Liz Cheyney says NIN, Pearl Jam et al opposition to music used as torture "pathetic"

[icecube]

Nine Inch Nails is imo the best band in the world. How can listening to them be considered torture?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

The other thing that I'm wondering now, if the artists do have a leg to stand on concerning unlawful/unauthorized use of their music,

They at least have a moral leg to stand on, if not a legal one.

"The state shall not use the copyrighted artistic work of American citizens to torture illegally detained foreign nationals without express written consent of the artist."

There ya go, the 28th amendment. Or at least a disclaimer on iTunes.

[J pold]

One has to wonder about the quality of the music when listening to it can be considered a form of torture.

[Alpha_Q]

Originally Posted by moon

They have the same right to complain that flip does and if it is deemed illegal then it isn't an issue for the artists to deal with anyways.

Intellectual property rights do not come into to play at all though when it comes to this issue.

Are the audio engineers at, for example, the Saddledome allowed to play any music they want? I.E. is the NHL authorized to play any music it wants at any of its events or does it need permission from the labels, producers, whatever? I believe intellectual property rights might have an application here. It would be interesting to hear if there have been any legal cases of this nature in the past.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Alpha_Q

Are the audio engineers at, for example, the Saddledome allowed to play any music they want. I.E. is the NHL authorized to play any music it wants at any of its events or does it need permission form the labels, producers, whatever. I believe intellectual property rights might have an application here. It would be interesting to hear if there have been any legal cases of this nature in the past.

No, there isn't. The musicians can protest and use the fact their music is being used for "torture" to gain support for their position, but they can't sue for copyright/trademark infringement.

The use by audio engineers at the Saddledome is completely different: what commercial benefit is the US government gaining by using it for "torture" at Gitmo?

Artists can try to rally public support, Jon Stewart or similar blowhards can get their hands on the story and try to pressure the US government into whatever they want. But like most of these types of stories, it'll fizzle out as the general public gets tired of it and moves onto other gripes.

[troutman]

NIN is torture.

Cruel and unusual punishment.

[Puppet Guy]

Just for the sake of curiosity, what if a suspected terrorist turns out to be a huge NIN fan? Think it'd be torture to him?

if I was forced to listen to Nickelback at high volume for prolonged periods, I'd confess to starting the Chicago fire...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Whip It by Devo. Over and over again at full volume coupled with sleep deprivation. Man, that was fun. They don't call it hell week for nothing.

[Alpha_Q]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

No, there isn't. The musicians can protest and use the fact their music is being used for "torture" to gain support for their position, but they can't sue for copyright/trademark infringement.

The use by audio engineers at the Saddledome is completely different: what commercial benefit is the US government gaining by using it for "torture" at Gitmo?

Artists can try to rally public support, Jon Stewart or similar blowhards can get their hands on the story and try to pressure the US government into whatever they want. But like most of these types of stories, it'll fizzle out as the general public gets tired of it and moves onto other gripes.

I agree that copyright/ trademark infringement would probably not be the road to take.
But what 'commercial benefit' would John McCain get by using a Jackson Browne song at a Republican Party event, and why would Browne launch a lawsuit against its use?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by icecube

Nine Inch Nails is imo the best band in the world. How can listening to them be considered torture?

Really? For some reason I had you pegged as more of an NWA kind of guy.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Alpha_Q

I agree that copyright/ trademark infringement would probably not be the road to take.
But what 'commercial benefit' would John McCain get by using a Jackson Browne song at a Republican Party event, and why would Browne launch a lawsuit against its use?

What did Jackson Browne allege? What's the status of the case? Anyone can file a suit for anything... the success of the lawsuit is another thing completely. Further, the use of a song at a Republican Party event is wholly different than using it in Gitmo. Really, not that much different than using it at the Saddledome.

Additionally, any suit against the US gov't in this situation would get no where. Imagine the discovery process trying to subpoena Gitmo interrogation records?

Edit: Apparently it was used by the OH Republican party in an ad. It settled and it appears that McCain would have stood on "fair use" grounds. That lawsuit is about as transparent as you can get (partisan).

[flip]

Originally Posted by J pold

One has to wonder about the quality of the music when listening to it can be considered a form of torture.

Bands considered torture by your definiton:

from AC/DC to the Barney theme song, Marilyn Manson to Neil Diamond, Tupac Shakur to Sesame Street, Limp Bizkit to Christina Aguilera.

Obviously that is a rather wide range of music listed above. The issue is that artists don't want their music associated with the dehumanization of innocent people. (FTR I'm not saying ALL people at Gitmo are innocent, just that GWB and his regime had a tendency to punish innocent civilians who had/have nothing to do with terrorism)

Just to further illustrate the point:

"The fact that music I helped create was used in crimes against humanity sickens me," said Tom Morello, former lead guitarist for Rage Against the Machine, an industrial rock band whose song "March of the Pigs" has been linked to torture tactics at the detention facility at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

BTW March of the Pigs is a NIN song NOT RATM. That is a typo.

[Sliver]

March of the pigs is an awesome song but as you pointed out not a rage song. It is kind of ironic they are use rage music when this is just the sort of machine they have always been raging against.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by flip

That is about as ignorant of a position I've ever read.

And how is what I wrote ignorant? Whatever we can do to stop mass murder is worth it, IN MY OPINION. Of course I don't mean feeding babies to sharks, but music to a terrorist seems fine to me. And it seems fine to many governments.

If someone does not agree with you, it does not make them ignorant.

I don't understand how people want to protect the rights of terrorists...the first chance they get they will kill as many of us as possible.

I hope some of my favorite bands produce some albums specifically for this cause - torture metal!

[Phaneuf3]

A "Keep America Safe" spokesperson went so far as to say "It's almost laughable to think that heavy metal bands like Nine Inch Nails and Rage Against the Machine have a moral authority on national security issues."

Wait... what? Since when do people consider Nine Inch Nails and Rage Against the Machine heavy metal?
Also - screw this. I hope the artists in question find a way to stop these dirtbags.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

And how is what I wrote ignorant? Whatever we can do to stop mass murder is worth it, IN MY OPINION. Of course I don't mean feeding babies to sharks, but music to a terrorist seems fine to me. And it seems fine to many governments.

If someone does not agree with you, it does not make them ignorant.

I don't understand how people want to protect the rights of terrorists...the first chance they get they will kill as many of us as possible.

I hope some of my favorite bands produce some albums specifically for this cause - torture metal!

I'm not even sure where to start tearing this apart. Its so incredibly ignorant, I'm inclined to believe you're simply a troll and don't believe a word of it.

Its not like they're playing them some Enya for their meditation sessions here. This is being used as a sleep deprivation technique and you can be sure its being used in conjunction with other forms of torture.

As for the 'rights of terrorists', I believe that everyone should be granted basic human rights. If you can prove they've committed terrorist acts and mass murder, then fine, give them a fair and open trial and lock them up. The Red Cross has estimated that 80% of people detained and tortured at Abu Gharib were the 'wrong people'. How is that acceptable to you?


If you honestly believe what you said, its truly astonishing and appalling.


edit: Mr. Nage Waza, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[CMPunk]

Oh lord...even my wife who's the biggest NIN fan I know laughed at this.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by moon

No they aren't owed royalties or else every single person who has a party and plays a CD would owe bands royalties.

Surprisingly they don't charge the prisoners any money to come to Gitmo and listen to the music so they don't have to pay the artists any money if they play their music there.

Are you certain of that? ASCAP defines public performance as follows (and note that it specifically exempts parties and private social gatherings):

A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances.) A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet. Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or his representative. However, there are a few limited exceptions, (called "exemptions") to this rule. Permission is not required for music played or sung as part of a worship service unless that service is transmitted beyond where it takes place (for example, a radio or television broadcast). Performances as part of face to face teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions are also exempt.

I find the mention of on-hold music interesting - it's somewhat similar use of the music (besides the obvious double entendre of being on hold being torture), in that its not something you choose to listen to, it's not a primary component of a profit making venture (eg. music at a bar or for-pay social gathering like hockey games at the Saddledome), but you are still on the hook for it because you are publicly broadcasting it. Even elevator music has to be licensed, when nobody specifically is gathering to listen to it (they just wanna ride the elevator)

It's an academic question at best, obviously the topic of torture is much more important here than whether or not Trent R gets paid more money, and for all we know, De La Rocha is in Gitmo

Edit: This link http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/...rmance-in.html indicates that prisons have to license music, so this isn't any different, I would think.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well some of their music does sound like a cat being tortured. And while cats are completely evil, cat torture is just wrong.

[Winsor_Pilates]

"It's almost laughable to think that heavy metal bands like Nine Inch Nails and Rage Against the Machine have a moral authority on national security issues."

That quote really strikes a nerve with me. Even aside from the fast it's their music, these bands and their members have the right to pass moral judgement as American citizens.
Aren't these the same type of ultra-right wing agencies usually saying every American needs to protect national security?
Now when American's show opinions on the issue, it's "laughable"?