Silversun Pickups Tell Romney to Stop Using Their Song: Should Politicians Get Permission Before Playing Songs at Events?

by Fergie Posted 2012/08/16 21:00:00

Related Topics: Music, Silversun Pickups, Mitt Romney, 2012 Election, Panic Switch

475 votes
Read all 278 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	385 votes	81%
	No	90 votes	19%

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is the latest offender to use music without permission at a campaign event. LA indie rockers Silversun Pickups sent Romney a cease-and-desist after hearing that their single "Panic Switch" was played at one of his events stating "While he is inadvertently playing a song that describes his whole campaign, we doubt that 'Panic Switch' really sends the message he intends."

It seems like this issue comes up every election, so should politicians start getting permission from musicians before playing their songs at events? Seems to me like it would avoid a lot of embarrassment...

ROLLINGSTONE.COM reports:
Silversun Pickups have told Mitt Romney to stop using their song Panic Switch at campaign events, sending a cease-and-desist order to the Republican presidential hopeful.
romney song panic switch campaign events sending cease-and-desist order republican

romney song panic switch campaign events sending cease-and-desist order republican

+14

Add a comment above

..tisha... 2012/08/16 21:56:49

No

+8
If it's playing at an event then it's fair game, the same if it were playing at a ballgame or a party. Permission is only required if the song is used in collaboration with a promotional video, ect.
>> See Replies

More polls by Fergie

EricVan... to Mel 2012/08/17 20:25:56

Are suggesting Silversun Pickups is just bothered by a copyright violation?

reply
ConLibF... to EricVan... 2012/08/17 19:54:55

Not even the point.

reply
EricVan... to ConLibF... 2012/08/17 20:27:07 (edited)

Don't be so narrow mined. It's a point, and I agree with you on what you said about him paying for the use of their music.

reply
ConLibF... to EricVan... 2012/08/17 20:49:02

OK then ... sorry.

reply
Dawn to EricVan... 2012/08/17 21:00:58 (edited)

You'd think that but that but the average person's pretty stupid and half of them are dumber than that. Also besides that he owes them money for using their song. Still I can see what your saying and I'm sure most of the people you know ARE smart enough to realize that but still I personally know plenty of people that aren't.

Also it opens doors for others to use their music for profit with out paying the artist. It's just sets a bad precedent.

reply
EricVan... to Dawn 2012/08/17 21:21:25

Upgrade or educate your social circle. It sounds like you're underestimating your friends. When we go to a party or a club the music is there to set the tone of the event. Music serves the same purpose at a rally. The music itself is not the product being sold, so copyrights are not being violated. It may be bad form, but it's not bad precedent.

reply
Dawn to EricVan... 2012/08/17 21:39:40

Still though sir many people are not that intelligent. Either way though you're right I guess I was just trying to valid my opinion that it he should have asked first. This article did not say how much of the song was used so I don't know if his use falls under creative commons. I also don't know how famous or unknown this band is or how much money they make but I'm just saying it'd make me mad if I was in a band that's profits were low and I lost out on a chance to make money off a rich and or well funded politician or other movement.

reply
EricVan... to Dawn 2012/08/17 21:45:49

I don't know anything about this band either, but I agree that they should've asked first.

reply
the fuze 2012/08/17 16:23:20

Yes

+1
But in my opinion, these guys should be thankful SOMEONE is using/listening to their song, because for me personally, if I heard this song on the radio, I would quickly change the station.

WIth that being said, yes, I think permission should be sought out if candidates want to use songs, or any other media for that matter.

reply
J-DUB 2012/08/17 16:18:21

Yes

+2
The artists own the rights to their songs and when politicians play them it gives the illusion that the artists are endorsing or approving the candidates.

reply
Bob 2012/08/17 16:17:02

Yes

+1
Yes if it's used in an ad and is copyrighted. No if it is used at an event, because it would then be considered entertainment.

reply
Robert Erbach 2012/08/17 16:15:11

Yes

+2
Yes politicians should get permission to use someone's song.
There not above the law!!!

reply
Jeff Smith 2012/08/17 16:15:06

Yes

+1
Especially Romney this song does not fit his character I'm thinking something more along the lines of "It's a good ship lolly pop"

reply
wes 2012/08/17 16:10:27

Yes

+1
Why would you want to use an artist's music that doesn't like you anyway? Absolutely!!!!

reply
Dickens 2012/08/17 16:09:26 (edited)

Yes

+1
..it's their property and they should have the say as to it's use...(copyright laws do, however, violate the koch bros. "the rich are above the law" philosophy..)

reply
Bob S 2012/08/17 16:06:25

Yes

+2
Fine but this group, who are they? Just looking for some publiciity cause they really aren't very important.

reply
Dr_Stoppit 2012/08/17 15:59:34

Yes

+1
If the event is a political one (and for a particular pollie), then it certainly isn't fair game. It is being used as a form of promotion and permission should be sought beforehand with the possibility of a royalty being necessary. If a song is used without permission under these circumstances, the politician and his party should be subjected to legal action. One good legal case like that and they'd soon stop the practise.

reply
Kozmo 2012/08/17 15:56:37 (edited)

Yes

+1
'Think a Republican a while back used Springstein's "Born in the USA. Same with Stephen Harper (PM of Canada) singing (St.) John Lennon's "Imagine" but changing the lyrics to "And ONE religion too". The Party should pay an 'Intellectual Rights' fee just like any other business for this too, they're 'flushed' (being the operative word) with bags of money. No free rides.

"God made so many different kinds of people.
Why would He allow only one way to serve him?"

Martin Buber

reply
Bob, the reasonable one 2012/08/17 15:56:13

No

+3
musicians acting like little bitches if you ask me...Rush had the same problem so he bought the copyright to the opening song for his show from a band nobody ever heard of...Bruce Springsteen bitched when Reagan used "Born in the USA" also...

reply
Bob S to Bob, th... 2012/08/17 16:08:19

+1
Dems bitch when it is the Republicans doing something correct. At least the Republicans acknowledge that the music is pretty good. They should be thankful for the publicity.

reply
Bob, th... to Bob S 2012/08/17 16:14:07

+1
yeppers, and so it goes. You would think they would appreciate the fact that their music is being heard and the potential for more people being aware of their music would make some business sense to them.....entertainers should just do that....entertain! Keep their politics to themselves....I'm sure the Dixie Chicks in retrospect wished that their lead singer would have just shut up....

reply
Bob S to Bob, th... 2012/08/17 16:53:51

+2
No one will ever foret the Dixie Chicks. The one speaker did much damage to their group and have never fully recovered.

reply
ConLibF... to Bob, th... 2012/08/17 19:55:46

Your words ... "bought the copyright". Get a grip!

reply
Bob, th... to ConLibF... 2012/08/17 19:57:45

He used it for 10 years before he bought it lock,stock, and barrel.....

reply
ConLibF... to Bob, th... 2012/08/17 20:51:23

So he stole it for 10 years. Let's take into account inflation and the value lost in the dollar. How much did that 10 year heist cost the artist? Did Rush have the decency to pay it in full?

reply
Bob, th... to ConLibF... 2012/08/17 21:08:00

oh please.....

reply
ConLibF... to Bob, th... 2012/08/17 21:15:51

That tired old response "oh please....." is an admission you have been busted.

reply
Bob, th... to ConLibF... 2012/08/17 21:23:00 (edited)

ok, you win...feel better? (sarcasm)

reply
ConLibF... to Bob, th... 2012/08/17 21:23:43

I won just by showing up!

reply
Dogzebra 2012/08/17 15:54:35

No

+2
If they did't want them to play it, so what? This is no issue of importance. There are plenty of fish in the sea.

reply
Bob S to Dogzebra 2012/08/17 16:08:47

+1
Dead fish on the dems side. I can smell them from here.

reply
*Mahogany Goddess of P.H.A.E.T 2012/08/17 15:53:05

Yes

+3
I wouldn't want someone else using anything I created for themselves without my permission.

reply
Walter Harris 2012/08/17 15:47:01

Yes

+4
and should pay for it. Talking about copyright law breakers.

reply
Kimmel 2012/08/17 15:46:33 (edited)

No

+6
They don't want to be asked for permission. They want to be able to bitch about it and get some good publicity.

reply
Melizmatic to Kimmel 2012/08/17 15:49:33

+4
Oh, I dunno.

If my artistic endeavors ran to music instead of drawing, I'd be pretty irate about someone using my work without permission.

Especially if I didnt agree with the politician's platform.

Musicians are still citizens; they have rights, and their music is their intellectual property.

reply
Kimmel to Melizmatic 2012/08/17 15:54:03

+3
I'm sure that is true for some. But then again, if I buy a cd, am I not allowed to play it where I want?

reply
Melizmatic to Kimmel 2012/08/17 16:00:50

+3
Sure you are (In certain instances. I wouldn't try it in traffic court.)

What you are NOT allowed to do, by law, is to copy then redistribute/reuse that CD, with the intent of making a profit off of it.

You own that particular copy, not the creative endeavor itself; that still belongs to the artist.

While politicians may not actually make any money off the songs they choose, the usage implies approval by the artist (which is often not the case) and its unethical at best.

reply
Kimmel to Melizmatic 2012/08/17 16:07:58

+1
I still think it's a great way to get some free publicity by making a big deal of it. It also doesn't hurt to cozy up to the liberal music honchos. It's a win win for those sensitive artists.

reply
Melizmatic to Kimmel 2012/08/17 16:15:07

+3
Um...

You seem to be taking this a bit personally, K.

Seems to me that its simply not possible that ALL artists are in it for the 'free publicity'; as no one knows their motivations but them.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely that 100% of artists are 'sensitive types cozying up 'to 'libbie music honchos.'

There are some people in the world whose integrity means more to them than money or publicity.

To arbitrarily paint them all with the same broad brush seems a bit disingenuous.

reply
Kimmel to Melizmatic 2012/08/17 17:45:22

+1
Nothing personal at all, Melz. This is entirely a non issue to me. I don't think all artists do it, but I think some do. Just stating that there could be other motives than the old "protect my intellectual property". It's a distraction at best, but I have no dog in the fight.

reply