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

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

How so? If prisons have to license music broadcast to prisoners, how is this any different?

Even assuming you're right and there is a viable cause of action against the US Gov't, how would the lawsuit proceed?

Attorney for NIN: "General, did you use my client's music to torture prisoners at Gitmo?"

General/US Official: "I cannot answer that question as the President has invoked executive privilege and further, this involves issues of national security."

Attorney for NIN: "Please hand over all records related to the use of music as a torture/interrogation tactic at Gitmo from 2001 through 2009."

General/US Official: "I cannot provide you with any documents, if they even exist, as the President has invoked executive privilege and further, this involves issues of national security."

Judge: "The US' motion for summary judgment/demurrer is granted."

And so on. It's nothing more than a partisan rally effort against the war, Gitmo, torture, US foreign policy, etc... by liberal musicians. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, it's just don't allow the threat of a lawsuit cloud the tranparency of what's really going on. Much like Jackson Browne's lawsuit against McCain - nothing more than a partisan political ploy.

[mykalberta]

I think that starving artists should SHUT THE HELL UP. If the music was purchased legally they have no legal authority whatsoever.

What, is it now illegal to listen to legally purchased music with your friends?

Why I am I not surprised NIN is used as a torture method HAHAHA. Wonder where the Nickelback torture chamber is

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Wonder where the Nickelback torture chamber is

Hahaha. Even the Cheney's won't go that low.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Laugh.

And they hate us for our freedoms.

This is so annoying.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I think that starving artists should SHUT THE HELL UP. If the music was purchased legally they have no legal authority whatsoever.

What, is it now illegal to listen to legally purchased music with your friends?

Why I am I not surprised NIN is used as a torture method HAHAHA. Wonder where the Nickelback torture chamber is

I totally agree. If I put out an album tomorrow and you buy it you can do with that album what you want.

[dre]

Originally Posted by Slava

I totally agree. If I put out an album tomorrow and you buy it you can do with that album what you want.

Unfortunatly you can't. http://www.socan.ca
I believe its ASCAP in the US.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by dre

Unfortunatly you can't. http://www.socan.ca
I believe its ASCAP in the US.

So if I buy an album and play it for people in any capacity these guys can tell me that I'm not allowed because they don't approve? I find that not only hard to believe but completely ridiculous if true.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Slava

So if I buy an album and play it for people in any capacity these guys can tell me that I'm not allowed because they don't approve? I find that not only hard to believe but completely ridiculous if true.

Read the rest of the thread and do some research. For small social gatherings public performance of recorded works is fine (eg. a party at your house). When you start using it in other capacities (eg. in a bar, elevator music, on-hold music, broadcast over the work PA system, etc), yes, you have to pay.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I think that starving artists should SHUT THE HELL UP. If the music was purchased legally they have no legal authority whatsoever.

What, is it now illegal to listen to legally purchased music with your friends?

Why I am I not surprised NIN is used as a torture method HAHAHA. Wonder where the Nickelback torture chamber is

I don't think these artists are starving.

Why should they "shut the hell up" as you so intelligently put it? Their life work is being used in a manner that they fundamentally disagree with. How would you feel if your work was being used in a cause you didn't support? Would you just "shut the hell up"? Its also being used by government agencies for official state purposes, not in a private gathering of friends.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I don't think these artists are starving.

Why should they "shut the hell up" as you so intelligently put it? Their life work is being used in a manner that they fundamentally disagree with. How would you feel if your work was being used in a cause you didn't support? Would you just "shut the hell up"? Its also being used by government agencies for official state purposes, not in a private gathering of friends.

With respect to artists, they gave up the right for their opinion to matter on how their music is used when they sold it for profit. Everyone has a right to an opinion, my argument is their opinion is worth no more than anyone else on the issue so long as agents of the US government purchased their music legally.

How do we know its used for official state puproses. Maybe Joe Iowa CIA and his Arkansas farm boy buddies like to listen to annoying NIN music. Since when is playing loud music of any kind considered torture - could it be the liberal media has blown this out of proportion - nah they wouldnt do a thing like that. The funny thing is that some people consider that to be torture - sure NIN might be considered torture but Pearl Jam pre commercial sellout days - come on - new stuff yah.

So yah, my "SHUT THE HELL UP" message to commecial artists stand. The problem with these "artists" is their fanboys take their opinion to be worth more than what it actually is which is why unfortunately some of these artists feel empowered to tread on subjects and topics that they have no business interfering with.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by troutman

NIN is torture.

Cruel and unusual punishment.

The guy in your avatar did a pretty good cover of them... I suppose he doesn't think NIN is torture.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The guy in your avatar did a pretty good cover of them... I suppose he doesn't think NIN is torture.

I doubt he had any idea who they were. Rubin brought him the song, and he made something out of it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by troutman

I doubt he had any idea who they were. Rubin brought him the song, and he made something out of it.

Well, Cash's version and NIN's version sound pretty darn similar... I'm not sure how you could listen to one and say 'genius', and the second and say 'torture!'. Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not NIN's biggest fan in the world, but they've definitely made good music, I'm a big staggered by the number of people here who seem to think they're crap. I guess to me that's the same as saying Radiohead or Nirvana are crap (or 'torture')... to each their own I suppose.

[CaptainCrunch]

They should use Lady Gaga and New Kids on the block. I know that would make me talk.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

With respect to artists, they gave up the right for their opinion to matter on how their music is used when they sold it for profit. Everyone has a right to an opinion, my argument is their opinion is worth no more than anyone else on the issue so long as agents of the US government purchased their music legally.

How do we know its used for official state puproses. Maybe Joe Iowa CIA and his Arkansas farm boy buddies like to listen to annoying NIN music. Since when is playing loud music of any kind considered torture - could it be the liberal media has blown this out of proportion - nah they wouldnt do a thing like that. The funny thing is that some people consider that to be torture - sure NIN might be considered torture but Pearl Jam pre commercial sellout days - come on - new stuff yah.

So yah, my "SHUT THE HELL UP" message to commecial artists stand. The problem with these "artists" is their fanboys take their opinion to be worth more than what it actually is which is why unfortunately some of these artists feel empowered to tread on subjects and topics that they have no business interfering with.

Actually, you don't give up your right on how your music is used once its sold.

Its already been stated that the music has been used for interrogation purposes. Its not quite as simple as the prisoners finding the music distasteful (otherwise I would press charges against muchmusic for torture), its the manner in which the music is used (listened to repeatedly at high volumes) in order to cause the person distress. So I think its a little more than Joe Iowa CIA playing his ghetto blaster in the background of gitmo.

As for the artists treading on subjects and topics they have no business interfering with, that statement is a complete joke. I always find it funny that people who are claiming to defend America's freedoms are the first one's to be incapable of understanding that people have a right to speak out about their government's actions. Its a fundamental democratic practice. So really, they should'nt "shut the hell up". That would be unAmerican.

[CaptainCrunch]

However if you go by the logic the statement that artists have no clue what they're talking about and should shut the hell up is also covered as a fundamental democratic practice.

So your debate is at a cross roads and really comes down to opinion which is also protected, however since my opinion is far more relevant in my mind and cancels the arguing parties out my rights supersede your rights.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Read the rest of the thread and do some research. For small social gatherings public performance of recorded works is fine (eg. a party at your house). When you start using it in other capacities (eg. in a bar, elevator music, on-hold music, broadcast over the work PA system, etc), yes, you have to pay.

I read a lot of this thread and I see the difference between a commercial use personal use. But this is a completely different situation as its not being used for profit, which is really where that distinction lies.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Actually, you don't give up your right on how your music is used once its sold.

From my understanding, that depends if you're still the copyright owner. If you're the copyright owner you can, to some extent, control how its used via licensing. If you sold your rights to your record company and they want to license it for something against your wishes, tough .

Originally Posted by Igottago

As for the artists treading on subjects and topics they have no business interfering with, that statement is a complete joke. I always find it funny that people who are claiming to defend America's freedoms are the first one's to be incapable of understanding that people have a right to speak out about their government's actions. Its a fundamental democratic practice. So really, they should'nt "shut the hell up". That would be unAmerican.

This. Even if you can't complain about it for IP rights issues like in a scenario I mentioned above, you still have the right to speak up on the issue because as a citizen, you should be involved in the democratic process and how your government decides policy. You may not be able to change it but if you feel strongly about it, you should voice your displeasure.

[mykalberta]

Elizabeth Cheney


I wondered who this Cheyney person was because there is no possible way the OP would purposely mis-spell the persons name - nope not possible.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Slava

I read a lot of this thread and I see the difference between a commercial use personal use. But this is a completely different situation as its not being used for profit, which is really where that distinction lies.

You can't broadcast music to an audience outside of worship or a small social gathering without licensing, its pretty cut and dried. Profit has nothing to do with it. Prisons, retirement homes, elevators, telephone on-hold music, all of these have been required in the past to pay royalties for music made audible, even if it doesn't target a particular audience for profit motives.

Even public spaces, say Olympic Plaza and its skating rink, would need a license to use any music they played over a PA, and that's just music floating around in open space in a public area. You can't just set up PA speakers in a random spot and start playing music, as odd as that sounds.