Skinny Puppy demands royalties from US govt for using their music in Guantanamo(brooklynvegan.com)
brooklynvegan.com
Skinny Puppy demands royalties from US govt for using their music in Guantanamo
http://www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2014/12/skinny_puppy_de.html
19 comments
I don't think fair use includes business presentations to small groups.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.aspx
A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.aspx
A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.
Are the people I work with not "social acquaintances?" Perhaps not the entire company of 500, but certainly the group of a dozen or so I work with daily.
Sure, the people you work with might be. But the person being tortured? I don't think they are "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances".
No, because the actual phrase was "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances". The people you work with are not part of your family's normal social aquaintances (ok, a handful of them may be).
It's pretty clear that this phrase means your family and usual circle of friends who visit your family (semi-) regularly, i.e. normally. It does not mean the office party.
Ask yourself this: if you quit your job, would your collegues still be normal aquaintances of your family? If not, then they are not social acquaintances.
It's pretty clear that this phrase means your family and usual circle of friends who visit your family (semi-) regularly, i.e. normally. It does not mean the office party.
Ask yourself this: if you quit your job, would your collegues still be normal aquaintances of your family? If not, then they are not social acquaintances.
Certainly in England the PRS (performing right society) will attempt to collect money to licence music if you're a small business playing music only to employees.
http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/Pag...
Especially http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/Pag...
> Workers/colleagues and/or customers/clients have been recognised by the courts as falling within the composer's ‘public’. Any person wishing either to play or to authorise the playing of our music to such individuals in the workplace - wherever that workplace is situated - should therefore obtain a music licence.
http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/Pag...
Especially http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/Pag...
> Workers/colleagues and/or customers/clients have been recognised by the courts as falling within the composer's ‘public’. Any person wishing either to play or to authorise the playing of our music to such individuals in the workplace - wherever that workplace is situated - should therefore obtain a music licence.
No, they are colleagues. You didn't become acquainted with them socially, you became acquainted with them through work, and at work the reason for your continued acquaintance is commercial in nature.
no, they are "professional acquaintances". I'm mostly being facetious here of course, but it certainly sounds to me like an argument a lawyer would make.
No professional opinion is needed: The copyright warnings at the beginning of DVDs often state that it is forbidden to perform the work in "restaurants, prisons, ..." (sometimes they even mention oil rigs).
Copyright warnings at the start of a DVD are not Legal Advice and cannot revoke rights assigned by copyright law to the purchaser/licenser. Besides, that's DVDs and not music; they're licensed differently.
Thus, indeed a professional opinion is "needed."
Thus, indeed a professional opinion is "needed."
This is a silly discussion that distracts from the real issue (humans being tortured), but here you go:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-20...
"2.1 Showing films on DVD or video to groups of prisoners or staff, either in communal areas or via in cell television systems, is considered to be a public performance for which a licence is required."
This is the UK version, be my guest to search for the U.S. equivalent before making any further claims.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-20...
"2.1 Showing films on DVD or video to groups of prisoners or staff, either in communal areas or via in cell television systems, is considered to be a public performance for which a licence is required."
This is the UK version, be my guest to search for the U.S. equivalent before making any further claims.
No, the entire discussion is about an album that was played "without a license." I'm curious if they have a leg to stand on with their attempt to bill.
And again, movie licensing in the US is codified differently into law than music licensing. These licensing issues are not compatible.
And again, movie licensing in the US is codified differently into law than music licensing. These licensing issues are not compatible.
No, your rights to use copyrighted content under the law are zero (excluding fair use). There are seven basic rights which are recognised, unless the copyright holder grants you one or more of these, then you are not permitted to use their content. They may add any additional terms to the license which they like, as long as they are legally sound.
One dirty trick which is used is to include something like "absolutely no copying" including for "education or personal use", which is not really true, because fair use permits limited copying. So that's an example of a non-legally sound clause.
The right to perform a work publicly and restrictions on those public places (e.g. as a studio I could license a work to be played publicly in a specific movie theatre) is one of the seven rights which are built-in to copyright law, so such restrictions are, in fact, sound.
One dirty trick which is used is to include something like "absolutely no copying" including for "education or personal use", which is not really true, because fair use permits limited copying. So that's an example of a non-legally sound clause.
The right to perform a work publicly and restrictions on those public places (e.g. as a studio I could license a work to be played publicly in a specific movie theatre) is one of the seven rights which are built-in to copyright law, so such restrictions are, in fact, sound.
> No, your rights to use copyrighted content under the law are zero (excluding fair use). No, your rights to use copyrighted content under the law are zero (excluding fair use).
No. You can "perform" the work as long as the performance is not "public." For instance, watching a DVD on your laptop by yourself at home is a "performance," but it's not public. This is a perfectly valid use of copyrighted content.
No. You can "perform" the work as long as the performance is not "public." For instance, watching a DVD on your laptop by yourself at home is a "performance," but it's not public. This is a perfectly valid use of copyrighted content.
Bars and retail stores count as "public performance" for purposes of song royalties. So the group in question can be quite small.
But the people in bars and retail stores are not the acquaintances of the manager (or whomever chose the music to play.)
Texas agrees with you:
> Do I need a license to play music in my establishment?
> Yes! When you purchase a CD, MP3 or similar product, you are granted the right to non-public performance of the material, such as at home or in your car. [...] Although you may have paid for a copy of the music, or are paying a DJ or live band to perform copyrighted music, you are still required by U.S. Copyright Law to obtain the proper licenses for the playback of the songs. [...]
http://governor.state.tx.us/music/guides/music_in_venues
It goes on to state that ASCAP does not have licensing information available on their website (as of the last update in 2009), but BMI does. Here's their license for "Local Governmental Entities": http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/lge.pdf and for completeness, "Eating and Drinking Establishments": http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/ede.pdf
Another article from The Guardian also reports that in 2010, prisons in the UK had to enforce rules to prevent music from being played in the open because licensing costs were becoming too expensive: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/19/prison-music-...
> Do I need a license to play music in my establishment?
> Yes! When you purchase a CD, MP3 or similar product, you are granted the right to non-public performance of the material, such as at home or in your car. [...] Although you may have paid for a copy of the music, or are paying a DJ or live band to perform copyrighted music, you are still required by U.S. Copyright Law to obtain the proper licenses for the playback of the songs. [...]
http://governor.state.tx.us/music/guides/music_in_venues
It goes on to state that ASCAP does not have licensing information available on their website (as of the last update in 2009), but BMI does. Here's their license for "Local Governmental Entities": http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/lge.pdf and for completeness, "Eating and Drinking Establishments": http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/ede.pdf
Another article from The Guardian also reports that in 2010, prisons in the UK had to enforce rules to prevent music from being played in the open because licensing costs were becoming too expensive: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/19/prison-music-...
ASCAP's own page is strangely silent on the topic of jails; the closest I could find were 'Endurance Events' - http://www.ascap.com/licensing/types/endurance-marathon-tria...
See the complete list here: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensefinder
See the complete list here: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensefinder
There's a good euphemism
That's because they are open to the public. Jails are not, in general - they're more like invite-only parties.
Copyright law defines a public performance as one which occurs outside of a family and it's normal social circle. So any performance at an invite-only party is regarded as a public performance. For this reason, although a jail is not a public place, any performance there would be considered a public performance.
This makes sense when you think about it: an invite-only party could be held in a fancy hotel and have many hundreds of guests, or it may be a business event.
This makes sense when you think about it: an invite-only party could be held in a fancy hotel and have many hundreds of guests, or it may be a business event.
I've got John Yoo on the phone for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo)
INAL, but it depends. If your business is based on offering tortures, and their music makes you perform your work better, get better results from EITs and as a result, make more money, and they can prove it in court then its irrelevant that its been a "torture"; whats relevant is that you used in in a commercial way to gain something.
And that "something" would be very important to the court. In vast majority of cases, companies want to make more money. In case of Gov, CIA would argue that they dont make any money thanks to using your music. Heck, they could even claim non-profit status because AFAIK they do not produce monetary value; they produce intelligence.
Besides, in a light of recent developmentS that many important influencial people claim the entire program is illegal and some agents should be even in jail, some small claim suit from a tiny band is a peanuts to the CIA. And Im sure the Puppet knows this.
I feel its a PR stunt, because it takes a specific group of people listenning to dark music like this (other example Marlin Manson). So in this very busy and competitive business, I cannot imagine a better free advertise than "hey did you hear about Puppet?? Their music is soo cool they even torture people at Guantamo with it! We got to get their album asap!!"
And that "something" would be very important to the court. In vast majority of cases, companies want to make more money. In case of Gov, CIA would argue that they dont make any money thanks to using your music. Heck, they could even claim non-profit status because AFAIK they do not produce monetary value; they produce intelligence.
Besides, in a light of recent developmentS that many important influencial people claim the entire program is illegal and some agents should be even in jail, some small claim suit from a tiny band is a peanuts to the CIA. And Im sure the Puppet knows this.
I feel its a PR stunt, because it takes a specific group of people listenning to dark music like this (other example Marlin Manson). So in this very busy and competitive business, I cannot imagine a better free advertise than "hey did you hear about Puppet?? Their music is soo cool they even torture people at Guantamo with it! We got to get their album asap!!"
i think the publicity is probably a bigger factor than the actual money.
It's a pity that governments place themselves above the law. It would be nice to see the US government forced to actually pay up. It would be even nicer to see the band donate any sum awarded to an organisation like Amnesty International or Doctors Without Borders.
In case you didn't understand the subtext, the point of this is to register offense that their music was used in this way (the opposite of what they would want). It's a form of passive resistance. This story isn't primarily about copyright and it certainly isn't about money.
Ah, but a large percentage of HNers are Americans and thus care more about copyright and money than about torture.
I think that what you're trying to say is that `a large percentage of HNers are Americans and thus care more about copyright being used against them in order to extort them, usually for money.`
Most "Americans" care about a wide variety of topics so please take this sort of stereotype somewhere else.
Most "Americans" care about a wide variety of topics so please take this sort of stereotype somewhere else.
No, that is not at all what I was saying, but thank you for trying.
I'm confused here. You said something that was on the surface absurd, got downvoted on it, which I would assume would at least cause you to re-examine your original premises, and then came back doubling down on your original statement, which I interpret as dismissal of the downvotes as just hive mind thinking about a subject they're very clearly wrong about. So, do you honestly actually believe that most Americans are more concerned with copyrights than torture? And if so, what leads you to this conclusion?
This question is not meant to be hostile, I am not American so I have no horse in this race, I just want to understand where you're coming from.
This question is not meant to be hostile, I am not American so I have no horse in this race, I just want to understand where you're coming from.
I'm not saraid216, nor American, but I believe that I find it very difficult to find (sampling from primarily Canadians and Americans) people who get emotionally heated about other people being tortured, and relatively easy to find people who get emotionally heated about copyright violation (usually against themselves or against someone they would like to identify with). I would say that I find the latter group between 10x and 100x more common in my life than the former.
It's even harder to find someone who will actually lift a finger to do anything about strangers being tortured, and harder still to find someone who will do more than write an angry comment online (for example, I will not do more than write comments online).
Although I found saraid216's comment smug, dismissive, and non-contributing, as far as I can tell it was essentially true.
It's even harder to find someone who will actually lift a finger to do anything about strangers being tortured, and harder still to find someone who will do more than write an angry comment online (for example, I will not do more than write comments online).
Although I found saraid216's comment smug, dismissive, and non-contributing, as far as I can tell it was essentially true.
Interesting perspective, I agree with your observations, but I don't know if it's really a manifestation of those people not caring about torture so much as it seems like a problem with which they do not have direct experience and thus do not have the emotional immediacy involved with something that more directly affects them.
For example, I might find my neighbour's loud music at three in the morning evokes more of an emotional response than the spanish inquisition, but that doesn't actually imply I think that my neighbour's loud music at three in the morning is really more important or severe than the spanish inquisition.
For example, I might find my neighbour's loud music at three in the morning evokes more of an emotional response than the spanish inquisition, but that doesn't actually imply I think that my neighbour's loud music at three in the morning is really more important or severe than the spanish inquisition.
Seems pretty cheap. They've got a lot to learn about military contracting.
As long as the figure continues to have lots of triple 6's the point is made I guess.
Musicians have made similar demands in 2008[1]. That includes Christopher Cerf, one of the Sesame Street composers. He features in a documentary Aljazeera made about this[2]. I seem to remember he also asked for royalties but was unsuccessful, but I can't find a reference to that.
[1] http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google...
[2] http://www.dummymag.com/videos/watch-al-jazeera-s-songs-of-w...
[1] http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google...
[2] http://www.dummymag.com/videos/watch-al-jazeera-s-songs-of-w...
Reddit discussion (from 9 hours ago): http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/2p8mvd/skinny_p...
Earlier this year they tried to bill the US government: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/metal-band-skin...
Earlier this year they tried to bill the US government: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/metal-band-skin...
$666,000 is far too low. If the members of Skinny Puppy knew how Government defence contracting works, they would realise that this kind of value is a write-off, go for $666,000,000 - now that is more of a defence figure.
In all seriousness though, this shows extreme irony. The Government is content with passing draconian bills penalising users for downloading Game of Thrones and cutting off their Internet connections, sending Swat teams to their homes and allowing corporations to financially haemorrhage them in the "court of law". Yet, when the Government wants to use someone else's music without paying for a licence, they think they are above the law they want to so desperately put in place?
They definitely have a case. Copyright law forbids audio and video being broadcasted to many persons without a licence in a public place (with exception of your family and a few other exceptions). This isn't music being played in a family home, it is music being broadcasted in a US owned detention camp prison.
If I were in a band and found out my music was being used to torture people, I would be pretty pissed about it too. I couldn't imagine how that would make you feel knowing something you created is being used to interrogate and break a potentially innocent person locked up inhumanely.
I am going to be keeping an eye on this case. If the US fails to pay up, it could set a precedent for future court cases brought against small businesses and individuals being fined for playing music. And yes, there have been cases of small businesses, restaurants, cafes, etc being bullied by ASCAP into paying for licences to have play CD's or even in some cases, have a radio playing.
In all seriousness though, this shows extreme irony. The Government is content with passing draconian bills penalising users for downloading Game of Thrones and cutting off their Internet connections, sending Swat teams to their homes and allowing corporations to financially haemorrhage them in the "court of law". Yet, when the Government wants to use someone else's music without paying for a licence, they think they are above the law they want to so desperately put in place?
They definitely have a case. Copyright law forbids audio and video being broadcasted to many persons without a licence in a public place (with exception of your family and a few other exceptions). This isn't music being played in a family home, it is music being broadcasted in a US owned detention camp prison.
If I were in a band and found out my music was being used to torture people, I would be pretty pissed about it too. I couldn't imagine how that would make you feel knowing something you created is being used to interrogate and break a potentially innocent person locked up inhumanely.
I am going to be keeping an eye on this case. If the US fails to pay up, it could set a precedent for future court cases brought against small businesses and individuals being fined for playing music. And yes, there have been cases of small businesses, restaurants, cafes, etc being bullied by ASCAP into paying for licences to have play CD's or even in some cases, have a radio playing.
Actual source: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vancouver-band-demands-compensa...
This is from February.
This is from February.
And I submitted it back then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7192081
The guard's story that told the band is interesting.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/industrial-acti...
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/industrial-acti...
I did a small amount of research on this on behalf of a psychologist involved in torture trials (not testing torture, bringing people to account). The use of Skinny Puppy's music has been quite widespread.
Could this spawn a new music genre/industry (torture music)? We truly live in a bizarre world. It would certainly make for a good character background in a dystopian movie: a megacorp X office worker who produces torture music at day but leads a second life at night, rediscovering his love for music at underground bars where any type of music is being played (despite the the strict totalitarian government censorship laws).
Someone's clearly never appreciated Merzbow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGzrL8J0t-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGzrL8J0t-c
Indeed I hadn't! I certainly couldn't listen to that for hours but it would make a good soundtrack for a David Lynch movie :)
Imagine hearing this[1] for 12 hours straight.
Edit: Not saying it's bad music, but perhaps after the 12 hour point the constant beat would drive anyone crazy.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYC5VFuiblU
Edit: Not saying it's bad music, but perhaps after the 12 hour point the constant beat would drive anyone crazy.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYC5VFuiblU
Please. That's a great song, and even Skinny Puppy (a relatively tame, "dance-industrial" band) has a lot noiser, less structured music that would be more "disturbing" to some. These prisoners were lucky if they got to listen to Puppy's Assimilate.
There's far, far, far more extreme music than that, such as the whole "noise" genre, which includes bands like Massona,[1] Merzbow,[2] and Borbetomagus.[3] And, yes, fans pay good money to buy their albums and go hear them live. I've gone for days listening to all of these virtually non-stop.
I'm not really in to them anymore, but I'd still much rather hear some noise music than put in a stress position, be tasered, be stuck in an extremely cold or extremely hot room, be waterboarded, raped, deprived of sleep or medical attention for weeks on end, be subject to mock executions, have my family threatened, be kicked to death (or kicked in general.. no thanks!).
Yes, music and various other means of sensory overload or sensory deprivation can induce altered states of consciousness, and when combined with a menacing environment where you're surrounded by people who mean you harm (and often do you harm), they can be unsettling. But music would be one of the last things I'd be worried about in a torture prison.
At least they didn't force the prisoners to listen to Johnny Cash.[4]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9JjDP3rK5I
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AguPH0XBxdw
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GulFn6cqFvc
[4] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7107ELQvY
There's far, far, far more extreme music than that, such as the whole "noise" genre, which includes bands like Massona,[1] Merzbow,[2] and Borbetomagus.[3] And, yes, fans pay good money to buy their albums and go hear them live. I've gone for days listening to all of these virtually non-stop.
I'm not really in to them anymore, but I'd still much rather hear some noise music than put in a stress position, be tasered, be stuck in an extremely cold or extremely hot room, be waterboarded, raped, deprived of sleep or medical attention for weeks on end, be subject to mock executions, have my family threatened, be kicked to death (or kicked in general.. no thanks!).
Yes, music and various other means of sensory overload or sensory deprivation can induce altered states of consciousness, and when combined with a menacing environment where you're surrounded by people who mean you harm (and often do you harm), they can be unsettling. But music would be one of the last things I'd be worried about in a torture prison.
At least they didn't force the prisoners to listen to Johnny Cash.[4]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9JjDP3rK5I
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AguPH0XBxdw
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GulFn6cqFvc
[4] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7107ELQvY
It's not about music being extreme. Actually, you can see that other bands in the list aren't something that is generally considered being extreme. I'd argue that listening to Merzbow as a torture method is far easier than Queen exactly because of lack of structure — I generally listen to Merzbow and such when I'm extremely tired and it just helps to relax and stop thinking.
Anyway, I wouldn't be so sure that loud music for 12 hours is actually more humanistic (hah, humanistic torture — I've got to remember that!) than arbitrary item from your list. After all, Chinese water torture [1] also sounds surprisingly harmless, right?
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture
Anyway, I wouldn't be so sure that loud music for 12 hours is actually more humanistic (hah, humanistic torture — I've got to remember that!) than arbitrary item from your list. After all, Chinese water torture [1] also sounds surprisingly harmless, right?
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture
Did Johnny get anything from Operation Nifty Pachage [1]?
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nifty_Package
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nifty_Package
You just described most of 1996 for me.
Interview with the band about this issue - haven't watched it yet but... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UTSKex8YkU
Also, I'm a big fan from the old days - I'd probably choose something less melodic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUQ_R8faRjg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQZyMUMDGc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEDgnYuZkRg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6CsQL752o
Also, I'm a big fan from the old days - I'd probably choose something less melodic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUQ_R8faRjg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQZyMUMDGc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEDgnYuZkRg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6CsQL752o
Man, I listened to them live at the Flamingo in Halifax.
The music is besides the point, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Skinny Puppy (even if it isn't everyone's cup of tea), it's the constant overwhelming of the senses that creates the conditions of torture.
The music is besides the point, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Skinny Puppy (even if it isn't everyone's cup of tea), it's the constant overwhelming of the senses that creates the conditions of torture.
I could say the same re: Flamingo. Small world.
Could be worse. I was expecting some hardcore metal abomination.
If it was GWAR it would've been a request to participate in the next torturing.
They're nihilists dude, they believe in nothing.
Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism but at least its an ethos.
Nothing is pleasurable for 12 hours straight. No accounting for musical tastes , if you don't like them , that's OK.
I thought the entire point of having that secret prison in Cuba is that US laws don't apply.
Hey who cares about torture in Guantanamo, a crime has been committed : copyright infringement.
The level of cynicism of these guys is impressive.
The level of cynicism of these guys is impressive.
What on earth are you talking about? This is a statement _against_ the torture in Guantanamo. They are suing to bring publicity to the issue.
> used our music without our knowledge and used it as an actual weapon against somebody
> And Key said band members were offended to learn that their music was played in the notorious prison to inflict damagd on detainees.
> used our music without our knowledge and used it as an actual weapon against somebody
> And Key said band members were offended to learn that their music was played in the notorious prison to inflict damagd on detainees.
I guess it's a cultural thing (I'm not Anglo-Saxon) but for me, asking for money is not about being offended : it is being greedy.
If they pledged this money on a charity or something it would look entirely different.
If they pledged this money on a charity or something it would look entirely different.
They're never going to be awarded anything. The money isn't the point.
They will be doing this as a statement against the use of their work in this manner, and for the publicity that statement generates.
It's very unlikely they actually think "Hey, we have had our copyright violated and deserve compensation."
This isn't a money grab, that's not their style.
It's very unlikely they actually think "Hey, we have had our copyright violated and deserve compensation."
This isn't a money grab, that's not their style.
Further, aren't there exemptions for the federal government with respect to use of copyrighted works? Sure, you'd probably have a case against a federal agency who acquired your album only to provide copies freely to its employees, but if they stick a track in a presentation to a small group (or several small groups ... or many small groups) I'm pretty sure the courts would just throw out your case.
OK, enough armchair lawyering, is there someone with a professional opinion on this?