Lara Trump says her Tom Petty cover song is getting "shadow banned" — but no, it's just bad

Originally published at: Lara Trump says her Tom Petty cover song is getting "shadow banned" — but no, it's just bad | Boing Boing


Overgrown children confronted with the fact that they’re not anywhere near as wonderful and special as their parents and lickspittle courtiers told them they were.


I just listened to Tom’s version. Honestly, I am scared to listen to Lara’s version. I value my hearing (and my sanity).


“married to Donald Trump’s least intellectually gifted son”

Still doesn’t help identify which one.


It’s always tricky, but the rule of thumb here is that when cocaine isn’t mentioned it’s most likely Eric.


The acid taste of vomit lingers far longer than the memory of her “amazing” a capella rendition.

Ol’ TP is undoubtedly rotating at approximately 7200 rpm at this moment.


Also, it’s not your song, and the writer’s views should be known. Making a song about resilience being about their belligerence is on brand for Trump’s.


I’m not sure that the charges of ‘viscous’ shadow banning will stick.


Shadow ban away, I say. If bigots can’t be forced to sell cakes to LGBTQ2S+ folks, then I don’t see why iTunes or any other music service should be forced to carry let alone promote Lara Trump.

(of course, she isn’t being shadow banned. Apple wouldn’t turn down an opportunity to make a buck. Her music just sucks, nobody wants to listen, and their algorithm knows it)


I just watched the whole video and can find nothing at all objectionable in this rendition.

squints at screen

Oh, wait, I have the sound muted.


Yeah I don’t think her recording this particular song was random. Trump has been using that song at a lot of his rallies, and Petty’s estate keeps telling them to stop. I’m curious why they gave her permission to record the song, though. I know rights to songs and recordings are separate, so maybe the Petty family doesn’t own the rights to the song itself? Anyway, assuming Lara did secure the rights to record a cover, the Trump campaign would be able to use her recording all they want, because they would own that copyright.


I thought they didn’t need permission to cover a song, but had to pay licensing fees or such. IANAL.


I would love to see Trump’s deplorables respond with “Good God! What is that horrible noise?”


And then carry out a reverse ferret when they learn who the singer is.


Recorded songs carry two copyrights. One for the song itself (lyrics and music) and one for the recording. You have to get the permission of the copyright holder to use either. Now, on YouTube, YouTube gives copyright holders the option to just claim any revenue from the uploads of either rather than trying to track down whether someone has gotten permission. And covers by struggling artists are typically just ignored by the rights holders, but you still do need a license. But the copyrights, as I said earlier, for recordings and the songs themselves are often not held by the same people. Taylor Swift, for example, owns the copyrights to the songs for her earlier albums, but she did not own the copyright for the recordings. And when those copyrights were sold to a third party against her wishes, she smartly just started re-recording all of it, creating Taylor’s Version of all those songs and re-releasing them. Anyway, yes, Lara Trump would still need to secure a license to record a cover of Won’t Back Down. But it’s also possible there are some blanket licenses cover artists can get that cover a whole library of songs. I’m not sure. IANALY, but hopefully will be soon.


It will have been done through a ‘mechanical licence’.

She pays an agreed sum to the copyright holder and gets the rights to record and distribute a cover of the song exactly as it was written. In the US, the Copyright Act requires holders to grant mechanical licences in order to promote creativity - although this atrocity suggests a rethink is need.


Ah, gotcha. Yeah, that’s probably in general a good way to handle cover songs, but it sucks when someone uses that cover to promote something you vehemently disagree with. Oh well, at least her cover sucks.


It’d be interesting to know what the licence cost as they are often graded based on expected sales of the cover.


Given the Trump family’s tendency to exaggerate value, she probably said it would make millions. Fingers crossed!


I was morbidly curious so I looked. Honestly it’s just boring. In the video interview she’s so proud but it’s like if some one was trying to remember the song name and sang the chorus to see if anyone else knew it… That was the energy. I’m not going to listen to “her song” though. I’m not giving her further attention.