Skinny Puppy demands royalties from US govt for using their music in Guantanamo
brooklynvegan.com
brooklynvegan.com
Further, aren't there exemptions for the federal government with respect to use of copyrighted works? Sure, you'd probably have a case against a federal agency who acquired your album only to provide copies freely to its employees, but if they stick a track in a presentation to a small group (or several small groups ... or many small groups) I'm pretty sure the courts would just throw out your case.
OK, enough armchair lawyering, is there someone with a professional opinion on this?
> Do I need a license to play music in my establishment?
> Yes! When you purchase a CD, MP3 or similar product, you are granted the right to non-public performance of the material, such as at home or in your car. [...] Although you may have paid for a copy of the music, or are paying a DJ or live band to perform copyrighted music, you are still required by U.S. Copyright Law to obtain the proper licenses for the playback of the songs. [...]
http://governor.state.tx.us/music/guides/music_in_venues
It goes on to state that ASCAP does not have licensing information available on their website (as of the last update in 2009), but BMI does. Here's their license for "Local Governmental Entities": http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/lge.pdf and for completeness, "Eating and Drinking Establishments": http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/ede.pdf
Another article from The Guardian also reports that in 2010, prisons in the UK had to enforce rules to prevent music from being played in the open because licensing costs were becoming too expensive: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/19/prison-music-...
See the complete list here: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensefinder
This makes sense when you think about it: an invite-only party could be held in a fancy hotel and have many hundreds of guests, or it may be a business event.
Thus, indeed a professional opinion is "needed."
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-20...
"2.1 Showing films on DVD or video to groups of prisoners or staff, either in communal areas or via in cell television systems, is considered to be a public performance for which a licence is required."
This is the UK version, be my guest to search for the U.S. equivalent before making any further claims.
And again, movie licensing in the US is codified differently into law than music licensing. These licensing issues are not compatible.
One dirty trick which is used is to include something like "absolutely no copying" including for "education or personal use", which is not really true, because fair use permits limited copying. So that's an example of a non-legally sound clause.
The right to perform a work publicly and restrictions on those public places (e.g. as a studio I could license a work to be played publicly in a specific movie theatre) is one of the seven rights which are built-in to copyright law, so such restrictions are, in fact, sound.
No. You can "perform" the work as long as the performance is not "public." For instance, watching a DVD on your laptop by yourself at home is a "performance," but it's not public. This is a perfectly valid use of copyrighted content.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.aspx
A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.
http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/Pag...
Especially http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/Pag...
> Workers/colleagues and/or customers/clients have been recognised by the courts as falling within the composer's ‘public’. Any person wishing either to play or to authorise the playing of our music to such individuals in the workplace - wherever that workplace is situated - should therefore obtain a music licence.
It's pretty clear that this phrase means your family and usual circle of friends who visit your family (semi-) regularly, i.e. normally. It does not mean the office party.
Ask yourself this: if you quit your job, would your collegues still be normal aquaintances of your family? If not, then they are not social acquaintances.
And that "something" would be very important to the court. In vast majority of cases, companies want to make more money. In case of Gov, CIA would argue that they dont make any money thanks to using your music. Heck, they could even claim non-profit status because AFAIK they do not produce monetary value; they produce intelligence.
Besides, in a light of recent developmentS that many important influencial people claim the entire program is illegal and some agents should be even in jail, some small claim suit from a tiny band is a peanuts to the CIA. And Im sure the Puppet knows this.
I feel its a PR stunt, because it takes a specific group of people listenning to dark music like this (other example Marlin Manson). So in this very busy and competitive business, I cannot imagine a better free advertise than "hey did you hear about Puppet?? Their music is soo cool they even torture people at Guantamo with it! We got to get their album asap!!"
Or, if they don't, to keep things consistent, then nobody should ever have to pay up again.
Most "Americans" care about a wide variety of topics so please take this sort of stereotype somewhere else.
This question is not meant to be hostile, I am not American so I have no horse in this race, I just want to understand where you're coming from.
It's even harder to find someone who will actually lift a finger to do anything about strangers being tortured, and harder still to find someone who will do more than write an angry comment online (for example, I will not do more than write comments online).
Although I found saraid216's comment smug, dismissive, and non-contributing, as far as I can tell it was essentially true.
For example, I might find my neighbour's loud music at three in the morning evokes more of an emotional response than the spanish inquisition, but that doesn't actually imply I think that my neighbour's loud music at three in the morning is really more important or severe than the spanish inquisition.
[1] http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google...
[2] http://www.dummymag.com/videos/watch-al-jazeera-s-songs-of-w...
Earlier this year they tried to bill the US government: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/metal-band-skin...
In all seriousness though, this shows extreme irony. The Government is content with passing draconian bills penalising users for downloading Game of Thrones and cutting off their Internet connections, sending Swat teams to their homes and allowing corporations to financially haemorrhage them in the "court of law". Yet, when the Government wants to use someone else's music without paying for a licence, they think they are above the law they want to so desperately put in place?
They definitely have a case. Copyright law forbids audio and video being broadcasted to many persons without a licence in a public place (with exception of your family and a few other exceptions). This isn't music being played in a family home, it is music being broadcasted in a US owned detention camp prison.
If I were in a band and found out my music was being used to torture people, I would be pretty pissed about it too. I couldn't imagine how that would make you feel knowing something you created is being used to interrogate and break a potentially innocent person locked up inhumanely.
I am going to be keeping an eye on this case. If the US fails to pay up, it could set a precedent for future court cases brought against small businesses and individuals being fined for playing music. And yes, there have been cases of small businesses, restaurants, cafes, etc being bullied by ASCAP into paying for licences to have play CD's or even in some cases, have a radio playing.
This is from February.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/industrial-acti...
Edit: Not saying it's bad music, but perhaps after the 12 hour point the constant beat would drive anyone crazy.
The music is besides the point, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Skinny Puppy (even if it isn't everyone's cup of tea), it's the constant overwhelming of the senses that creates the conditions of torture.
There's far, far, far more extreme music than that, such as the whole "noise" genre, which includes bands like Massona,[1] Merzbow,[2] and Borbetomagus.[3] And, yes, fans pay good money to buy their albums and go hear them live. I've gone for days listening to all of these virtually non-stop.
I'm not really in to them anymore, but I'd still much rather hear some noise music than put in a stress position, be tasered, be stuck in an extremely cold or extremely hot room, be waterboarded, raped, deprived of sleep or medical attention for weeks on end, be subject to mock executions, have my family threatened, be kicked to death (or kicked in general.. no thanks!).
Yes, music and various other means of sensory overload or sensory deprivation can induce altered states of consciousness, and when combined with a menacing environment where you're surrounded by people who mean you harm (and often do you harm), they can be unsettling. But music would be one of the last things I'd be worried about in a torture prison.
At least they didn't force the prisoners to listen to Johnny Cash.[4]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9JjDP3rK5I
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AguPH0XBxdw
Anyway, I wouldn't be so sure that loud music for 12 hours is actually more humanistic (hah, humanistic torture — I've got to remember that!) than arbitrary item from your list. After all, Chinese water torture [1] also sounds surprisingly harmless, right?
Also, I'm a big fan from the old days - I'd probably choose something less melodic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUQ_R8faRjg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQZyMUMDGc
The level of cynicism of these guys is impressive.
> used our music without our knowledge and used it as an actual weapon against somebody
> And Key said band members were offended to learn that their music was played in the notorious prison to inflict damagd on detainees.
If they pledged this money on a charity or something it would look entirely different.
It's very unlikely they actually think "Hey, we have had our copyright violated and deserve compensation."
This isn't a money grab, that's not their style.