October 15, 2008
Political Science Department
Music Rights, Politician's Rights
One of the many side issues during this campaign season has been the use of contemporary music by the campaigns---in commercials or as background to conventions and rallies. The original artists don't always like the candidates who use their music, and often they have the legal right to stop them. (Not always. Music licensing is complicated and often kind of stupid.)
Getting sued by the remnants of a 20-year old band is a little embarassing for a campaign, but given the gigantic egos of people in politics, I've been expecting for some time that the political class would take advantage of the fact that they write the copyright laws and just create an exception for music during campaigns.
And here's the first sign of it, in a Washington Post op-ed by Christopher Sprigman and Siva Vaidhyanathan from the University of Virginia:
Artists should speak up, loudly, when they feel the use of their songs misrepresents their views, particularly if such use could create the public impression of an endorsement.
But the one thing they should not do -- and should not legally be permitted to do -- is file a copyright lawsuit to prevent the political use of a song.
The first reason they give is somewhat technical:
Almost all recording artists make their songs available for use via a "blanket license" from firms such as ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Performers) or BMI (Broadcast Music Inc.). By lowering the cost of licensing, the blanket licensing system provides artists with revenue they would not otherwise obtain; it also makes it easy for bars and restaurants to play music without hassle, fear or crippling costs. If artists start trying to pick and choose who is eligible for a blanket license, the efficiency of the system would be destroyed.
Although somewhat simplified, that's reasonably accurate. However, it only explains why it would be an unwise business practice for artists to pick and choose their licensees, not why it would be bad public policy.
(By the way, the idea that the current music licensing system is efficent is a questionable proposition. It was probably pretty efficent back when music was all recorded live in studios and then pressed into vinyl records, but in our era of modern digital production pipelines, where highschool students can make music videos with pocket cameras and distribute them over the internet, it seems to pointlessly impair creativity.)
Their other reason is a little scary:
Politicians use songs as a way to tell people what they stand for -- or at least what they want us to believe they stand for. Using a song to communicate a political message is just the kind of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.
And I fully support the right of every politician to write and record as many songs as they want. But if they want to use somebody else's songs, they should play by the rules.
Kip Esquire has a well-reasoned response worth reading.
.
Leave a comment