Artists as diverse as K'Naan and Twisted Sister's Dee Snider have all taken exception to the Romney campaign's use of their music without authorization. Now R.E.M. has a dog in the fight: the band issued a cease-and-desist to Fox News after the network used their 1991 hit "Losing My Religion" in its coverage of the Democratic National Convention.
Lead singer Michael Stipe said in a statement, "We have little or no respect for their puff adder brand of reportage. Our music does not belong there." . . .
http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/09/07/rem-fox-news-losing-my-religion/?hpt=hp_t3 (http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/09/07/rem-fox-news-losing-my-religion/?hpt=hp_t3)
Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.
Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.
I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
You see, the super rich must rationalize having more than they could ever spend while millions of children in the U.S. go to bed hungry every night. So, when they look themselves in the mirror, they convince themselves that "Those people are undeserving. They're . . . lesser." Some of these guys on the extreme right are more cynical than Paul Ryan, but he seems to really believe in this stuff. This unbridled rage against those who have the least is a cornerstone of the Romney-Ryan ticket.. . .
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816 (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816)
Seems to me the conservative repugnicans have been busy trying to take advantage of subliminal messaging and the copyrighted work of artists who have enough jack to kick them in the meat curtains in a very public manner! :icon_twisted:
Fox News basically told R.E.M. to shove it though.
Quote from: Locutus on September 09, 2012, 07:36:31 PM
Fox News basically told R.E.M. to shove it though.
Of course they did. :rolleyes:
If they continue doing it though, I am betting they'll sue the squeezins out of them! :icon_twisted:
That is so totally childish and petty it isn't funny. Why can't these people grow up and get a life? I would say the same thing if it were a band who was whining over the Dems or the mainstream media using one of their songs just because they didn't like Obama or the Dems. What a bunch of intolerant cry babies. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on September 09, 2012, 09:14:00 PM
. . . What a bunch of intolerant cry babies. :rolleyes:
Are they?
Quote from: me on September 09, 2012, 09:14:00 PM
That is so totally childish and petty it isn't funny. Why can't these people grow up and get a life? I would say the same thing if it were a band who was whining over the Dems or the mainstream media using one of their songs just because they didn't like Obama or the Dems. What a bunch of intolerant cry babies. :rolleyes:
That's kind of a surprising position for you to take in this matter. What if it were your music?
I'm sorry, but aren't those songs the property of the artists? Did they get permission to use them?
As for scorn for the politicians using their music/name to bolster their reputation, probably with the intent of appealing to another demographic, without really understanding the music to begin with...I agree with them. They're posers and disgusting.
Quote from: Locutus on September 09, 2012, 09:41:42 PM
That's kind of a surprising position for you to take in this matter. What if it were your music?
Wouldn't matter as long as it was being heard actually. Once it is put out there it is public. They evidently didn't infringe on the copyright since that doesn't seem to be an issue so to bitch makes them look petty and like cry babies.
Quote from: me on September 09, 2012, 09:47:46 PM
Once it is put out there it is public.
What?!?!??? Then why are "music police" agencies like BMI necessary?
Quote from: me on September 09, 2012, 09:47:46 PM
. . . Once it is put out there it is public. They evidently didn't infringe on the copyright since that doesn't seem to be an issue so to bitch makes them look petty and like cry babies.
Bullshit. Does the term "piracy" mean anything to you? If your opinion were the law, then Pepsi wouldn't have had to pay Michael Jackson a dime to use his music, Sunday Night Football wouldn't have had to pay Joan Jett a dime to use her music as the theme for their programming, etc., etc., etc... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on September 09, 2012, 10:01:10 PM
Bullshit. Does the term "piracy" mean anything to you? If your opinion were the law, then Pepsi wouldn't have had to pay Michael Jackson a dime to use his music, Sunday Night Football wouldn't have had to pay Joan Jett a dime to use her music as the theme for their programming, etc., etc., etc... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Locutus on September 09, 2012, 09:57:54 PM
What?!?!??? Then why are "music police" agencies like BMI necessary?
And why isn't that the issue instead of "we don't like their politics?"
QuoteLead singer Michael Stipe said in a statement, "We have little or no respect for their puff adder brand of reportage. Our music does not belong there."
Quote"FOX News Channel's use of an R.E.M. song during Thursday's edition of Fox & Friends was in full accordance with its license agreements with all appropriate parties.
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 07:21:16 AM
And why isn't that the issue instead of "we don't like their politics?"
Tell me something "ME" how would like for the Republican Party and Fox News take your car and drive it all over the nation and not pay you for it. What would you say about that. Sweet Pea. :kiss:
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 07:21:16 AM
And why isn't that the issue instead of "we don't like their politics?"
I'm not taking issue with the nuances of this specific case, I'm talking about this statement you made right here:
Quote from: me on September 09, 2012, 09:47:46 PM
Once it is put out there it is public.
Once something is put out in the public, it's up for grabs? Is that what you're saying?
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 09:49:35 AM
I'm not taking issue with the nuances of this specific case, I'm talking about this statement you made right here:
Once something is put out in the public, it's up for grabs? Is that what you're saying?
Basically. It doesn't appear that any copyright laws were violated and Fox has stated they went through the proper channels to use it so the political reason seems to be the only one which is not a valid one as far as I'm concerned. They may not like it but too bad.
The only requirement for using any of these songs for either of the parties or anyone else is to purchase a blanket license from ASCAP. Once they've acquired the rights, they can legally use virtually any song licensed through that organization, which means virtually any song from any record label of any consequence.
Having said that, the artists can request that specific interests do not use their music and can create a lot of controversy if they continue to do so but there is no real legal avenue for forcing them to stop if they simply don't want to.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 10, 2012, 10:07:32 AM
The only requirement for using any of these songs for either of the parties or anyone else is to purchase a blanket license from ASCAP. Once they've acquired the rights, they can legally use virtually any song licensed through that organization, which means virtually any song from any record label of any consequence.
Having said that, the artists can request that specific interests do not use their music and can create a lot of controversy if they continue to do so but there is no real legal avenue for forcing them to stop if they simply don't want to.
Don't worry about it, "ME" is just talking out of her ass as usual. :trustme:
Actually, she had it right even if she doesn't know why beyond Fox said so; there are no laws being broken or copyrights being infringed.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 10, 2012, 12:51:49 PM
Actually, she had it right even if she doesn't know why beyond Fox said so; there are no laws being broken or copyrights being infringed.
Exactly. But I'm more interested in that blanket statement that she made inferring that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs. That part is certainly not true.
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 12:58:00 PM
Exactly. But I'm more interested in that blanket statement that she made inferring that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs. That part is certainly not true.
Of course not but that is the conservative mentality...what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 10, 2012, 12:51:49 PM
Actually, she had it right even if she doesn't know why beyond Fox said so; there are no laws being broken or copyrights being infringed.
What I don't understand is, if Fox News and the Republican Party like free trade and outsourcing and importing so much why didn't they import some Chinese music in to the convention. :wink: Just saying. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 10, 2012, 12:51:49 PM
Actually, she had it right even if she doesn't know why beyond Fox said so; there are no laws being broken or copyrights being infringed.
This was the first I had heard about it so Fox had no bearing on what I posted.
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 12:58:00 PM
Exactly. But I'm more interested in that blanket statement that she made inferring that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs. That part is certainly not true.
So you're saying that someone can put out a song for public distribution and can dictate who can play it and for what even though the person has done it legally. Is that correct?
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on September 09, 2012, 09:45:18 PM
I'm sorry, but aren't those songs the property of the artists? Did they get permission to use them?
As for scorn for the politicians using their music/name to bolster their reputation, probably with the intent of appealing to another demographic, without really understanding the music to begin with...I agree with them. They're posers and disgusting.
Guess the dems had better not use any songs done by artists who don't agree with their politics then either.
Do you realize how petty and insignificant that whole thing is in the scheme of things? It meant NOTHING.
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 04:20:32 PM
So you're saying that someone can put out a song for public distribution and can dictate who can play it and for what even though the person has done it legally. Is that correct?
Bill Cosby had the perfect description for your inability to reason .... "BRAIN DAMAGE!"
Quote from: Olias on September 10, 2012, 04:56:37 PM
Bill Cosby had the perfect description for your inability to reason .... "BRAIN DAMAGE!"
Holy cow! That's the truth. I never said anything remotely along those lines and yet that leap of illogic comes out of her mouth. :no:
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 04:20:32 PM
So you're saying that someone can put out a song for public distribution and can dictate who can play it and for what even though the person has done it legally. Is that correct?
You are clueless beyond help. How you could possibly infer that from my postings in this thread is beyond me.
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 05:15:32 PM
You are clueless beyond help. How you could possibly infer that from my postings in this thread is beyond me.
Do you think that if a prince kiss "ME" on the lips, she would turn into a frog. :frog: Twank your magic twanger Froggy, I'm Buster Brown and I live in a shoe. :grin2:
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 05:15:32 PM
You are clueless beyond help. How you could possibly infer that from my postings in this thread is beyond me.
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 12:58:00 PM
Exactly. But I'm more interested in that blanket statement that she made inferring that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs. That part is certainly not true.
^^ My question stands. There is no way to infer from that statement that the following is my belief. Hence Olias' comment about your inability to reason.
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 04:20:32 PM
So you're saying that someone can put out a song for public distribution and can dictate who can play it and for what even though the person has done it legally. Is that correct?
I'm starting to think you really are as dense as some on here have claimed you to be.
You made a statement that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs. That is absolutely not true at all.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
This is more like it when dealing with her.
:wall: :wall: :wall:
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 05:15:32 PM
You are clueless beyond help. How you could possibly infer that from my postings in this thread is beyond me.
So what you're saying is that you pack your lunch because you walk to work. ;D
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on September 10, 2012, 06:16:26 PM
So what you're saying is that you pack your lunch because you walk to work. ;D
You get an A on the test. :wink:
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 06:10:04 PM
^^ My question stands. There is no way to infer from that statement that the following is my belief. Hence Olias' comment about your inability to reason.
I'm starting to think you really are as dense as some on here have claimed you to be.
You made a statement that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs. That is absolutely not true at all.
A song that has been recorded and put out for the public. You knew what I meant so quit trying to make me look dumb here.
:lipsrsealed2: ;D
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on September 10, 2012, 07:12:30 PM
:lipsrsealed2: ;D
Well I'm not as dumb as Troll looks at least.... :razz:
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 06:33:03 PM
A song that has been recorded and put out for the public.
A song that has been recorded, and put out for the public, does not automatically enter it into the public domain, and hence, up for anyone to take and use for whatever purposes suit them. I know that, and you know that.
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 06:33:03 PM
You knew what I meant so quit trying to make me look dumb here.
I don't have to try. You're doing a perfectly good job on your own. :razz:
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 09:47:33 PM
A song that has been recorded, and put out for the public, does not automatically enter it into the public domain, and hence, up for anyone to take and use for whatever purposes suit them. I know that, and you know that.
I don't have to try. You're doing a perfectly good job on your own. :razz:
As long as they aren't infringing on the copyright and it is being used legally, which it seems it was, there is nothing that states it can't be used by someone who has different political beliefs than the artist which is what this boils down to and you know it.
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 10:01:19 PM
As long as they aren't infringing on the copyright and it is being used legally, which it seems it was, there is nothing that states it can't be used by someone who has different political beliefs than the artist which is what this boils down to and you know it.
I agree with that, but that's not what you said originally. This is what you said, and is what I took exception to.
Quote from: me on September 09, 2012, 09:47:46 PM
Once it is put out there it is public.
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 10:09:46 PM
I agree with that, but that's not what you said originally. This is what you said, and is what I took exception to.
But you are taking it out of context because I went on to explain.
Quote from: me on September 09, 2012, 09:47:46 PM
Wouldn't matter as long as it was being heard actually. Once it is put out there it is public. They evidently didn't infringe on the copyright since that doesn't seem to be an issue so to bitch makes them look petty and like cry babies.
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 10:05:01 AM
Basically. It doesn't appear that any copyright laws were violated and Fox has stated they went through the proper channels to use it so the political reasonseems to be the only one which is not a valid one as far as I'm concerned. They may not like it but too bad.
So they're using it legally. Good for them, however, music is a business as well as an art. If the politicians are using the music in a way that bastardizes or distorts the intent of the music and/or artist, then they have a right to bitch. These artists have a demographic to protect as well. Perhaps they don't want to be associated with that politician and/or his beliefs? The artist should just stay quiet because the music was obtained legally?
I don't think so. :no:
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 10:20:25 PM
But you are taking it out of context because I went on to explain.
Ok, you're off the hook on this one. I agree as long as Fox paid the royalties to whomever they were owed, they're free and clear to use the music as they see fit. That's why I pointed out on the very second post in this thread that Fox basically told them to shove it.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on September 10, 2012, 10:21:20 PM
So they're using it legally. Good for them, however, music is a business as well as an art. If the politicians are using the music in a way that bastardizes or distorts the intent of the music and/or artist, then they have a right to bitch. These artists have a demographic to protect as well. Perhaps they don't want to be associated with that politician and/or his beliefs? The artist should just stay quiet because the music was obtained legally?
I don't think so. :no:
It's still petty and childish IMO. If the artists are that touchy then maybe they should just quit putting songs out there or label their CD's "not to be used by or for anyone who has different political beliefs than artist." Hey, problem solved.
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 10:26:49 PM
It's still petty and childish IMO. If the artists are that touchy then maybe they should just quit putting songs out there or label their CD's "not to be used by or for anyone who has different political beliefs than artist." Hey, problem solved.
You call it childish and I call it protecting their interests. Either way.... First amendment. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on September 10, 2012, 10:32:17 PM
You call it childish and I call it protecting their interests. Either way.... First amendment. :thumbsup:
They aren't big enough to risk possibly losing fans, what few they may have left anyway, by being childish either.
Quote from: me on September 10, 2012, 10:40:23 PM
They aren't big enough to risk possibly losing fans, what few they may have left anyway, by being childish either.
Allllllrighty then... :rolleyes:
Seriously? WTF?
Quote from: Locutus on September 10, 2012, 06:10:04 PM
I'm starting to think you really are as dense as some on here have claimed you to be.
Is this where I say, "I told you so"? :biggrin: