radio Copyright infringement?

[rorte007]

I live in the San Francisco bay area. I think it was Machiavelli who said, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. With this in mind I occasionally listen to conservative radio talk shows on my drive to work. One of the shows is on station KSFO with radio host Brian Sussman. Sussman is a former TV weatherman who left TV to air his conservative opinions on the radio, one of which is that climate change is a hoax. The hoax is the product of "lefties" and "elitists" who have intentionally and falsely claimed the earth's climate is warming and human produced (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide is the cause. According to Sussman, the scientists and politicians who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change are part of a Marxist conspiracy, and the hoax of climate change is the vehicle they will use to implement their communist agenda.

 

Sussman's views on climate change are anti-environment and pro-industry. Because of this I was taken aback the other day when I heard the musical lead-in to the show following a commercial break. Sussman was playing Resistance as background while he began talking and the show resumed.

 

It is common for American conservative radio talk shows to use aggressive rock as the lead-in to the show after commercials. I guess they think this gives their commentary an edgy contemporary feel. I assumed, however, the radio station had the permission of the artist/band to use their music. So here's my question:

 

Did Muse authorize a conservative climate change denier to use Resistance to promote his radio show? Given the apparent political leanings of Muse (see, e.g., The Second Law) I find it hard to believe Muse would allow their music to be used by a talk show host who actively argues against the theory of climate change. At the very least, I would like to call the band's attention to the fact that this person is using their music, possibly without their permission and without paying for it.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read my post.

[serpentsatellite]

Unfortunately as long as it's used in a non-profit manner, it's likely completely legal.

 

Douchebags like Glen Beck have been using Uprising for years and years now, despite Matt actually saying specifically he didn't like it used in such a manner.

[TheHappySpaceman]

Unfortunately as long as it's used in a non-profit manner, it's likely completely legal.

 

Douchebags like Glen Beck have been using Uprising for years and years now, despite Matt actually saying specifically he didn't like it used in such a manner.

 

Sadly, that happens a lot. I think George W. Bush used "Times Like These" without Foo Fighters' permission, even after the band members themselves supported John Kerry. Not to mention that Bobby McFerrin's "Don't Worry, Be Happy" was used by George H. W. Bush without his permission. The latter case cause McFerrin to stop playing the song in his concerts despite it being his biggest hit. And all that is 100% legal.

[kueller]

Unfortunately as long as it's used in a non-profit manner, it's likely completely legal.

 

That's a very fortunate aspect of copyright law.

 

Radio can be pretty open, even beyond simple fair use, but I don't know the details of what's allowed.

[serpentsatellite]

It's still a bit shit that we can't have nice things on YouTube, but a complete dicknozzle like Beck can do as he pleases.

 

Pushing a political agenda using someone's material always felt a bit wrong.

[Finn.]

I remember after the 9/11 one of the songs banned in America was "We Will Rock You" for being too agressive. When the war in Afghanistan started, one of the songs used to motivate the troops was "We Will Rock You".

 

Some politicians will use any tool to make his message more attractive, like using songs of artists who don't like them. Is completely legal and unethical.

[maturefan]

I live in the San Francisco bay area. I think it was Machiavelli who said, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. With this in mind I occasionally listen to conservative radio talk shows on my drive to work. One of the shows is on station KSFO with radio host Brian Sussman. Sussman is a former TV weatherman who left TV to air his conservative opinions on the radio, one of which is that climate change is a hoax. The hoax is the product of "lefties" and "elitists" who have intentionally and falsely claimed the earth's climate is warming and human produced (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide is the cause. According to Sussman, the scientists and politicians who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change are part of a Marxist conspiracy, and the hoax of climate change is the vehicle they will use to implement their communist agenda.

 

Sussman's views on climate change are anti-environment and pro-industry. Because of this I was taken aback the other day when I heard the musical lead-in to the show following a commercial break. Sussman was playing Resistance as background while he began talking and the show resumed.

 

It is common for American conservative radio talk shows to use aggressive rock as the lead-in to the show after commercials. I guess they think this gives their commentary an edgy contemporary feel. I assumed, however, the radio station had the permission of the artist/band to use their music. So here's my question:

 

Did Muse authorize a conservative climate change denier to use Resistance to promote his radio show? Given the apparent political leanings of Muse (see, e.g., The Second Law) I find it hard to believe Muse would allow their music to be used by a talk show host who actively argues against the theory of climate change. At the very least, I would like to call the band's attention to the fact that this person is using their music, possibly without their permission and without paying for it.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read my post.

 

Unfortunately as long as it's used in a non-profit manner, it's likely completely legal.

 

Douchebags like Glen Beck have been using Uprising for years and years now, despite Matt actually saying specifically he didn't like it used in such a manner.

 

I don't know anything about US law but British artists have told British politicians to stop using their music when they have not consented to such and I have no doubt that they would take legal action to stop them if they didn't do so voluntarily. I expect the practice is so widespread that neither the members of Muse nor their legal and other can keep tabs on it. If someone on the forum is a lawyer with knowledge of copyright law, I'd be interested to hear what they have to say. If it could be stopped, I am sure Muse and their legal team would be very grateful if fans reported suspected abuse of their intellectual property, their music and words, to promote anything they do not endorse.

[Corkscrewed]

As far as I've seen and understand, stopping such use usually depends more on publicity than legality. Make a big enough stink, and the person using the music will change due to bad publicity and embarrassment.

 

But in layman's terms, I believe that legally, radio stations already possess the right to play music, because these permissions have already been negotiated widespread. We as private individuals doing our own things have not negotiated such permission, so we can't do that on a public forum.

[maturefan]

As far as I've seen and understand, stopping such use usually depends more on publicity than legality. Make a big enough stink, and the person using the music will change due to bad publicity and embarrassment.

 

But in layman's terms, I believe that legally, radio stations already possess the right to play music, because these permissions have already been negotiated widespread. We as private individuals doing our own things have not negotiated such permission, so we can't do that on a public forum.

 

Fair enough. I still think Muse could and would stop this if they knew about it.

[serpentsatellite]

Fair enough. I still think Muse could and would stop this if they knew about it.

 

Matt has multiple times said he doesn't agree with his music being used for "fringe" political movements, and has been told 'too bad.'

They know about it.

He might even agree with some of the crazy fucks who use his music; we don't know. (And that's kind of why this sort of thing sucks in the first place.)

[lurkinglurkerlurksagain]

Honestly, imo, it never looks good when a band throws a fit about their music being used by someone they don't like. Who cares? Unless they're actually calling for violence, who gives a shit if they like your music?

 

Also, it just means more exposure. I'm more of a conservative leaning libertarian, and if Bernie, or Hillary used something I made, I wouldn't really care. Cool, this person I disagree with on a lot of issues likes my art. We have something in common.

[serpentsatellite]

A lot of artists feel it associates them with extreme political opinions, or ones they don't agree with, and especially when those are more conservative opinions, that can harm their popularity.

I don't disagree with that. The gen pop isn't known for digging deeper into things like that, and tend to take things at face value.

 

Going again to the case of Glenn Beck, it went beyond the use of the music, and on multiple programs Beck flat out stated that Matt shared his political philosophy, which is considered pretty hardline intolerant by a lot of Muse's target audience.

I'm not even 100% convinced Beck wasn't right, but I still don't agree that any press is good press in a case like this.

Especially when you consider conservative movements in the US typically platform on bigoted, anti-LBGT, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-gun, anti-women's rights issues...

[maturefan]

A lot of artists feel it associates them with extreme political opinions, or ones they don't agree with, and especially when those are more conservative opinions, that can harm their popularity.

I don't disagree with that. The gen pop isn't known for digging deeper into things like that, and tend to take things at face value.

 

Going again to the case of Glenn Beck, it went beyond the use of the music, and on multiple programs Beck flat out stated that Matt shared his political philosophy, which is considered pretty hardline intolerant by a lot of Muse's target audience.

I'm not even 100% convinced Beck wasn't right, but I still don't agree that any press is good press in a case like this.

Especially when you consider conservative movements in the US typically platform on bigoted, anti-LBGT, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-gun, anti-women's rights issues...

 

Neither do I, I mean, I don't agree that any press is good press.

[lurkinglurkerlurksagain]

A lot of artists feel it associates them with extreme political opinions, or ones they don't agree with, and especially when those are more conservative opinions, that can harm their popularity.

I don't disagree with that. The gen pop isn't known for digging deeper into things like that, and tend to take things at face value.

 

Going again to the case of Glenn Beck, it went beyond the use of the music, and on multiple programs Beck flat out stated that Matt shared his political philosophy, which is considered pretty hardline intolerant by a lot of Muse's target audience.

I'm not even 100% convinced Beck wasn't right, but I still don't agree that any press is good press in a case like this.

Especially when you consider conservative movements in the US typically platform on bigoted, anti-LBGT, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-gun, anti-women's rights issues...

 

Again, if someone is so influenced by someone they don't like liking music they like, they weren't that into your music anyway. All you have to do is say I don't agree with them, if it's really that serious, then move on. The only reason it got serious in the case of Beck is because they were continually asked about him by gotcha journalists. My point was mainly telling someone to stop using your music because you disagree with them comes off as petty in my eyes.

[serpentsatellite]

So even though we know the band was asked about it frequently, thus that people were trying to link them together, you still don't think that's a problem in any way?

 

People tend to take things at face value, and yes, absolutely if Muse came out in support of something along the lines of fascist, bigoted, anti-woman or anti-LBGT I would stop listening to and supporting them.

(Not that I agree with Matts political views, but they've typically been more silly than outright biased.)

[lurkinglurkerlurksagain]

So even though we know the band was asked about it frequently, thus that people were trying to link them together, you still don't think that's a problem in any way?

 

People tend to take things at face value, and yes, absolutely if Muse came out in support of something along the lines of fascist, bigoted, anti-woman or anti-LBGT I would stop listening to and supporting them.

(Not that I agree with Matts political views, but they've typically been more silly than outright biased.)

 

Please actually read what I write. The Beck case is different because they were continually asked about it. They did what I wrote, and said they don't agree with him. What I'm talking about is what the original poster is talking about. If Muse went out of their way and made a big deal out of nothing, it wouldn't look good in my eyes.

[kueller]

Side note to rebump the thread but on a similar issue it seems that venues have blanket licenses similar to radios to have public performances of any songs they like. I don't know what the radio show would have but I would assume there's something similar, as I doubt they'd get away with it otherwise.

[haze015]

Side note to rebump the thread but on a similar issue it seems that venues have blanket licenses similar to radios to have public performances of any songs they like. I don't know what the radio show would have but I would assume there's something similar, as I doubt they'd get away with it otherwise.

 

They'll have something similar and will pay royalties for what they play. How it all works varies by country so not able to say for certain how it works in the USA.

 

"Fair use" laws will be more for educational purposes and will not apply to commercial uses, such as radio, being "non-profit" doesn't get around copyright laws either. So these radio stations will be paying.

 

Honestly, imo, it never looks good when a band throws a fit about their music being used by someone they don't like. Who cares? Unless they're actually calling for violence, who gives a shit if they like your music?

 

Also, it just means more exposure. I'm more of a conservative leaning libertarian, and if Bernie, or Hillary used something I made, I wouldn't really care. Cool, this person I disagree with on a lot of issues likes my art. We have something in common.

 

Not that simple in reality. Also nothing to do with who likes the music but how they are using the music.

Edited July 27, 2016 by haze015