Screw Rush if they don't want Rand playing their music....

[dannno]

probably Rand wouldn't want to play it against their wishes.

When they signed the deal with the devil (the big record companies) they sold the rights to their music. Fuck em.

 

[sailingaway]

When they signed the deal with the devil (the big record companies) they sold the rights to their music. Fuck em.

Then every time Rand mentions their lyrics or plays their music the press report about Rush not wanting them to play it..... THAT is why people stop playing it when asked.

But I think Rush may lose some support over this. I know I'm pissed.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I heard this yesterday from a staffer. I guess Rush doesn't allow their music used with any political campaign or group. It's one of Rand's favorite groups. They've asked for them not to do it anymore.

No biggie.

No biggie is right. Sounds like they do not want to be political. Which is their right.

They do (sort of) have a point. However if Rand's campaign is at an event with a venue that has a blanket PRO license (from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC) and Rand's campaign chooses to play Rush, then there isn't anything the band can do about it.

Yeah if you want to get in a pissing match you could be fine legally. But why? Is their music so important you are willing to get into this and distract from the real issues?

Some people want to fight over everything. To quote Epic Beard Man "why so hostile man".

They don't want it they don't want it. Done. Next topic.

 

[low preference guy]

But I think Rush may lose some support over this. I know I'm pissed.

people who like their music will still like it, even if they look like assholes.

 

[low preference guy]

No biggie is right. Sounds like they do not want to be political. Which is their right.

that's a dangerous opening, especially on RPF where lots of people believe that there is no such thing as intellectual "property" and there is no violation of anyone's rights if Rand plays their songs in the absence of Rand singing an explicit contract agreeing to not play them.

 

[Mini-Me]

that's a dangerous opening, especially on RPF where lots of people believe that there is no such thing as intellectual "property" and there is no violation of anyone's rights if Rand plays their songs in the absence of Rand singing an explicit contract agreeing to not play them.

To be honest, I don't believe in intellectual property, and I still agree with BlackTerrel. It's totally Rush's right to object, and I can understand why they might want not want to be politicized (even IF they agree with Rand). Granted, it should technically be Rand's right to say, "HAHA, LOL, I'M PLAYING IT ANYWAY, SUCKERS," but it would be a totally dick move. Just because you have a technical right to do something or not [given libertarian property rights] doesn't by itself make it respectable.

 

[low preference guy]

To be honest, I don't believe in intellectual property, and I still agree with BlackTerrel. It's totally Rush's right to object, and I can understand why they might want not want to be politicized (even IF they agree with Rand). Granted, it should technically be Rand's right to say, "HAHA, LOL, I'M PLAYING IT ANYWAY, SUCKERS," but it would be a totally dick move.

i also believe it's their right to object (I don't question free speech), and that will probably be enough to convince Rand to not play it. but i don't think is their right to use the force of the law to prevent Rand from playing (which would be unnecessary because Rand wouldn't play it anyway, but IF he wanted to play it, i say it wouldn't be their right to stop him).

 

[sailingaway]

people who like their music will still like it, even if they look like assholes.

maybe. I wouldn't feel the same about it, myself. I frankly feel that he was complimenting them by using it.

 

[BlackTerrel]

that's a dangerous opening, especially on RPF where lots of people believe that there is no such thing as intellectual "property" and there is no violation of anyone's rights if Rand plays their songs in the absence of Rand singing an explicit contract agreeing to not play them.

Why? Why is this is a fight that anyone would want to partake in?

What possible benefit is there to making a big stink about a band that was popular twenty years ago?

The goal is to elect Rand. I could give a fuck about Rush.

To be honest, I don't believe in intellectual property, and I still agree with BlackTerrel. It's totally Rush's right to object, and I can understand why they might want not want to be politicized (even IF they agree with Rand). Granted, it should technically be Rand's right to say, "HAHA, LOL, I'M PLAYING IT ANYWAY, SUCKERS," but it would be a totally dick move. Just because you have a technical right to do something or not [given libertarian property rights] doesn't by itself make it respectable.

Is right. Are you trying to prove a point or are you trying to win an election? Just common sense.

 

[dannno]

The goal is to elect Rand. I could give a fuck about Rush.

And here I thought the goal was individual liberty

 

[low preference guy]

Why? Why is this is a fight that anyone would want to partake in?

What possible benefit is there to making a big stink about a band that was popular twenty years ago?

The goal is to elect Rand. I could give a fuck about Rush.

Of course the goal is to elect Rand and avoid distractions; that's the reason I pointed out that making the statement in bold typically opens a can of worms, in the form of an argument about the validity of intellectual property. If people want to stay on topic, it's better to not open that discussion, which you did when you claimed "Which is their right".

No biggie is right. Sounds like they do not want to be political. Which is their right.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Of course the goal is to elect Rand and avoid distractions; that's the reason I pointed out that making the statement in bold typically opens a can of worms, in the form of an argument about the validity of intellectual property. If people want to stay on topic, it's better to not open that discussion, which you did when you claimed "Which is their right".

Ok fine. I'm on board. By their right I meant it is their right to ask Rand not to play it. I don't want to start a legal discussion.

What I'm saying is their music is not that important, and if they ask you not to do it you stop. You don't pick a fight with a band that was popular twenty years ago. And if they are smart your supporters don't pick a fight either. There's no positive here.

We just had an issue about a law from 1964. That got in the way and distracted from the real issues. Do we really need an even less relevant issue to worry about?

And here I thought the goal was individual liberty

You can have as much liberty as you want as long as you do as I say and vote the correct way

 

[lordindra3]

Screw Rush, they blow any way. Sorry, its just how I feel. Thats like me crying about "Cold Play" not allow me to use them in anything I do... DARN!!! Oh no, not the worlds sissiest band, Cold Play! Shoot!! *said in very sarcastic voice*....

 

[Son of Detroit]

Who cares. They don't want to be political. That's respectable. So many entertainers use their popularity to push their own political agendas. Be musicians, not politicians.

Rush is still my favorite band, Geddy Lee is still my favorite musician.

YouTube - Rush - Tom Sawyer

 

[KCIndy]

Kinda sad... Rush has always been one of my very favorite bands....

It's really ironic, too, considering how libertarian/anti-establishment the lyrics of a lot of their songs are, too...

 

[Matt Collins]

Which is their right.

I tend to disagree with this. They don't actually own the art, they are only granted privileges by the government regarding the performance, display, recording, transmission, copying, etc of the art in question. In the United States ideas are not owned, but the expression of those ideas are given some protections by the government to the original authors.

 

[invisible]

Forget Rush. Go for endorsements from Wino and Lemmy. Although not quite as popular as Rush, both of those guys wrote plenty of lyrics Rand can quote, and would probably be proud to have Rand quote them.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I tend to disagree with this. They don't actually own the art, they are only granted privileges by the government regarding the performance, display, recording, transmission, copying, etc of the art in question. In the United States ideas are not owned, but the expression of those ideas are given some protections by the government to the original authors.

Whether or not this is a moral or legal right is not important in this instance. What does matter is that it is completely counter productive to make an issue of this in any way. There is no positive for this on Rand's side.

They ask you not to play their music. Done. Now let's discuss the issues that matter to the people of Kentucky.

 

[Son of Detroit]

WTF is up with people insulting and bashing Rush... It's not like they said

"We disagree with Rand's politics and don't want our music associating with his insane ideas".

They just don't want to be a political band. Lots of bands feel that way. They feel music and politics should be separated.

I support Rush's decision 100%.

Now if Conway wanted to use their music and they let him, that would be a different story.

 

[angelatc]

According to this, Matt is right about the ASCAP license. If the campaign has a license, then they have the legal right to play the music. http://www.slate.com/id/2199492

Yes, it would be stupid to get caught up in a pissing match between Rush and the campaign, because the McCain / Palin legal use of Barracuda proves that the media has no interest in pointing out the legal rights of the license holders.

But it's rather dickish of artists. They either sell their song to the world or they don't.