Yawn. Further up in the article Crow talks about how no one takes to the street, is reminded of the tea party, backpedals earlier clueless statement re: taking to the street by stating that tea partiers are stupid. I liked this the best, though:
Later in her June Glamour magazine interview with Couric, Crow slammed Karl Rove and other conservatives for harping on her toilet paper idea. She claimed this was done “[j]ust to discredit me and to make me look silly.”
Don’t worry, Crow. I don’t think anyone could further affect how silly you are already.
Byrne is seeking $1 million in damages from Gov. Charlie Crist, who’s also Florida’s former Attorney General, and his senatorial campaign for use of the song earlier this year in a website and YouTube ad attacking his then-Republican primary opponent, Marco Rubio. Crist has since changed his campaign and is running as an independent candidate.
Bottom line: don’t use intellectual property that isn’t yours.
From the WSJ, on my good friend Jon, of whom I’m proud to call both a friend and a fellow patriot:
Over those eyes he wears a pair of large shades and a Coors cap pulled low. And Jon David is not his real name.
The guy in the spotlight singing “American Heart,” it can now be revealed, is 42-year-old Jonathan Kahn, a Hollywood screenwriter, director and scribbler of songs whose faith in America doesn’t extend to the place he calls home.
Fearful of being ostracized in the town where he peddles his songs and scripts, Mr. Kahn has gone sub rosa on the rally circuit. “It’s for protective reasons,” he says. “In Hollywood, being a conservative is the kiss of death.”
Here was Jon in studio a month ago, playing his song “American Heart,” a portion of which is donated to our men and women in uniform.
I was careful not to blow his identity in the video, but even then he was frustrated with living a double life. He talked of “burning the boats.” Coming out, politically as it were, and not going back. I supported him; the more people we have unashamed, unafraid to speak up in defense of individual liberty and limited government, true freedom for all, then more will come out; the whole strength-in-numbers thing. He’s not the only one; screenwriter and my PJTV colleague, Andrew Klavan, said as much recently to CNS News:
Screenwriter and author Andrew Klavan said that in Hollywood, “(i)f you’re a conservative, especially a religious person, people have to meet in secret. They talk in whispers. It’s a very disturbing kind of culture.”
There is a political/social shift occurring in Hollywood, Klavan told CNSNews.com, adding, “I think we’re changing it. It’s not something that’s happening passively. It’s something that’s happening because people are really making noise.”
“I have nothing against atheists or left-wingers making movies,” Klavan said. “I think everybody should be able to make movies. I simply think this kind of lock-step conformity that has become the default position of American intellectuals has to go. It’s bad for the arts. It’s bad for our intellectual conversation.”
It’s easy to be scared of someone who has not a single decision to her credit. From the Hollywood Reporter:
Hollywood’s biggest worry about Kagan might be her philosophy on intellectual property matters. As dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, she was instrumental in beefing up the school’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society by recruiting Lawrence Lessig and others who take a strongly liberal position on “fair use” in copyright disputes.
Kagan got her biggest opportunity to showcase her feelings on IP when the U.S. Supreme Court asked her, as U.S. Solicitor General, to weigh in on the big Cablevision case.
Hollywood was upset when Cablevision announced its intention to allow subscribers to store TV programs on the cable operator’s computer servers instead of a hard-top box. The introduction of remote-storage DVR kicked off furious litigation, and the 2nd Circuit overturned a lower court ruling by saying that the technology wouldn’t violate copyright holder’s rights. The studios appealed to the Supreme Court.
In Kagan’s brief to the high court, she argued the justices shouldn’t take the case and trumpeted fair use. She went against broadcasters there and even criticized Cablevision for limiting the scope of its arguments.
To the contrary of the author’s concluding graph: I’d argue that it absolutely does establish a precedence on which way Kagan would swing on IP issues.