I guess I'm struggling with how anyone can be in trouble for playing a song.

 

Say, for instance, you have a store that sells candy. You decide that your theme song should be "Sugar Sugar" by The Archies. Why shouldn't you have to pay for the rights to use that song to sell your product?

 

And if the rights holder to that song doesn't want you to use it that way, why shouldn't they have the right to say, "No, I would rather prefer my song that I created not be used that way" if they don't approve of your message?

If everyone one, teams, individuals got sued for using eye of the tiger since that song is been out, America will be broke. They will have a hard time with this one. A first year law student could defend this. And I will also say this mentality is exactly what is wrong with America.

 

I dare you to try taking a first-year law student to the SC and try to challenge the RIAA. Let me know how far you get.

 

Part of what makes America great is you can't just grab anything you want and appropriate for whatever reason you want it, without the permission of the person who created it. That's as American as it gets.

I understand that but those places are using music to make money.

 

Say you created this amazing drug that cures cancer. How would you feel if it went public and you didn't get a dime for your trouble?

Amazing how nobody remembers the stink about how Reagan misappropriating "Born In The USA" went down.

I dare you to try taking a first-year law student to the SC and try to challenge the RIAA. Let me know how far you get.

 

Part of what makes America great is you can't just grab anything you want and appropriate for whatever reason you want it, without the permission of the person who created it. That's as American as it gets.

 

Jim just saying that everyone in America has used this......without permission. They are as bad as everyone else. Just smell $$$. Again thats part of whats wrong with America today. If they are going to go after these people they need to be across the board and go after everyone who has used it without permission. Im sure this is not the first time that someone who the one guy dont agree with has used it?

Jim just saying that everyone in America has used this......without permission. They are as bad as everyone else. Just smell $$$. Again thats part of whats wrong with America today. If they are going to go after these people they need to be across the board and go after everyone who has used it without permission. Im sure this is not the first time that someone who the one guy dont agree with has used it?

 

Maybe they just don't want their song associated with bigotry, discrimination, and hatred? Whether you or I or anyone else agree with them, it's their song and they have the right to determine who is or isn't allowed to use it.

Sue away then. We must keep the "integrity" of America intact.

Jim just saying that everyone in America has used this......without permission. They are as bad as everyone else. Just smell $$$. Again thats part of whats wrong with America today. If they are going to go after these people they need to be across the board and go after everyone who has used it without permission. Im sure this is not the first time that someone who the one guy dont agree with has used it?

 

Hypothetically if the shoe were on the other foot and the gay demonstrators had used the song "We Are Family" by Sister Sledge, and Sister Sledge had sued them for using it, would you be showing such passionate objection to them making a fuss about it, or would you be defending Sister Sledge's rights and hoping they are successful in their fight?

 

You could have a few possible reactions to this... either it would be a non-issue for you, or you'd think it ridiculous that Sister Sledge would bother, or you'd be behind them in their complaint and be inclined to think that they have a legitimate gripe about it.

 

Which one of these reactions would you honestly be most inclined to have?

 

Be honest.

 

My personal feeling is that the band Survivor does have a legitimate gripe considering they're probably not happy having their song represent something that they don't believe in, but I also feel that it's a bit overkill for them no matter how legitimate that they would take it so far as to sue, when perhaps making a statement of their objection would be just as effective in showing their displeasure about it.

With me its nothing to do with the issues, as I see this happen everynight at high school sporting events across the state etc. While I am very set on where I stand on the social issues, I would be equally supportive of the examples you gave if the shoe was on the other foot on this issue. And BBfan I promise I am just not saying that. A non issue for me.

This issue isn't new.

 

Stop Using My Song: 34 Artists Who Fought Politicians Over Their Music | Rolling Stone

Say, for instance, you have a store that sells candy. You decide that your theme song should be "Sugar Sugar" by The Archies. Why shouldn't you have to pay for the rights to use that song to sell your product?

 

And if the rights holder to that song doesn't want you to use it that way, why shouldn't they have the right to say, "No, I would rather prefer my song that I created not be used that way" if they don't approve of your message?

Again, I understand that but in that example the store owner is using the song to make money.

Say you created this amazing drug that cures cancer. How would you feel if it went public and you didn't get a dime for your trouble?

You've completely lost me on this point. If Kim Davis or who ever played the song was illegally down loading or sharing it then it would be apple to apples. In this case someone simply played a song in public.

 

Let's say I'm at the jail when she is released and I happen to have my radio playing music that I legally bought. Is that not my right?

Again, I understand that but in that example the store owner is using the song to make money.

You've completely lost me on this point. If Kim Davis or who ever played the song was illegally down loading or sharing it then it would be apple to apples. In this case someone simply played a song in public.

 

Let's say I'm at the jail when she is released and I happen to have my radio playing music that I legally bought. Is that not my right?

 

This brings up a good point. If the person that played this has legally downloaded this song it would be a non issue correct?

 

Im guessing everyone here is upstanding morally correct downloading music citizens of the music industry being its implied that these Christians are thieves.

Jim just saying that everyone in America has used this......without permission. They are as bad as everyone else. Just smell $$$. Again thats part of whats wrong with America today. If they are going to go after these people they need to be across the board and go after everyone who has used it without permission. Im sure this is not the first time that someone who the one guy dont agree with has used it?

 

Do you consider this as theft? Just curious.

This issue isn't new.

 

Stop Using My Song: 34 Artists Who Fought Politicians Over Their Music | Rolling Stone

 

Did anybody actually take time to read this article?

The music industry sees it that way and its the law. Years ago I have been guilty of breaking that law. I think as the internet became huge in the 1990s it almost became impossible for the music industry to keep up. I think that sometimes in these situations like the Kim Davis ordeal, that we have to use a little commons sense with this stuff. There are some that will call for her head no matter what, and its like that on both sides. I don't think they were trying to profit off it and I guess that's where I have a problem with it. Like I said if whoever has the song legally downloaded they can play it where they want right?