Music As Torture: Are Musicians Whose Music Is Blasted At Gitmo Compensated For Public Performance?
from the wondering... dept
A little over a year ago, we reported on the news about US military officials playing loud rock music as "torture." Basically, they would blast loud music over and over again at folks who they thought would be annoyed by it. When we wrote about it, we were wondering if the US government actually paid royalties on the public performance of the music. Apparently, we're not the only ones questioning that. Howard Knopf discusses a musician who is (reasonably) upset that his music is being used in this manner, and questions whether or not the various collection societies are getting their cut of these rather public performances.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, performance rights, torture
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The right to life
No cold hearted bastard should give a toss whether royalties have been collected from use of their work for torture. The first thought should be to petition for the human rights of the torture victim.
Even when rights to life, privacy, or truth aren't impacted, for all copyright infringements, consider that even this suspends the public's natural right to cultural liberty.
Rights first. Royalties last. Privileges never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The right to life
The right to life implies that they themselves would give the same liberties if the shoe were on the other foot, and they clearly would not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The right to life
Look up the name "Dilawar" - a 22 year old, innocent Afghani cab driver.
Look up how many people in Gitmo were collected by Pakistani or Afghani "bounty hunters" vs. "captured on the battlefield".
Not everyone the US detains in the War on Terror is a terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The right to life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on a second...
If the US can set up Gitmo so it gets to pick and choose which human rights laws to follow, its a little nieve so think potential copyright violation is going to keep anyone up at night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on a second...
Perhaps the musician in question is more concerned about his royalties than the fact people are being tortured -- probably not -- but I think the point of Mike's post is how absurd the current model is. Specifically, if the recording industry thinks that it deserves money when the sound of a radio in a restaraunt's kitchen spills out into the dining room or that it can charge a bar owner for access to an entire catalog of music because a live band played one cover song, then it's not so absurd (from their standpoint) that they get compensated when their music is used in toruring people. It's pointing out that, using the music industry's own rules, using music as torture doesn't excuse you from having to pay up, which just shows how absurd the rules are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on a second...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, if preventing a criminal from having Basic Cable eventually got someone to talk, would that be torture?
Im aware that there are plenty of flaw in my logic here, but common, loud music all day and night is annoying, and probably would break me after a while, but people need to stop throwing around the torture word for anything less then wooden shard inserted between the fingernails.
"Is it safe?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CM
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
It does not fit the dictionary definition of torture as far as I can tell. There is no excruciating pain or severe anguish. It may be annoying as hell, but without some sort of actual pain I find it a bit of a misnomer to call it torture. Perhaps the correct word might be torment.
torment
–verb (used with object)
1. to afflict with great bodily or mental suffering; pain: to be tormented with violent headaches.
2. to worry or annoy excessively: to torment one with questions.
3. to throw into commotion; stir up; disturb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CM
If you are only using that as a definition then Sleep Deprivation would fail the test(even though it can lead to death.) and quite possibly water boarding since you aren't feeling actual pain as much as the psychological effects of drowning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CM
Pretty sure that not all artists would object to using their music for torture. I'm convinced that some genres really do intend to annoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CM
In the media, waterboarding is called "simulated drowning," but that's a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.
Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.
How much of this the victim is to endure depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim's face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs that show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.
Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is your question and answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did police in the UK being harrassed about listening to their radios too loud make money? Did the person filming their kid with Prince playing in the background make money? Good going Counsel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is your question and answer.
doesn't matter and here's why:
downloading music is stealing, so not paying for something is the same as stealing it.
downloading music causes the industry to lose money, therefore not making money is the same as losing money.
er go, not paying for the rights to music is the same as stealing them, so gitmo is stealing money from artists, which i am sure we will all agree is terrorism plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DJ
You're obviously just a freetard that thinks everything should be given away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
> Brittney Spears???
Actually, one of the songs in question is David Gray's "Babylon". I sure wouldn't want to hear that more than once per millenium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OH NOES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To get to this point, let's research how much royalties were paid out to:
1) People sued in any RIAA-sponsored lawsuits
2) People sued in any Label-sponsored lawsuits
3) People sued in any ASCAP-sponsored lawsuits
4) Blank media taxes
5) Efforts to find Lost artists (Artists that labels literally lost track of)
Judging from the look of things, Ed McMahon isn't delivering a million dollar check to anyone except those that are involved in the legal side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I buy the CD (or whatever) haven't I paid for the right to, ummm, play it? Why do musicians need additional money after I have already purchased it? What did I pay for, just the plastic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're not missing the boat. The whole thing comes down to the definition of "public performance". If it's public, then ASCAP wants its cut.
But based on the linked articles, David Gray, the musician in question, isn't the one demanding royalties. It's Howard Knopf, the author of the blog linked to in Mike's post, that theorizes that using music as torture at Guantanamo might be considered a "public performance" by ASCAP using its own absurd rules and tortured logic -- no pun intended -- of some of its previous lawsuits. In short, Mr. Knopf is pointing out that ASCAP has tried to broaden the definition of "public performance" to such ridiculous levels, that even using music to torture someone would fit their new definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No matter how bad it is.
If your in a prison with guards that hate you and your head is covered and they are playing music very loudly in your area - your concern isn't the music its the sounds of whats going on around you that the music is covering up.
This seems like only half the torture method made it out to the public, the other half involves when the prisoner gets attacked by some physical force during his disorientation and then is left in the noise, scared to death of another attack he can't detect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That And..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music as torture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music as torture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This point is, if ASCAP and the rest of the music industry had their way, any public performance would require payment, where "public" is basically defined as anything other than a person listening to music on their headphones quietly enough that no one else can hear. But the MO of the music industry is to go after the easiest, richest target. So, your neighbors are safe...for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And could your criticism be any more generic? Do you have a specific issue with what I said? I'll admit to a little hyperbole, but the basic point of my post stands, that Performance Rights Organizations, like ASCAP, are stretching "public performance" beyond rational limits. For example, does anyone other than ASCAP believe that it's OK to charge girl scouts for singing songs around the campfire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torture !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugs and lollypops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short Answer: NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Court of Claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Govt not bound by copyright law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I stand corrected - maybe
5.1.1 Does the U.S. Government have any special rights to use copyrighted material?
No, the U.S. Government can be held liable for violation of the Copyright Laws. Congress has expressly provided that a work protected by the Copyright Laws can be infringed by the United States (28 USC § 1498(b))117. The exclusive action for such infringement is an action by the copyright owner against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of monetary damages. However, there is no contributory copyright infringement on the part of the Government because it hasn't waived sovereign immunity rights. (John C. Boyle, 200 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000)118.
But then...
Additionally, there may be limited exceptions in the case of National Security where the public interest results in a privilege to the Government for use of the copyrighted work without the express consent of the copyright owner. (Key Maps, Inc. v. Pruitt, 470 F. Supp. 33 (S.D. Tex. 1978)) For further discussion, see "Application of the Copyright Doctrine of Fair Use to the Reproduction of Copyrighted Material for Intelligence Purposes"120 by Major Gary M. Bowen. The Army Lawyer (DA Pam 27-50-332), July 2000.
I'm sure this would qualify as a "case of National Security". Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]