A novel copyright transgression?

[ArcticStones]

.
All right, here is a new one (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/music-stars-demand-record_n_329476.html):


May the government use music for torture purposes without said artist’s advance permission?
Do artists have a right to demand information on whether or not their music was used?
Does playing music for the purpose of torture constitute fair usage?
Should the government have to pay royalties for such usage?
Has a copyright transgression occured?
.
And what stance does the RIAA have on this one?
Stay tuned...
.

[fazstp]

Personally I think The Macarena would be a good torture song.

[Woodsman]

.

May the government use music for torture purposes without said artist’s advance permission?
Do artists have a right to demand information on whether or not their music was used?
Does playing music for the purpose of torture constitute fair usage?
Should the government have to pay royalties for such usage?
Has a copyright transgression occured?
.
And what stance does the RIAA have on this one?
Stay tuned...
.

Maybe when it's done by a republic they should be called republicanities rather than royalties?

I remember when the Red Brigades tortured an American officer by playing rock music at him over headphones. Caused brain damage (how else?)

[ArcticStones]

.
Ah, then the question arises:
Did Guantanamo interrogators and the Red Brigades have the same Top 40?

[tlarkin]

If by torture music you mean Jam bands, then yes that would be horrible to be subjected to that all day every day. I would rather pour acid on my flesh and stab my eyes out with hot pokers!

[tw]

Maybe when it's done by a republic they should be called republicanities rather than royalties?

they're called 'royalties' because of the sovereign rights of the producer over the material...

however, as long as the government can prove that they paid for the CDs, I don't think there's any copyright issue. you can use music you've bought any way you like, so long as you don't try to make a profit off of it. Hope the base commander kept his receipts.

[Woodsman]

they're called 'royalties' because of the sovereign rights of the producer over the material....

Of course, that's what I meant, sovereign rights was the right of the king. (Royal rights in the middle ages were called regalia, but that word has now shrunk to mean the crown, orb and sceptre.) It was only much later that you could talk about an ordinary person having sovereign rights over anything; on the face of it, it is a contradiction.

[tw]

Of course, that's what I meant, sovereign rights was the right of the king. (Royal rights in the middle ages were called regalia, but that word has now shrunk to mean the crown, orb and sceptre.) It was only much later that you could talk about an ordinary person having sovereign rights over anything; on the face of it, it is a contradiction.

yeah, that's definitely an enlightenment era concept. I suppose if we wanted to be fully democratic about it, we out to call the 'prerogatives' (which is basically what the concept refers to - the exclusive rights of transfer and sale help by the producer). but I seriously doubt that 400 years of common law usage is going to get revised anytime soon...

[cwtnospam]

...you can use music you've bought any way you like, so long as you don't try to make a profit off of it.
But if they used it for torture, isn't that an intent to profit from it? Isn't information valuable?
:D

[tw]

But if they used it for torture, isn't that an intent to profit from it? Isn't information valuable?
:D

hmmm... bad legal precedent. for instance, people use music to set up the "right mood" all the time, and this would suggest that performers and producers should get a piece of the action any time one of us gets a little bit of action. seems to me they get enough of that on their own... ;)

[trevor]

May the government use music for torture purposes without said artist’s advance permission?

Yes.

Do artists have a right to demand information on whether or not their music was used?

Yes, they're demanding the information about what music was played at Guantanamo under the Freedom of Information Act, which is the law in the United States.

Does playing music for the purpose of torture constitute fair usage?

No, it does not fall under the "Fair Use" provisions of the Copyright Act. But that's not really relevant. While torture is illegal, the playing of music in those circumstances is not.

Should the government have to pay royalties for such usage?

No.

Has a copyright transgression occured?

No.

And what stance does the RIAA have on this one?

The same stance they always have:
(link is not particularly safe for work, although it's not THAT bad)
http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/0363.jpg

Trevor

[EatsWithFingers]

I wonder if any artists have a "cannot be used as an accessory in torture" clause in their work's legalese, along with things like "cannot be played in prisons" or "cannot be broadcast in public"....

After all, there's are plenty of artists out there who are outspoken against torture.

[tw]

After all, there's are plenty of artists out there who are outspoken against torture.

There are plenty of artists who are outspoken against muzak, too, but I heard a synthesized version of the Stones "Angie" in an elevator the other day. speaking of torture, that is...

[fazstp]

Playing them music is light-weight. If they really want to mess them up they should just force them to watch In the Night Garden (http://www.inthenightgarden.co.uk) 24/7 :eek:.

[Jay Carr]

It seems to me that if you really wanted to torture someone with music you'd have to know their musical tastes pretty well, right? For example, modern country drives me up a freaking wall, but I know lots of people who listen to it. And I like Nu Metal, which would torture my parents (and most of my friends, honestly).

So, the question becomes, how do they find out? I'm imagining this like I imagine an awkward date when you've gotten to the "what kind of music do you listen to" question, except in reverse. "So...uh, is there any kind of music you really hate. Like, it makes you want to stick hot needles into your ears--not that we'd condone that--but you know what I mean, right... Anything?"

Yeah...I need more sleep.

[fazstp]

"So...uh, is there any kind of music you really hate. Like, it makes you want to stick hot needles into your ears--not that we'd condone that--but you know what I mean, right... Anything?"


That's what I'm talking about with In the Night Garden. I mean when I'm working I can pretty much tune anything out. Apparently I even acknowledge people when I'm working on the computer and I just have no recollection because I am so focused on whatever I'm coding. I'll turn around and someone will be there waiting for an answer and I'll be like "What do you want?" and they tell me they asked a question five minutes ago which I acknowledged but they were still waiting on an answer. I search my memory but there's just nothing there. I think it must get to first base like I hear it but it stays in my audio input queue waiting for processing but gets bumped by whatever I'm thinking about.

Anyway the point is that I can tune out most things but when my kids are watching In the Night Garden it's like trying to work while being tasered.

[Jasen]

I can't see any of those points sticking.
Playing a CD for someone is not a "public performance," which is the only case in which you'd be potentially violating copyrights (or performance rights) to get onto either ASCAP's or RIAA's radar.

Fair use doesn't even come into it, as the purchaser has full right to play the CD they purchased for a limited audience--they're not copying the CD or using it in a derivative work.
Copyrights do not include rights for the author/owner of the IP to mandate or ban specific times or places that the material can be used, outside of public performances.

[edalzell]

Anyway the point is that I can tune out most things but when my kids are watching In the Night Garden it's like trying to work while being tasered.

Dipsy doo, dipsy doo, makka pakka, makka pakka, upsy daisy....

(trying to get fazstp to explode)

[warragul]

It seems to me that the music is being used in the course of business.
This is usually specifically banned by the music's licence.
Maybe they'd get better results, and cheaper, by simply enlisting the aid of a patriotic garage band. The band then plays their own compositions in their own inimitable style.
Might run into hassles with the Geneva Convention with this one...

Disclosure: There are two of these creatures (garage bands) within a block of my new house. The mitigating factor is that they play only during the day.