collect money for their product, but they have to offer it to all comers, and, if memory serves me, they must do so with non-discriminatory pricing.

Re:Fair Use? (4, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#38878671)

The song in question is covered under ASCAP licensing. []

As long as the venue has made its yearly ASCAP tribute payment that never gets to the authors, there is absolutely nothing the authors of this song can do about it.

Re:Fair Use? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 years ago | (#38878801)

I'm fairly sure that public performance isn't ACTUALLY subject to compulsory licensing. It's just that virtually anyone who has enough money to bring a frivolous lawsuit is a member of a PRS like ASCAP or BMI. That said, including the 'right of public performance' in copyright seems totally idiotic to me in the first place. It's not producing a copy in a manner that couldn't be widely done before the printing press, and it conflicts with free speech. I can sort of see an argument for radio airplay, but that's about it.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

irishPete (21197) | about 2 years ago | (#38878415)

IANAL, but he is using enough of the song to be recognized, and specifically using that song for it's emotional message. Although profit is not a test of fair use, you could argue he is using the songs emotional message to bolster his "brand" in order to profit by gaining the Presidency.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about 2 years ago | (#38878435)

Not even remotely. Using it publicly in a for-profit (all politics is for profit) situation without paying any kind of license fee is definitely enough to get you sued.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | about 2 years ago | (#38878559)

Kids who download music aren't making any profit off it. And they also aren't playing in public at rallies promoting themselves to higher office...

Re:Fair Use? (3, Interesting)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | about 2 years ago | (#38878739)

You would need to be a lawyer, practically, to know how fine this line is. For example, [] . Romney's use of that news footage in an advertisement is likely Fair Use.

Gingrich is using the music for self-promotion at campaign events. Definition/standards of fair use: []

0) ". . .for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." It is none of these.

1) "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" - Technically non-profit, but not for an educational purpose. Well, unless you count used to introduce a candidate to an event where he is educating them about himself. I think that is a bit too broad to work.

2) "the nature of the copyrighted work" - Neither a fact, idea or something as important to the public as the Zapruder film.

3) "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and" - The whole thing isn't being played, but how much of it?

4) "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." - I don't think this would be allowed to apply here. If the song can be blasted in part for this event, why not others? At that point the value of the song begins to go down due to over use.

It could go either way, but I'm leaning against fair use. I'm leaning enough against it that I expect this to be quietly hushed up with a settlement.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

dubsnipe (1822200) | about 2 years ago | (#38878803)

Still, the author should be able to claim damages to his moral rights. I think he has a case.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 2 years ago | (#38878837)

Not likely he can get away with that argument.

It appears the song is used every time he comes on stage, making it a bit of his personal theme.

It is not used to parody, or to study it, to comment on it, or any similar manner.

The way it's used (at least that's how I read the summary) is to have the song become his theme, that as soon as someone hears the riff they think "Gingrich". So that way he's using it as advertising for himself. And imho should at least have asked permission from the rights holder before using it in such a manner.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#38878859)

He's not generating profit from this.

Wouldn't it be great if that was a legitimate excuse?

But that is not a legitimate excuse. Just because he is failing to make money off of the use of the song that does not mean that he should not be compensating the artist for use of the song.

Legally that is.

Yes, I pirate, that is why I said it would be great if it was a legitimate excuse.

Dear republican candidates (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#38878203)

We go through this every election cycle. Stop using music. Just shuffle off the stage. Maybe when you're awkwardly doing so, think about changing music copyright laws if you get elected?

Re:Dear republican candidates (4, Informative)

DanTheStone (1212500) | about 2 years ago | (#38878347)

Why would they need to change the laws? They probably aren't breaking them, musicians just don't like their music being used by politicians they disdain. That doesn't make it illegal. []

Re:Dear republican candidates (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#38878503)

My thinking was "While these musicians are annoying you, maybe shorten the copyright on them so their grandchildren won't be profiting off of them. Tit for tat."

Re:Dear republican candidates (5, Informative)

crmanriq (63162) | about 2 years ago | (#38878853)

As long as the music is not tied to any particular part of the event, it's covered under a venue's ASCAP license.


If the music is synchronized to a video montage, or used as part of an announcement or otherwise synchronized with something, the campaign has entered into the area of "Synchroization Rights". These are covered on a contract-by-contract basis between the music publisher and the user.

"A synchronization or "synch" right involves the use of a recording of musical work in audio-visual form: for example as part of a motion picture, television program, commercial announcement, music video or other videotape. Often, the music is "synchronized" or recorded in timed relation with the visual images. Synchronization rights are licensed by the music publisher to the producer of the movie or program." (

Re:Dear republican candidates (1)

Baron_Yam (643147) | about 2 years ago | (#38878393)

Or, you know, pay for the song's use.

Shouldn't legislators follow the rules they love so dearly that they're campaigning to make more of them?

Re:Dear republican candidates (4, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 years ago | (#38878627)

He likely already did.

There was a similar flap years ago between Chrissie Hinds (of the Pretenders) and Rush Limbaugh, who was using her song "Back to Ohio" as his opening and bump music. Thing is, Limbaugh paid the ASCAP and other associated licensing fees, so Hinds was basically told to bugger off (numerous times, and publicly on his show). I think she tried to sue, but discovered that she really couldn't do a damned thing about it.

My guess is that something very similar is the case here. Gingrich's campaign likely paid all the fees, and barring evidence otherwise, this guy is likely going to get told basically the same thing.

Re:Dear republican candidates (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 years ago | (#38878397)

How about, when they want to use someone's music as their theme tune, they ask them first? Throw a few cents their way? Maybe think about not being a dick, in addition to whether their actions are legally defensible?

Re:Dear republican candidates (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#38878411)

We go through this every election cycle. Stop using music. Just shuffle off the stage. Maybe when you're awkwardly doing so, think about changing music copyright laws if you get elected?

Or, do what Mitt Romney did with Kid Rock, and ask permission from the creator before using their work.

Its fairly easy to avoid the situation that Gingrich is in where he got a C&D from one artist one day and a lawsuit from another the next without changing copyright laws or avoiding music altogether.

Re:Dear republican candidates (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 2 years ago | (#38878449)

Just shuffle off...

to Buffalo [] ?

Re:Dear republican candidates (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#38878541)

Dear republican candidates

You address your message only to Republican candidates? You are part of the problem.

Maybe when you're awkwardly doing so, think about changing music copyright laws if you get elected?

Do you want to know how congress 'fixes' this kind of thing? They create a special exemption for themselves. Like they are doing with their insider trading bill (which gives them MORE freedom to do insider trading than current law), and like they've done with the FOIA (they don't need to respond to FOIA requests).

if i may indulge myself (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#38878219)

<blatant partisan thinking>

the one good use of coyright law

</blatant partisan thinking>

Re:if i may indulge myself (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#38878843)

Well since the majority of /. doesn't represent the majority of american mainstream political opinion. It's fine to have your partisan thinking. I mean, why bother working with the other guys when you can just be the usual hack.

Eye of Newt (1)

OutSourcingIsTreason (734571) | about 2 years ago | (#38878233)

He needs a more appropriate song.

Re:Eye of Newt (1)

koan (80826) | about 2 years ago | (#38878357)

Frankie Goes to Hollywood "Relax"

Re:Eye of Newt (2)

Kierthos (225954) | about 2 years ago | (#38878429)

After Florida, he could start using Beck's "Loser".

Re:Eye of Newt (1)

Moryath (553296) | about 2 years ago | (#38878603)

I'm thinking "Na na na na, hey hey hey..."

The Rye or the Kaiser (5, Funny)

knarfling (735361) | about 2 years ago | (#38878499)

Maybe he should try Weird Al's "Theme from Rocky XIII(The Rye or the Kaiser)". Not only is it more appropriate, Weird Al might let them use it for free.

Re:The Rye or the Kaiser (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | about 2 years ago | (#38878817)

You beat me to it. Kudos, good sir.

Re:Eye of Newt (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 2 years ago | (#38878525)

They're creepy and they're kooky,
Mysterious and spooky,
They're all together ooky,
The Gingrich Family.

FAIR USE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878245)

He is the Rocky Balboa of the Republican party. Except being filthy rich. And fat. And old. And pigish looking. Otherwise, same story !!

Re:FAIR USE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878365)

Soo....he is a ginormous Ugnaught.

He likely has no case. (1)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | about 2 years ago | (#38878247)

More likely than not, he's registered with BMI or ASCAP. You can purchase global rights through those agencies. I'm fairly certain Gingrinch's campaign has dotted that 'i' and crossed that 't'.

If he hasn't then by all means tear him up - I hate the guy myself. But his is likely a case of a composer wanting to distance themselves from the politician who likes their music. That's not exactly a new phenomena by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:He likely has no case. (1)

goldspider (445116) | about 2 years ago | (#38878287)

"But his is likely a case of a composer wanting to distance themselves from the politician who likes their music. That's not exactly a new phenomena by any stretch of the imagination."

Indeed, abusing the court system is as central to record labels' day-to-day business as is producing music.

Re:He likely has no case. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878395)

Assiduously dotting i's and crossing t's? Newt? The guy who failed to make the ballot in Virginia?

Re:He likely has no case. (2)

mybecq (131456) | about 2 years ago | (#38878517)

More likely than not, he's registered with BMI or ASCAP.

Indeed, Eye of the Tiger [] is available for public performance with ASCAP.

Re:He likely has no case. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#38878561)

More likely than not, he's registered with BMI or ASCAP. You can purchase global rights through those agencies. I'm fairly certain Gingrinch's campaign has dotted that 'i' and crossed that 't'.

More than likely, the composer was -- and the composer's lawyers were -- aware of whether the composer is registered with such an agency and whether the Gingrich campaign had purchased the appropriate rights, whether through such an agency or otherwise, before filing a lawsuit. I suspect the existence of such agencies and the fact that some campaigns do purchase rights through them is why most of the times that artists have publicly protested their works by campaigns haven't involved formal cease-and-desist notices or lawsuits, just public statements of disapproval, with the more formal actions being a fairly rare exception.

But his is likely a case of a composer wanting to distance themselves from the politician who likes their music. That's not exactly a new phenomena by any stretch of the imagination.

The distancing is not unusual, the lawsuit is., and you don't seem to have any basis for your claim that the case is likely baseless except the fact that, historically, other campaigns have had artists distance themselves from the campaigns use of songs, which is a pretty thin reed to hang your claim on.

Re:He likely has no case. (1)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | about 2 years ago | (#38878707)

I stand by what I said. Lawyers without any ground to stand on rattle their sabers all the time - and sometimes they even make the mistake of going to court with their pants down (Universal vs. Nintendo for example). And what I said is they do not likely have a case. But I'm not ruling out that they do. I am both not a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express this morning, so frankly I don't know.

Re:He likely has no case. (1)

jemtallon (1125407) | about 2 years ago | (#38878645)

You know, I hadn't thought about the corporate licensing angle. Many businesses could be huge allies in the fight against copyrights. Every bar, elevator, mall, waiting room, that even plays a radio broadcast is breaking the licensing terms. Replaying a radio broadcast in a business or public setting isn't covered under the radio's broadcast license so the business playing the radio needs a license. Same for streaming, playing CDs, having televisions in a sports bar. Hell, the ASCAP site makes it sound like every cover band playing an ASCAP artist's song in a bar requires that *bar* to have a license or they're liable rather than the band playing the song.

The only reason bars, restaurants, malls, etc aren't sued as often as individuals on the Internet is that they're harder to track down. This almost calls for a "public good" group to document these infringements and submit them to ASCAP, BMI, etc... maybe then they'd sue enough people with money that we'd get a lobby to revoke their power?

Politics in a nutshell (5, Insightful)

goldaryn (834427) | about 2 years ago | (#38878253)

So many times, it happens too fast
You trade your passion for glory

Re:Politics in a nutshell (1, Flamebait)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#38878527)

Although in Newt's case, "holes" should be added to that quote.

Is it on any web content from campaign sites (2)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 years ago | (#38878283)

File take down notices and get the web sites black listed.

Doesn't work like that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878305)

If this is just somebody's attempt to keep Gingrich from using the song, simply for being in a different ideological group... then, sorry bud, but that's not how copyright works...

The article doesn't say whether or not Gingrich failed to pay for the music. Seems to me that this information would have been included had Gingrich NOT paid for it.

The article does say, however, that the intro's guitar riffs were used -- which leads me to believe that this is only a small portion of the song, and therefore will likely be upheld as fair use when the case is heard in court.

Re:Doesn't work like that ... (1)

dosun88888 (265953) | about 2 years ago | (#38878453)

Methinks you have never heard the song. Your other inferences are likely just as invalid.

Licensed through ASCAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878307)

Nothing the author can do. Gingrich's campaign bought the rights to use the song fair and square. That the artist is a flaming liberal and doesn't like it, is irrelevant.

Re:Licensed through ASCAP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878349)

And you're a flaming AC who can't use commas!

Re:Licensed through ASCAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878719)

it very well, appears ,he can use commas,,. i don't, see any, ,commas, in your, post!

Re:Licensed through ASCAP (1)

obtuse (79208) | about 2 years ago | (#38878751)

There's no indication whether or not the song is paid for through the standard licensing. To assume it is, is as unjustified as to assume it isn't. Politicians tend to assume everything they do is fair use as in [] . Unfortunately, without that information, the article is pointless.

Artist with existing contract doesn't like what happened to his song, with no information about existing contract.

Laws are for the masses. (1)

forkfail (228161) | about 2 years ago | (#38878313)

Interesting etiology: The word privilege comes from private law [] .

Newt and those in his circle have it, and aren't used to being told they have to follow the same rules that the rest of us do.

*etymology (1)

forkfail (228161) | about 2 years ago | (#38878329)

*grumbles at spell checker*

Re:*etymology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878443)

admit it, you learned that from Samuel Vimes.

Re:*etymology (1)

forkfail (228161) | about 2 years ago | (#38878495)

Guilty as charged. True nevertheless.

What the summary fails to note... (5, Informative)

dmacleod808 (729707) | about 2 years ago | (#38878319)

Is that Jim Peterik, the co-author, is not suing, and doesn't mind that Gingrich uses it... "Chicago-born Frankie Sullivan co-authored the Grammy award-winning song with fellow Survivor founding member Jim Peterik. However, Peterik is not party to the lawsuit and reportedly said that he didn't have a problem with Gingrich using it, according to a Sun Times report." []

Gingrich may have a case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878331)

on the grounds that that same song has commonly been used in political and sports rallies (including IIRC the 1984 Democratic Convention), and most likely not all of those secured permission beforehand. Enforce your rights, or lose them.

Why not the RIAA? (4, Funny)

dmomo (256005) | about 2 years ago | (#38878335)

I guess they don't sue on behalf of actual artists.

Re:Why not the RIAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878593)

At least they're not suing the composer of the song on behalf of the bullshit artist... I mean, politician, in this case...

This always happens to conservatives (2)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 2 years ago | (#38878399)

I don't know why they don't check for permission first. Besides, Grinch Neutron hardly strikes me as a "Tiger". He probably should have contacted Ted Nugent and got the rights to "Cat Scratch Fever", would have suited him better.

Re:This always happens to conservatives (1)

twmcneil (942300) | about 2 years ago | (#38878607)

I was thinking Rebecca Blacks' Friday.

GIngrich is not going to be elected, period. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878403)

1) He is immoral in his personal life.

2) he is physically repulsive.

3) He is a hate monger.

4) He is just a redneck white trash moron who made a few bucks.
        The US doesn't need trash like this in the White House.

5) Only redneck morons will vote for him. Redneck morons cannot
        win an election, there are not enough of them to carry the vote.

Re:GIngrich is not going to be elected, period. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878621)

I just love these open minded, compassionate liberals.

Re:GIngrich is not going to be elected, period. (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | about 2 years ago | (#38878649)

American Idol, Jersey Shore, Survivor, America's got Talent, etc.... are all huge hits, and yet you think Newt's not electable for the reasons you listed? The GENERAL population loves people with those qualifications. They don't realize that they make horrible LEADERS.

Wow, Survivor member turns DOWN exposure chance (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#38878413)

That's pretty bad. Those guys haven't had a hit since Day-Glo Reeboks were still in style.

On the upside, the Gingrich campaign offered him a settlement of 1 month's rent and a case of Thunderbird.

Seriously, if you're a Republican, wouldn't it be much wiser to use Country music anyway? It's not like any Republican has ever gotten tired of hearing "God Bless the USA."

Re:Wow, Survivor member turns DOWN exposure chance (2)

HBI (604924) | about 2 years ago | (#38878519)

Speak for yourself, I hate that effin song. And i'm assuredly a Republican. Next thing, you'll be saying all Republicans want to ban abortion and birth control and be wrong again.

Sometimes you're just a Republican because the other side is even more odious. Not to mention arrogant and presumptuous.

Missing from summary (2)

operagost (62405) | about 2 years ago | (#38878447)

I wonder if Sullivan bothered to simply send a letter to Gingrich asking him to stop using it? After all, it's been YEARS... sounds similar to a submarine patent, right? If Gingrich ignored such a request, then he's got it coming to him. I would feel pretty slimy using a song if I knew the composer didn't like it. That being said, he might be rationalizing a bit since co-writer Peterik is OK with it. I'm not sure what bearing Peterik's wishes have on this, as I don't know if he has a share in Rude Music.

Re:Missing from summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878721)

It's a balancing act:

By suing, and publicizing it, he hurts Gingrich's campaign, which he sees as a win.

By suing, and publicizing it, he makes Gingrich supporters (like me) hate Survivor, which hurts his own sales.

Posting AC, for obvious reasons.

America's Got President! (1)

lucky101man (2558140) | about 2 years ago | (#38878497)

I'm surprised candidates haven't already started paying composers to write theme music for their campaigns. It's so similar to pro wrestling, maybe Gingrich could have a shot at the belt in the sequel if he doesn't make prez!

I bet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878513)

I bet he wouldn't be getting sued if he was playing "Liar" by The Rollins Band.

I don't get it... (4, Insightful)

c (8461) | about 2 years ago | (#38878551)

Why wouldn't a political candidate double check to make sure that the composers/artists/etc responsible for music their using in their campaign is, at worst, neutral towards them?

Because, quite frankly, if I had total legal control over a piece of art that some dickwad I didn't like was appropriating for PR purposes, my first instinct would be to do my own counter-PR version and dump it on whichever public channels I could find.

For instance, a youtube video set to "Eye of the Tiger" which just shows a picture of Gingrinch on a punching bag being pummeled by various disadvantaged types with captions explaining their beefs against him and the Republican party might be an effective way to develop a negative association between him and the song.

Why in the world would a political campaign risk pissing someone off like that?

It's LICENSED! (1)

cfulmer (3166) | about 2 years ago | (#38878755)

Every election season, this comes up. A politician licenses music from one of the performance rights organizations (often ASCAP). The artist (or, really, the composer) gets all upset and either sues or threatens to sue. He has no claim, but just does it for political reasons.

I would have thought... (1)

forkfail (228161) | about 2 years ago | (#38878783)

... he was more of a Dead Kennedys [] fan anyway....

Will the FBI get involved? (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about 2 years ago | (#38878793)

I wonder if the FBI will start an investigation. This seems to be quite a public case of copyright infringement. It could even be called a conspiracy!

Then they could freeze all his assets, as well as those of his campaign. Just until the trial is over of course. I'm sure keeping him in jail for a few months won't cause any permanent damage to his career.

Jim Peterik doesn't mind... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878823)

Sullivan didn’t want to get into whether he likes Gingrich or his politics. His co-writer on the song, fellow Survivor founding member Jim Peterik, however, gave Gingrich a partial endorsement.

“My wife is a big fan,” Peterik said. “I’m becoming a fan of Newt Gingrich. He has a mind of his own. He’s not a talking head. Originally, I didn’t like him, but look at the competition. He’s looking better and better.”

Peterik is not a party to the suit that Sullivan filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago. They share the copyright, but tend to stay out of each other’s way when it comes to cracking down on infringers.

the future campaign event (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38878847)

The future of these events will be just pure awesome...epic

  In the near future, candidates will appear with an oily chest, rock'n'roll heavy death metal type of music and lots of pyrotechnic effect. They will show off they body and some cute half naked girl on their stage. 90% of the time will be an awesome public viewing show...mostly composed of women caressing themselves...including the candidate. near the end, they will talk about what they should for 2 - 3 minutes and take off in an helicopter.

This will be an epic election. /sarcasm

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?