6 ms·
Ironically this would be perfectly legal if the army was doing it. Recently a musician attempted to sue the Army for its use of his music played at very high v
by excuse-me 15y ago
Ironically this would be perfectly legal if the army was doing it.
Recently a musician attempted to sue the Army for its use of his music played at very high volumes to 'interrogate' prisoners at Guantanamo. The case was rejected because the US government has a blanket right to use any US copyright material for national security.
So the Army is presumably free to pirate all the copies of 'Two and a Half Men' it needs to keep it's troops in a fighting mood.
- tjr 15y agoEven if it weren't the military doing it, how would playing a recording at high volumes in this manner be copyright infringement?
- interurban 15y agoIf a group of people heard it could be considered a public performance, something not permitted by most licenses to music that we purchase.
- keithpeter 15y agoIn the UK the relevant authorities have I suppose purchased a music playback licence. Cafes and community centres have them. It isn't a big cost.
- akc 15y agowas this musician John Tesh, by any chance.
- excuse-me 15y agoDon't remember. I know it wasn't Michael Bolton because he is banned by the Geneva convention
- foxit 15y agoI think this is the first time I've upvoted a joke at HN.
- wmeredith 15y agoDeicide's Fuck Your God was used in American prisons in Iraq. Metallica's Enter Sandman was and still is used in Gitmo as far as I know. AC/DC and Barney have been used as well. Psyops doesn't leave scars so it's not torture, naturally. Multiple Sources: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=music+played+at+gitmo http://lmgtfy.com/?q=music+played+at+gitmo
- icebraining 15y agoWhy the lmgtfy link? Why not just post a Google link?
- keithwinstein 15y agoI searched Lexis and think you're probably mistaken. There's no such law but also no such case.
- jbester 15y agoI agree, the GP is thinking of this news story: http://www.billboard.com/news/pearl-jam-r-e-m-trent-reznor-crank-up-volume-1004030029.story#/news/pearl-jam-r-e-m-trent-reznor-crank-up-volume-1004030029.story http://www.billboard.com/news/pearl-jam-r-e-m-trent-reznor-c... I don't think a lawsuit was ever filed. At the time there was speculations as to whether it was considered a public performance and whether it was considered US jurisdiction for copyright.
- Maxious 15y ago"Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune [...] for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner" 17 U.S.C. § 511 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#511 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#511 No such law, in fact explicitly no sovereign immunity.
- excuse-me 15y agoI think it's a more general principle of "if we say it's a matter of national security we can do whatever we want" If you don't agree you are perfectly at liberty to be held indefinitely without trial and be tortured. I don't remember the latin term but it's approximately "look what a big stick we have"