Another GOP Candidate Indirectly Promotes Bernie Sanders By Not Getting Music Cleared With Artist

from the free-advertising dept

This is apparently going to keep happening. A while back, we discussed the situation in which Donald Trump declared his candidacy for President (while making comments that torpedoed a bunch of his vaunted business interests) and used the music of Neil Young without the artist's permission. As I noted at the time, Trump was legally allowed to use the music, since the venue had paid the required ASCAP license, but failing to go the extra step and clearing it with Young allowed the musician to generate headlines all to do with his support of Democrat Bernie Sanders. Since candidacy announcements are generally not done to generate name recognition for one's opponents, I suggested that, hey, just go get the whiny artist's permission first, mmkay?

Bobby Jindal didn't take my advice. Jindal used the music of Buckwheat Zydeco during his presidential announcement and, well, ol' Buckwheat was not pleased.

Buckwheat's music was among several songs that played at the Pontchartrain Center in Kenner before Jindal and his supporters took the stage, Gambit Weekly reported while live tweeting the event. The zydeco musician replied to Gambit on his own Twitter page and said that Bobby Jindal using the music of Buckwheat and his band is "not cool at all."

Again, we'll go ahead and assume that the music was properly licensed because that always ends up being the case, but what's the point of letting the discussion of your presidential bid get side-railed because you chose to use the music of some guy who doesn't support you? All the campaign would have to do would be to clear the use with the artist and then all this doesn't happen. Is that really so hard? I mean, sure the musicians are being childish and petty (and have no legal claim), but that's the reality. If you don't want to give extra promotion to opponents, maybe find musicians who actually supports you.

And it's also the reality that all angry-musician-roads lead to Bernie Sanders, apparently.

He had much kinder words for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who strutted on stage to launch his presidential bid with Buckwheat's "Make A Change" playing in the background.

He said Sanders' use of the song was "tres bien."

And so we now have two separate GOP candidate announcements generating publicity for Bernie Sanders. To avoid a third, candidates need only take my advice on clearing the music they use with the artists.

Filed Under: bernie sanders, bobby jindal, buckwheat zydeco, donald trump, license, music, support

Trump Campaign Was Legally Allowed To Use Neil Young's Music At Rally, But Doing So Was Kind Of Dumb

from the yeh-fired dept

It seems like every presidential election cycle, which comes around far too often and lasts for far too long for my taste, there inevitably ends up being some kind of row between some musicians and some politicians over music used at campaign events. The targets of these disputes tend to be Republican candidates, due to the political demographics of musicians as a general thing, but Democrats have been targeted as well. And, as we've mentioned in the past, other than creating a stir in the media and hoping the target campaign relents, there's roughly shit-all these musicians can do about it. But that stir can often times be enough, especially if the musician uses the opportunity to pimp a rival candidate.

Like Bernie Sanders, for example. Apparently when walking ego Donald Trump decided that he was going to announce his candidacy for President of these United States, his campaign decided to use Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World" at the event. Neil not only wasn't pleased, but he used the opportunity to boost the candidate he does endorse.

"Donald Trump was not authorized to use 'Rockin' In The Free World' in his presidential candidacy announcement," said Young's manager in a statement. "Neil Young, a Canadian citizen, is a supporter of Bernie Sanders for President of the United States Of America."

As it turned out, as it usually does, Trump was authorized to use Young's music through an ASCAP license. That said, maybe it's time politicians learned to take the extra step and clear things with musicians before using their music, if for no other reason than to protect against the backlash becoming an advertisement for a rival campaign. Campaigns are very much like brands, after all, and the last thing a brand wants to do is get a competitor's name in circulation. That's got to be doubly so when the rival "brand" is someone like Bernie Sanders who, think whatever you like of him, is starving for more name-recognition on the national level. A couple of simple phone calls from the campaign office would likely inoculate against this sort of thing happening, where now every quote from Young on this dust-up mentions Young's support of Sanders.

All that being said, Young has somehow managed to make Trump the sympathetic figure in this whole story.

A press secretary for the real estate mogul said Wednesday that Trump would respect the wishes of Neil Young and no longer use "Rockin' In the Free World," which Trump featured Tuesday during his announcement that he was seeking the Republican Party's nomination for president. Trump press secretary Hope Hicks said Wednesday that "despite Neil's differing political views, Mr. Trump likes Neil very much."

It's a good way to spin the ending of this story for Trump's team, appearing so reasonable and agreeable to Young's antics, which come off looking petty. Still, no reason to let your campaign's music choice give the artist an opportunity to pimp Bernie Sanders. There are enough conservative musicians out there making music.

Filed Under: bernie sanders, donald trump, endorsements, music, neil young, presidential campaigns, rockin' in the free world
Companies: ascap

Rep. Peter King Says NSA Should Spy On Congress, Because They Might Be Talking To Al Qaeda

from the or-the-IRA? dept

Every day, Rep. Peter King seems more and more like a TV villain politician. He's so... over the top in his crazy surveillance state opinions that it's almost difficult to believe he's real. Just take a stroll through his previous statements, in which he's attacked the NY Times for supporting Ed Snowden, whom he calls both a "traitor" and a "terrorist appeaser." He's said that it's a "disgrace" that anyone might call out the fact that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress. He's argued that it's "slander" to call the NSA's activities "spying." And he's argued that Glenn Greenwald should be arrested and prosecuted for reporting on Snowden's leaks.

His latest, it seems, is in response to Senator Bernie Sanders' simple question to the NSA, about whether or not it was spying on Congress (I'll note that Sanders appears to use "spying" in the manner in which King has previously insisted was "slander"). King was asked about Sanders' question, and argued that the NSA should be spying on Congress because they might be "talking to an al-Qaeda leader."

Specifically, after a very leading question from the Fox News reporter, King says:

I think members of Congress should be treated the same as everyone else. If a member of Congress is talking to an Al Qaeda leader in Iraq or Afghanistan, why should that member of Congress be any different from any person on the street?

While that might sound ridiculous at first, I guess if any member of Congress knows about talking to terrorist leaders, it would be Rep. Peter King. As we've pointed out multiple times, King was a very big supporter of a known terrorist group, the IRA, back in the 80s, supporting the group that was known for bombing a shopping center, killing six and injuring 90.

King goes on with this whopper:

What they're trying to suggest is that somehow the NSA is spying on members of Congress. They're not spying on anyone.

Anyone? Really? They're clearly spying on lots and lots of people, because that's the NSA's job. King goes on to pretend, again, that metadata is no big deal since it just shows phone numbers. So, I'm curious, will Rep. Peter King release his own phone records for the last year? After all, it's no big deal. Just the phone numbers he called, the times he called and how long he was on call. Just like the info the NSA collects, and which King insists is not secret.

Filed Under: bernie sanders, congress, metadata collection, nsa, peter king, section 215, spying

NSA More Or Less Admits To Spying On Congress

from the of-course-it-does dept

On Friday, we noted that Senator Bernie Sanders had asked the NSA if it spied on members of Congress. He was very explicit in how he defined "spying" such that the NSA couldn't legitimately deny it -- since the definition included collecting metadata on their calls -- something the NSA absolutely does. In response to press requests, it appears that the NSA has issued a statement to a variety of publications, basically admitting that of course it spies on Congress, because it collects everyone's data.

NSA’s authorities to collect signals intelligence data include procedures that protect the privacy of US persons. Such protections are built into and cut across the entire process. Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons. NSA is fully committed to transparency with Congress. Our interaction with Congress has been extensive both before and since the media disclosures began last June.

We are reviewing Senator Sanders’s letter now, and we will continue to work to ensure that all members of Congress, including Senator Sanders, have information about NSA’s mission, authorities, and programs to fully inform the discharge of their duties.

The key line: "Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons." Meaning, basically, that they have no privacy protections when it comes to the NSA collecting data.

Filed Under: bernie sanders, bulk metadata, congress, nsa, surveillance

Senator Bernie Sanders Asks The NSA If It's Spying On Congress

from the but-will-he-believe-the-answer? dept

As it appears that there's increasing momentum within Congress to rein in the NSA and its egregious surveillance activity, Senator Bernie Sanders has stepped in with a simple question for the NSA: is the NSA spying on Congress?

I am writing today to ask you one very simple question. Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials? "Spying" would include gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business.

While many will focus on the basic question of "is the NSA spying on Congress," what's much more important here is the definition that Sanders supplies of "spying." Because we already know the answer is yes. We know that the NSA is gathering metadata on pretty much every phone call that is on a major mobile phone network, meaning that, yes, the NSA is collecting metadata on the phone calls of elected officials.

Knowing the NSA's general history, if it responds at all, it will answer a different question. It will not address the gathering of metadata at all, but rather note that it does not "target" members of Congress. And, of course, even if the NSA claimed it wasn't spying on Congress (which, under Sanders' definition is clearly a lie) why would anyone believe them? President Obama has already made it quite clear that he's fine with senior intelligence community lying to Congress.

Filed Under: bernie sanders, metadata, nsa, surveillance

Making AIDS Drugs Affordable With Prizes, Not Patents

from the monopolies-don't-lower-prices dept

Of all the dysfunctional parts of the patent system, drug patents are arguably the worst, since the exorbitant prices that patent monopolies allow mean that millions of people simply cannot afford medicines that would keep them alive or would improve their quality of life substantially.

One riposte to this criticism is that such high prices are needed in order to pay for costly research, but as Techdirt has noted before, that's just a myth. Another is that even if the system has its problems, there's no other way. But there is. In both the US and EU, the idea of replacing pharma patents with pharma prizes is gaining adherents.

One of the early attempts to do that came from Senator Bernie Sanders. At the time, we were rather sceptical because of the bureaucracy that seemed to be involved in this $80 billion scheme. Now he's back with a slimmed-down version of his idea:

I introduced a bill in the Senate that would test this new approach on drugs developed to treat one disease: HIV/AIDS. The measure (S. 1138) would eliminate legal barriers to generic competition for HIV/AIDS drugs and reward innovation directly, through a $3 billion a year prize fund.

< ...>

The prizes would be funded by the federal government and private health insurers in an amount proportionate to their share of the HIV/AIDs drug market.

Sanders claims the savings would significant: he hopes that the $10 billion US market for AIDS drugs could be supplied at generic prices for between $500 million to $1.5 billion. He also notes other benefits:

It will give larger rewards for drugs that improve healthcare outcomes and smaller or no rewards for duplicative, "me-too" drugs that are medically insignificant. It also would eliminate incentives to engage in wasteful marketing activities. Prize fund rewards will be based on evidence that drugs actually work and work better than alternatives.

Those "me-too" drugs and the huge marketing efforts that have to be put behind them to get them used instead of similar products from competitors are further symptoms of the patent system's failure to promote true innovation. The present scheme still leaves the problem of how to decide when drugs work "better than alternatives," and how much to pay for them, but at least the field has been narrowed down, which should make judgements easier.

As with his previous proposal, Sanders' latest bill doesn't stand much chance of being realized in the current political climate. But it's good to hear a US senator framing the issue in terms of patent monopolies and their distorted pricing:

The cost of the prize fund would be considerably less than the cost of buying drugs at monopoly prices.

Once people recognize that patents (and copyright) are monopolies, with all the disadvantages and abuses that implies, they might want less of them.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: bernie sanders, drugs, patents, pharmaceuticals, prizes

Senator Sanders Introduces Medical Innovation Prize Bills

from the alternatives-to-funding-drugs dept

For those who recognize the very significant problems associated with pharmaceutical patents, one popular alternative is to set up an innovation prize system, where the government sets aside large sums of cash as a reward for those who create a drug-based cure for certain issues. Senator Bernie Saners has now introduced two bills that would create potentially giant funds for such efforts -- one directed just at AIDS/HIV and one at much wider medical innovation. The bigger bill would set aside .55 percent of US GDP, or more than $80 billion per year right now. That's a pretty big chunk 'o change. The important parts are that it would also set aside at least 5% of the money to go to "open source" medical innovation efforts, which could mean about $4 billion going into open source research.

Of course, this isn't the first time Senator Sanders has suggested such a thing. Four years ago, he introduced a similar effort. As we noted at the time, there's almost no chance that this goes anywhere, because it's a plan that's simply too radical and would upset way too many special interests. That said, while I do think that this would definitely be significantly better than what we have now, I'm not at all convinced it's a good plan overall. To make this easy, I'll just repost what I said four years ago:

If the plan actually worked, and created new, more affordable drugs that saved many more lives, you could make a compelling argument that the net benefit to the economy would far outweigh the $80 billion (see Murphy and Topel's research for support on that). However, it's still not going to be easy to get people to buy into it. More importantly, it's not entirely clear how you'd allocate this money fairly. Any system like this where the gov't is giving away money is going to be gamed by the pharma companies in one way or another. It'll be so lucrative that it will be nearly impossible not to have the system gamed -- especially when it's going to involve a bunch of bureaucrats trying to determine the value of a specific drug. Finally, the bill seems to be entirely focused on pharmaceuticals -- which is part of the problem today. With so much healthcare policy focused on pharma, people forget that new technologies may start to make pharmaceuticals obsolete. Then we're left with an $80 billion subsidy for an industry that should be going away. I'm all for the economic incentives that come from innovation prizes, but building a huge mis-targeted gov't bureaucracy around them seems risky. Really, it seems to just be replacing one system of gov't subsidies with a different one, and that hardly seems likely to fix the problems currently facing the healthcare space.

Again, this would definitely be better than what we have now, but I think it just replaces one market-distorting government subsidy setup with a different one.

Filed Under: bernie sanders, drugs, health care reform, innovation prizes, patents, pharmaceuticals

USPTO Refuses To Respond To Senators' Questions On Legality Of ACTA

from the trust-us... dept

The effort the administration is going through to avoid discussing ACTA is really quite stunning. Two US Senators, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown, asked USPTO Director David Kappos to respond to specific questions about the legality of certain issues in ACTA. Kappos has now "responded" by not actually responding. He sent a letter back that did not actually address any of the issues raised, but merely said "our USPTO issue experts will continue to work with USTR as they finalize the results achieved in Tokyo." That's not a response. That's a dodge. You can read the entire letter after the jump.

Filed Under: acta, bernie sanders, david kappos, legality, sherrod brown

Senators Begin Questioning ACTA Secrecy

from the this-ain't-the-transparency-we-were-promised dept

Despite some sweet talk from Hollywood about how important ACTA and its secret negotiations are to America (and, once again, no, the secrecy is not at all "normal," as some industry lawyers would have you believe), it looks like some Senators are finally beginning to question how ACTA is being handled. Senators Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown have sent a letter to US Trade Rep Ron Kirk asking for ACTA documents to be made public. The letter points out that "the public has a right to monitor and express informed views on proposals of such magnitude" especially considering that "there are concerns about the impact of ACTA on the privacy and civil rights of individuals, on the supply of products under the first sale doctrine, on the markets for legitimate generic medicines, and on consumers and innovation in general." The letter also takes on the bogus claims of state secrets in protecting ACTA documents:

We are surprised and unpersuaded by assertions that disclosures of basic information about the negotiation would present a risk to the national security of the United States, particularly as regards documents that are shared with all countries in the negotiations, and with dozens of representatives of large corporations. We are concerned that the secrecy of such information reflects a desire to avoid potential criticism of substantive provisions in ACTA by the public, the group who will be most affected by the agreement. Such secrecy has already undermined public confidence in the ACTA process.... We firmly believe that the public has a right to know the contents of the proposals being considered under ACTA, just as they have the right to read the text of bills pending before Congress."

Unfortunately, these are just two Senators. Supporters of ACTA likely have many more who will blindly fight to keep ACTA secret and get it approved with little or no substantive input from those it will impact most.

Filed Under: acta, bernie sanders, secrecey, senate, sherrod brown