Mike Huckabee pays $25,000 to resolve “Eye of the Tiger” copyright lawsuit

Huckabee's still paying for a copyright snafu from his campaign's early days.

Read the whole story

 

[thickslab]

>Huckabee's anti-gay-marriage rally lead to copyright suit, $25,000 payment

led*

 

[alfalfacat]

jeff.lefevre@gmail.com[/url]":2jqzuzcl]Am I wrong or is Ars not a tech and science news site? If it is a site for tech and science news, what's this article here for? If I was looking for political news, I wouldn't be here.

Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

 

[Mr_D]

jeff.lefevre@gmail.com[/url]":1ffn23dt]Am I wrong or is Ars not a tech and science news site? If it is a site for tech and science news, what's this article here for? If I was looking for political news, I wouldn't be here.

Ars frequently posts stories about copyright infringement.

Also, you registered just to say this?

 

[Akemi]

thickslab[/url]":3quu0l6p]>Huckabee's anti-gay-marriage rally lead to copyright suit, $25,000 payment

led*

This is 'merika, all things lead to lead (hot fiery flying lead - yeehaw).

 

[Relto]

Arthmoor[/url]":1nvysewr]

alfalfacat[/url]":1nvysewr]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

An article that reports on a event that happened to someone is a "hit piece"?

 

[Greenlightracer]

jeff.lefevre@gmail.com[/url]"5tvwk1j]Am I wrong or is Ars not a tech and science news site? If it is a site for tech and science news, what's this article here for? If I was looking for political news, I wouldn't be here.

It's their website, they can post whatever they like. I suggest you start your own tech and news site. You shouldn't be here.

 

[bdp]

Arthmoor[/url]":1a7e1btf]

alfalfacat[/url]":1a7e1btf]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

Oh, well in that case you can just not read it if it offends your right wing sensibilities.

 

[ZhanMing057]

Arthmoor[/url]":1n4bg2rt]

alfalfacat[/url]":1n4bg2rt]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

Let me get this straight:

- Politician downloads song illegally
- Politician uses said song in major rally
- Gets sued by copyright owner
- Pays $25,000 to settle

Ars reported as such. Since all of these parts are factual, why is this a "hit piece"?

Edit: I absolutely despise Mike Huckabee as a human being. The likes of Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush also spout religious nonsense from time to time, but few come across as petty, fear-mongering, opportunistic and flat-out anti-intellectual as Mr. Huckabee. But my feelings aside, this was a pretty major event and widely mocked on comedy programs (if I recall correctly, TDS questioned whether the song was licensed on an episode the day after the rally). Not all copyright violations are reported by Ars, but this one definitely deserves a follow-up

 

[chiablo]

He also said the rally for Davis was a "religious assembly," which further mitigated against a finding of infringement.

If it were that easy to skirt copywrite infringement, half of Youtube's content creators would have an epiphany and suddenly find Jesus.

 

[Matty]

Is $25k even a deterrent for these campaigns in the days of Super PACs and billionaire backers?

 

[Shlazzargh]

I don't think it is a hit piece. What makes it recently newsworthy is that it just popped up for him still needing to pay off debts:

Now, CNN has reported that Huckabee's campaign ended up paying $25,000 to Sullivan's music company to resolve a copyright infringement lawsuit over the incident. Two payments of $12,500 each appeared on a June 20 document filed with the Federal Election Commission.

So the story is that a politician is still getting bitten by something that they should know better about. Especially the ones who are all about Law & Order, but then ignore the same copyright issues...

 

[ToolGuy3]

dogmafaucet[/url]":33zcd2p6]

Arthmoor[/url]":33zcd2p6]

alfalfacat[/url]":33zcd2p6]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

If this was one of a few such cases or the only case for the year, it might be newsworthy. It's just not. I'd be shocked if they were the only organization that had to pay a settlement over unauthorized use of a song. Where are the articles about all of the others? It appears the only reason this was run is that it involved a political figure that doesn't appear to be favored by Ars. If Ars doesn't want to look like they're running a political hit piece, they should be a lot more careful about the pieces they run, especially during the political silly season.

So I'm guessing that Ars shouldn't run any articles about Hillary's email server because other politicians also have email servers, right?

 

[Spazzles]

ZhanMing057[/url]":2w0qg0rs]

Arthmoor[/url]":2w0qg0rs]

alfalfacat[/url]":2w0qg0rs]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

Let me get this straight:

- Politician downloads song illegally
- Politician uses said song in major rally
- Gets sued by copyright owner
- Pays $25,000 to settle

Ars reported as such. Since all of these parts are factual, why is this a "hit piece"?

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert

 

[Derecho Imminent]

ZhanMing057[/url]":13o0jhj0]

Arthmoor[/url]":13o0jhj0]

alfalfacat[/url]":13o0jhj0]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

Let me get this straight:

- Politician downloads song illegally
- Politician uses said song in major rally
- Gets sued by copyright owner
- Pays $25,000 to settle

Ars reported as such. Since all of these parts are factual, why is this a "hit piece"?

Because it seems like it is always a republican doing it?

 

[RT81]

I wonder how many more times Republican/conservative politicians will blunder into using this song without thinking. I'd gladly let them blunder into using some of my music. The settlement money will put my kids through college!

It's almost as if music is the labor of a real person, someone who may have their own beliefs -- imagine that! They act like its just some background noise from that movie that sounds cool and is shorthand for "I'm tough and I don't give up!"

 

[WaveRunner]

Matty[/url]":31jfbl7v]Is $25k even a deterrent for these campaigns in the days of Super PACs and billionaire backers?

Probably not on the grand scheme of things no, but still this can't be covered by PACs because that would have required coordination.

 

[bdp]

dogmafaucet[/url]":3bo3brq2]

Arthmoor[/url]":3bo3brq2]

alfalfacat[/url]":3bo3brq2]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

If this was one of a few such cases or the only case for the year, it might be newsworthy. It's just not. I'd be shocked if they were the only organization that had to pay a settlement over unauthorized use of a song. Where are the articles about all of the others? It appears the only reason this was run is that it involved a political figure that doesn't appear to be favored by Ars. If Ars doesn't want to look like they're running a political hit piece, they should be a lot more careful about the pieces they run, especially during the political silly season.

I'm so glad you're here to tell me what is and isn't newsworthy. It sucks having to rely on Ars Technica's professional writers and editors to do that for me. I just don't know why I even visit this website many times a day anymore.

Well Ars, it's been a good 14 years or so, but this shit ain't newsworthy, so I'm out.

Edit: Apparently my sarcasm was too subtle.

 

[Spazzles]

adamrussell[/url]":3uz29k5j]

ZhanMing057[/url]":3uz29k5j]

Arthmoor[/url]":3uz29k5j]

alfalfacat[/url]":3uz29k5j]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

Let me get this straight:

- Politician downloads song illegally
- Politician uses said song in major rally
- Gets sued by copyright owner
- Pays $25,000 to settle

Ars reported as such. Since all of these parts are factual, why is this a "hit piece"?

Because it seems like it is always a republican doing it?

The Hillary coverage hasn't been very flattering. It hasn't demonized her, and a lot of people would see that as a "left-leaning bias", but Ars didn't demonize Huckabee either. It's not "always" a republican that Ars reports on, and it doesn't seem that way to me.

 

[Magius]

Watch out Ars! Judging from the posts there will be a lot of junior editor applicants this year.
What? These are backseat drivers at best? Surely not! Biased? No way!
...

Bad jokes aside, considering Reps are usually the ones pushing for stringent copyright enforcement, this bit of news is almost humorous.

As for bias in one way or another, there is an easy way to judge.
- Did it happen? Yes.

Then where is the bias?

Just because it is not to your liking doesn't make it part of an agenda.
Would you have complained if the guilty party had belonged to the opposing party?
Would you have cheered on then?

 

[spoof]

Huckabee left the presidential race a long time ago. He's just another pontificating right wing celebrity now. If this is a "hit piece" what is it supposed to hit? A guy who's not running for anything?

Or someone just doesn't like to see someone from their "team" embarrassed and made to look like a jerk

Which Huckabee can do all by himself, by violating song copyrights, which thereby gets reported on. Everywhere.

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

Relto[/url]":138tr1w4]

Arthmoor[/url]":138tr1w4]

alfalfacat[/url]":138tr1w4]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

An article that reports on a event that happened to someone is a "hit piece"?

Further, if it was a hit piece it'd be the kind where you'd be sending the assassin to the graveyard to dig up the 'victim'.

 

[ewelch]

bdp[/url]":2hnqpp32]

dogmafaucet[/url]":2hnqpp32]

Arthmoor[/url]":2hnqpp32]

alfalfacat[/url]":2hnqpp32]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

If this was one of a few such cases or the only case for the year, it might be newsworthy. It's just not. I'd be shocked if they were the only organization that had to pay a settlement over unauthorized use of a song. Where are the articles about all of the others? It appears the only reason this was run is that it involved a political figure that doesn't appear to be favored by Ars. If Ars doesn't want to look like they're running a political hit piece, they should be a lot more careful about the pieces they run, especially during the political silly season.

I'm so glad you're here to tell me what is and isn't newsworthy. It sucks having to rely on Ars Technica's professional writers and editors to do that for me. I just don't know why I even visit this website many times a day anymore.

Well Ars, it's been a good 14 years or so, but this shit ain't newsworthy, so I'm out.

To find a site more appropriate to one's taste, might I suggest a Google search: echo chamber?

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

Matty[/url]":281vf1gs]Is $25k even a deterrent for these campaigns in the days of Super PACs and billionaire backers?

Unless I missed something this isn't "Super PAC" money, right? This is the regular $2700 limit/person money I think? Not that Huckabee himself had a whole lot of either coming his way in the 2016 cycle. $25K has to be noticeable at some level to most campaigns, certainly for ROI for a single playing of a song.

 

[ZhanMing057]

Hinton[/url]":2ezpemwy]If a radio station plays a song, they pay what, lets say 50 cents.

Huckabee had to pay 25k, because why?

If you were a major radio station and played this song during the day without license, I would bet you $25,000 that you'd be sued for a lot more than $25,000.

Personal and commercial use are two very different beasts...

 

[alfalfacat]

Hinton[/url]":1mhsg5m7]If a radio station plays a song, they pay what, lets say 50 cents.

Huckabee had to pay 25k, because why?

One was licensed, the other was illegal.

Regardless of what you think about copyright itself, the law is what it is. You get caught riding the train without a ticket, you don't get fined the fare alone.

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

spoof[/url]":3qviinh7]Huckabee left the presidential race a long time ago. He's just another pontificating right wing celebrity now. If this is a "hit piece" what is it supposed to hit? A guy who's not running for anything?

Or someone just doesn't like to see someone from their "team" embarrassed and made to look like a jerk

Which Huckabee can do all by himself, by violating song copyrights, which thereby gets reported on. Everywhere.

I wonder how Mike would respond to copyright infringement of his personally penned classic tome:
God, Guns, Grits and Gravy (... gonads, gumption, gonorrhea & Good 'Ol Boys!)

... which you too can now "own" for much less than the price of at least "one song" we know of.

Spoiler

(please note that the image does not read "huckster"!)

 

[lightspd]

Hinton[/url]":3kv3ozh2]If a radio station plays a song, they pay what, lets say 50 cents.

Huckabee had to pay 25k, because why?

Same reason if you pay a toll is a couple dollars, but run a toll it's a couple hundred.

 

[zogus]

bdp[/url]":11mokiyv]

dogmafaucet[/url]":11mokiyv]

Arthmoor[/url]":11mokiyv]

alfalfacat[/url]":11mokiyv]Ars has reported on copyright since forever. Just because it involves politicians doesn't mean it's politics.

True, but usually that copyright has at least something to do with a tech issue. This doesn't. It smells more like the typical hit piece left wing media loves.

If this was one of a few such cases or the only case for the year, it might be newsworthy. It's just not. I'd be shocked if they were the only organization that had to pay a settlement over unauthorized use of a song. Where are the articles about all of the others? It appears the only reason this was run is that it involved a political figure that doesn't appear to be favored by Ars. If Ars doesn't want to look like they're running a political hit piece, they should be a lot more careful about the pieces they run, especially during the political silly season.

I'm so glad you're here to tell me what is and isn't newsworthy. It sucks having to rely on Ars Technica's professional writers and editors to do that for me. I just don't know why I even visit this website many times a day anymore.

Well Ars, it's been a good 14 years or so, but this shit ain't newsworthy, so I'm out.

If my formative years on Usenet taught me anything, it is that anyone who takes the effort to post "I'm out" has too much emotional investment to actually leave. See you back here real soon!

 

[charlie don't surf]

What a deal. I wish I could get people to pay me to not to play songs like that.

Mrs. Rittenhouse: You are one of the musicians? But you were not due until tomorrow.

Ravelli: Couldn't come tomorrow, that's too quick.

Spaulding: Say, you're lucky they didn't come yesterday!

Ravelli: We were busy yesterday, but we charge just the same.

Spaulding: This is better than exploring! What do you fellows get an hour?

Ravelli: Oh, for playing we getta ten dollars an hour.

Spaulding: I see...What do you get for not playing?

Ravelli: Twelve dollars an hour.

Spaulding: Well, clip me off a piece of that.

Ravelli: Now, for rehearsing we make special rate. Thatsa fifteen dollars an hour.

Spaulding: That's for rehearsing?

Ravelli: Thatsa for rehearsing.

Spaulding: And what do you get for not rehearsing?

Ravelli: You couldn't afford it...Heh...you see, if we don't rehearse, we don't play...And, if we don't play...That runs into money.

Spaulding: How much would you want to run into an open manhole?

Ravelli: Just the cover charge.

 

[joemullin]

I don't have anything to add, but thanks to all the commenters who defended the predictable "Why is this on Ars" and "bias" comments. There will be a small number of people who are going to cry bias every single time we have an article that mentions a politician. It says more about the commenter than it does about Ars, in my view...

Copyright claims against politicians are mostly against Republicans. That may be because, shocker, rock n' roll artists are a pretty left-leaning group! Interesting 538 blog article from last year found at least 30 instances of musicians objecting to Republicans' use of songs and only 2 instances of objections filed against Democrats.

The reason Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen aren't going after Dems is because they're, you know, playing at their events... Democrats might be just as careless as Republicans in using the IP, but since the IP owners in this case are mostly left-leaning, we won't hear about it.

 

[Fatesrider]

Matty[/url]":9sfry054]Is $25k even a deterrent for these campaigns in the days of Super PACs and billionaire backers?

Sadly, Huckabee's backers tend to not be the brightest bulbs on the Christmas Tree. They're often badly educated, entirely Evangelical and absolutely the worst possible American citizens in the country due to their push for a Christian version of Sharia Law.

He's not generally backed by big money. Rather, he uses personal appearances, his radio show and other such low-end fund-raising to gather his money. He's still paying off his campaign debts (which he's obligated to do by law). So his fundraising at this point is essentially milking the moneyless and desperate by preying on their prejudices, fear, intolerance and hate to exploit them as a cash fund.

(MOTO Moment: I hate his fucking guts, but this is essentially what he does. That his victims are willing participants only makes it worse.)

 

[joemullin]

Re: the $25k figure, it strikes me as a pretty good deal for the musicians, and not unreasonable based on what would be available to them under US law. It's a single (allegedly) infringed work. The musicians couldn't get more than $150k even if they went through a trial and proved willful infringement. If it was non-willful, the max would be $30,000. So $25,000 without the hassle seems like a good deal.