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

rereblue 2012/08/16 22:47:24

Yes

+3
It is infact their music, they should have some license on where it can be played and by who.

reply
akgold to rereblue 2012/08/16 23:10:39

+2
A very large number of musicians sell the rights to their work. If they don't retain their copyrights they have no say in who pays to play their work. And they shouldn't have a say.
If they own the copyrights they have retained control to how it is used.

reply
lolo 2012/08/16 22:45:43

No

+4
It's no different than playing their song in a bar. If he were using at as his official song then maybe they would have a case.

reply
Beat Ma... to lolo 2012/08/16 22:52:23

+3
Oh but it is. Technically, playing in a bar is considered "public performance" and most bars are in violation of copyright laws when they play a song without the artists permission. Most artists don't care because that's free marketing for them, but they have every right to tell a politician to not play their copyrighted material at an event.

reply
Mel to Beat Ma... 2012/08/17 19:15:03

However the bar doesn't profit directly from playing the music and artists encourage their , music being played there. And it's not a political forum

reply
nails to lolo 2012/08/17 16:01:12

Its more freedom they want to take away.No more music in bar's unless you have permission.

reply
lil crazy 2012/08/16 22:45:02

No

+4
As far as I know no one else has to get permissions to play songs at an event so why should politicians?

reply
16 2012/08/16 22:34:00

Yes

+2
Silversun Pickups are too good for Romney. Just sayin'.

reply
Illjwamh 2012/08/16 22:33:24

Yes

+2
Everyone else has to. Why shouldn't they?

reply
Sofahead 2012/08/16 22:26:40

Yes

+2
What defines permission?
If they cleared it with the music publisher and record, yes.
You have to pay royalties on music that is heard by more than eight people
If the artist doesn't actually own their own recordings, well too bad.
Still it would be a nice courtesy to ask them.

reply
Jalex 2012/08/16 22:23:58

No

+3
Ideally, it would be nice to have the artist's blessing, but realistically, shouldn't any true artist just be glad that people are listening to their music? Unless they think their fans should only comprise those who agree with them on everything.

reply
Illjwamh to Jalex 2012/08/16 22:35:25

I'm sure they have no problem with having fans from all walks of life. The problem with this kind of thing though is it kind of sends the message that they endorse the politician in question, which may not always be the case.

I've no doubt they're happy that Romney is a fan (if he is, and it wasn't just an organizer who chose the music), but that doesn't mean they want him for president, or want their music associated with his campaign.

reply
Jalex to Illjwamh 2012/08/16 22:39:26

+5
I don't entirely disagree. But if that's all it is, then shouldn't they simply release a statement saying they don't endorse Romney or his politics or whatever?
I mean, I'm not a Romney fan, but as an aspiring musician, I would welcome any opportunity to have my work heard.

reply
Illjwamh to Jalex 2012/08/16 22:43:50

They could do that (and kind of have), but those kinds of things are like trying to stopper a burst dam with a wine cork. Having your music played at a political rally is pretty much an implicit endorsement. Even if it isn't meant that way, that's the way people are going to interpret it no matter what you say.

I guess it all depends on how you weigh your priorities of exposure and political views.

reply
Jalex to Illjwamh 2012/08/16 22:47:12

+3
Hmm, I don't agree. I mean If they say they don't endorse him, I don't see why their words wouldn't be taken at face value, but whatever. Just my way of thinking anyway.

reply
akgold to Illjwamh 2012/08/16 23:14:13

+1
I don't agree with you endorsement idea. Most people would not think it was an endorsement unless the artist had come out for a candidate or played it personally at an event.

reply
BOOGIE-WOOGIE-MUSIC-MAN-ROC... 2012/08/16 22:21:02

Yes

+1
Courtesy is a good thing. that's just good business. it's good for you, and it good for me.

reply
theprot... to BOOGIE-... 2012/08/17 17:01:47

Courtesy schmourtesy. Good business is paying the fee. The Romney campaign did pay the fee and the band got paid through ASCAP. But you'll never read that in articles written by the misinformed.

reply
BOOGIE-... to theprot... 2012/08/17 18:17:14

I agree with you. But, the band needs to cut a check, for a full refund to the Romney campaign people.

There are millions of artists, who would be glad to create something special for mitt Romney..

What was the Name of that band Again??????? ROFLMAO.......

reply
RENEGADE 34 2012/08/16 22:07:37

Yes

+1
The politician should be required to do it themselves too,(phone call, letter ect) not some aid. In most cities a person need a permit to do anything, maybe if the politicians started to see what is like to get turned down or its just not that easy. Not just roll in and and think they own the place.

reply
theprot... to RENEGAD... 2012/08/17 17:00:47

Boy are you ignorant! Mitt Romney should personally ask all the musicians whose music they play? He's got better things to do.
Besides, the campaign DID need a permit. THEY GOT ONE. They paid the fee. The band sent no "cease and desist" order because there is no basis for one. They got PAID for the use of their song, just like when it gets played on the radio. . . just like when it gets sold on the internet . . .

reply
RENEGAD... to theprot... 2012/08/17 17:33:59

Something wrong with asking to be polite? Im ignorant, and I was told, I didnt build my own company, anything else I need to learn today?

reply
theprot... to RENEGAD... 2012/08/18 21:12:11

I apologize. Ignorance means uninformed. I shouldn't expect you to be properly informed because the news media only reports what they want to report. It's just that this discussion really made me upset because the news media makes it sound like the Romney campaign was using this twit band's music without their permission. You don't need permission when you buy the rights to use the music, which the Romney campaign DID do.

reply
RENEGAD... to theprot... 2012/08/18 21:23:27

You dont have to apologize to me, I knew what you ment, I did understand they had permission, I should of clareified my statement better. I build and fix things, even though I get paid for the work I do, I still feel an attachment to it.

reply
theprot... to RENEGAD... 2012/08/20 03:14:41

+1
Oooh! Wooden toys! I love those. I've made a few myself when my kids were small. Couldn't afford all the big toys in the stores.

reply
Scott (o)(o) 2012/08/16 22:04:26

Yes

+1
Damn straight !!!!!!!

reply
Redneck Gal 2012/08/16 22:02:05

Yes

+1
They should have asked permission...that's just the polite thing to do. Never mind the copyright laws,

reply
theprot... to Redneck... 2012/08/17 16:58:27

There's no need to ask permission. Suppose a radio station had to ask permission of every group to use their song every time!!!! There'd be no music. The fact is that the Romney campaign DID ask permission . . . by paying for the license that gives them the permission. But nobody reports that. Egad! There's so much mis-information out there!

reply
Mel to theprot... 2012/08/17 19:17:20

Radio stations are licensed to play the artist music

reply
theprot... to Mel 2012/08/18 21:14:45

That's exactly right. And ANY public gathering requires the same license. And the Romney campaign DID purchase the license, just like radio stations do. And so my point: Would a radio station ask individual permission after they had paid the license? Of course not. Neither should the political campaign gathering if they had already purchased the license.

reply
Mel to theprot... 2012/08/18 22:14:40

However if the artist tells them to stop plating the song, according to copyright license laws they must stop, as any permission withdrawn equals revocation of license.

reply
theprot... to Mel 2012/08/20 03:24:54

The Romney campaign DID stop using the song. But I'm still not sure that you understand the process. The licenses are BLANKET licenses. Once you've paid that, you have the right to "fair use" of the songs and recordings covered under that license. It's not as simple as "permission withdrawn".
Under contract law, the band has a contract with the licensing agent and the agent has a contract with the user. If the user has not violated any terms of the contract (license), it would be incumbent upon the band to change the contract with the licensing agent.
It's like if you buy a CD at WalMart. Walmart is the retailer. If the band that produces the CD doesn't want you (specifically one buyer out of thousands) to buy it, they can't tell you you can't buy it. They're no longer the one selling it. If they don't want you to buy it at WalMart, they'd have to withdraw from their sales agreements with WalMart, not with you.
The bottom line here: Contrary to impressions made by the news media (and Sodahead), the Romney campaign has done nothing illegal or unethical. The band made a publicity stunt and the Romney campaign politely agreed to no longer play their song.

reply
Mel to theprot... 2012/08/20 04:27:39

Not all licenses are blanket.

reply
theprot... to Mel 2012/08/21 16:23:11

The ones that make sense for radio stations and political campaigns are.
At this point, what's the big deal? The romney campaign was guilty of nothing and have complied with the wishes of the band.

reply
Redneck... to theprot... 2012/08/17 19:43:24

LMAO If they had asked permission as YOU say by purchasing a license...Silverspun would not have been able to put a stop to them from using the song. It was not reported because what you are saying is not true.

reply
theprot... to Redneck... 2012/08/18 21:18:30

Read carefully. Silverputz ASKED the Romney campaign to stop using the song and the campaign complied as a courtesy. And by the way, you're wrong. The purchase of a license was not reported because the news media is either biased or incompetent. I had to dig a little to find a report that mentioned the license. The only groups that can use music without an ASCAP license are churches and academic institutions. For all others, it's required. The idiot that wrote the Sodahead article was either intentionally omitting the fact or just plain incompetent. (Probably the latter)

reply
Redneck... to theprot... 2012/08/19 17:17:22

If they "asked" Silverspun as you say, then why are they now asking Romney to stop playing it. That makes no sense. Have you researched that?

reply
theprot... to Redneck... 2012/08/20 03:43:59 (edited)

Nobody seems to understand this. You buy a blanket license with licensing agencies like BMI or ASCAP for permissions to use recorded material under their control. When you use the recorded material, you report it. Then the appropriate royalties are awarded to the recording artists BY THE LICENSING AGENCY. The campaign didn't ask Silverputz directly. The campaign paid for the license which gives them the rights to play the recording.

So, you are partially right. The Romney campaign did not ask the band for permission to play their song. They don't have to. It's just like if a radio station plays the song. If a radio station plays it, they do not ask the band for permission to play the song. Instead, the radio station buys a license with the LICENSING AGENCY. That license grants the radio station the right to play the song. The station reports to the agency which songs they used, and the royalties are paid by the LICENSING AGENCY to the band. Get it?

Imagine if every DJ who did a wedding dance had to write to each individual band for permission to play each song (out of say 100 songs). Then the DJ would have to cut 100 checks for $.09 and mail it to each of the bands!! THAT is what would make no sense.

DJ at a wedding dance, radio station, bar mitzvah, muzak, you name it...

Nobody seems to understand this. You buy a blanket license with licensing agencies like BMI or ASCAP for permissions to use recorded material under their control. When you use the recorded material, you report it. Then the appropriate royalties are awarded to the recording artists BY THE LICENSING AGENCY. The campaign didn't ask Silverputz directly. The campaign paid for the license which gives them the rights to play the recording.

So, you are partially right. The Romney campaign did not ask the band for permission to play their song. They don't have to. It's just like if a radio station plays the song. If a radio station plays it, they do not ask the band for permission to play the song. Instead, the radio station buys a license with the LICENSING AGENCY. That license grants the radio station the right to play the song. The station reports to the agency which songs they used, and the royalties are paid by the LICENSING AGENCY to the band. Get it?

Imagine if every DJ who did a wedding dance had to write to each individual band for permission to play each song (out of say 100 songs). Then the DJ would have to cut 100 checks for $.09 and mail it to each of the bands!! THAT is what would make no sense.

DJ at a wedding dance, radio station, bar mitzvah, muzak, you name it. They all work the same way. The only exceptions are schools and churches. (When a high school choir or a church choir sings a piece of music, they have to legally purchase the sheet music, but they don't have to report or pay royalties when they perform the music.)
(more)

reply
Redneck... to theprot... 2012/08/20 20:22:24

There you go...he didn't ask permission from the band as you implied in your earlier comments. Apparently, Silverspun is distancing themselves from Romney just like the Republican Party is distancing themselves from Troy Aiken today. Good for Silverspun!!

reply
theprot... to Redneck... 2012/08/21 16:26:11

Read my earlier comments please. I said the campaign did ask permission BY PURCHASING THE LICENSE. (In response to your last comment, "Silverspun is distancing themselves from Romney just like" . . . just like Romney is distancing himself from Silverputz.

reply