It's been a pretty common practice for years that musicians will refuse their music being used to promote things they disagree with. E.g., some politician will use a track by a band, the band doesn't like the politician, so they'll tell the politician to stop using the track.

And, I don't think that the agreement here is meant to equate eating meat with being right wing. Moby is famously against animal products, so he's decided he doesn't want the music used to support those products.

> Apart of a society is doing business with people who don't 100% agree with you.

There's a vast chasm between "not 100%" agreeing with someone (Moby in this case), and being a Nazi. Bob's Burritos is a TV show so I don't think they'd be considered promoting meat, though the legalese is probably too questionable, as is restricting use for "right wing politics".

Moby is however of the opinion that animal abuse is unacceptable, regardless of whether people think it tastes good. I'm generally of the opinion that people should be free to establish hard boundaries for the use of their content.

You're thinking of Bob's Burgers, but even then it's a cartoon where the characters eat meat.

If you take this to its logical conclusion it can't be used with any media that displays the consumption of food that's not 100% vegan.

Right wing cause is also a bucket of worms. Someone like Joe Rogan is now considered Right Wing though he supported Bernie Sanders in the past.

If a liberal podcast host uses this as their theme music, then has a right wing guest on violate this?

If I mention I start my day with some yogurt, did I violate it ?

Feels like a "I'll sue you if I want" clause.

My bad, I was just listening to a podcast with someone talking about being on Bob's Burgers.

But no, I don't think it makes it unusable for media which shows people eating meat. If I make my music available for anyone to use in projects which aren't promoting homophobia, I'm not going to have a problem with someone using it in a TV show where a character is homophobic. The salient thing is whether the show itself is promoting homophobia (and if I wanted to sue someone for such a use, I'd need a pretty strong case that the TV show was actually promoting homophobia)

> Right wing cause is also a bucket of worms. Someone like Joe Rogan is now considered Right Wing though he supported Bernie Sanders in the past.

Yes, I agree with this 100%, it's pretty much meaningless. I'm not sure if this makes it unusable or usable for anything. My suspicion is that the wording of the license would make it very difficult for Moby to sue you for use for anything but a clear violation, but he can revoke your license (which he would gain nothing from, and would erode faith in his mobygratis project). So I think it would be best avoided by people who aren't reasonably using his music for projects that he wouldn't approve of. Obviously "right-wing" is subjective, but if you're using it to promote Trump's campaign, trans-denialism, or the new Arby's chicken burger, obviously you can expect the license to be revoked.

If you're a "liberal" talk show host I think the license would be best avoided; liberal in the U.S. is considered right-of-center by many

If you're a socialist (or even social democratic) talk show host who occasionally brings on centrist or right-wing personalities, I think you'd be fine.

Right wing is whatever Moby decides it is.

Again, I’m liberal, I check the box for the Dems in every election. Just straight blue.

But if Moby wakes up tomorrow and says the Dems are right wing and I say most people should just vote for Dems he can sue me.

Personally I don’t like the idea of releasing content with a “use it if I like you “ clause. He’s free to keep it for his own personal use.

I know I release my code MIT. I don’t release it along with a list of my personal beliefs.

> Personally I don’t like the idea of releasing content with a “use it if I like you “ clause. He’s free to keep it for his own personal use.

And he's free to release it under whatever license he wants also. I don't like it as much as a free license either, but it's not my music, and IMO it's better than not granting use; there are of course many cases where people will feel comfortable using it (and in fact it has been used by many people already who have applied common sense to their usage of his work, and I don't believe he has sued anyone or revoked the license in the 18 years he's made it available under similar terms).

I also release my code MIT or GPL even though I find it tempting to use less permissive licenses like the "Don't be evil" license of JSON[1] or JSLint[2]

I would feel comfortable using Moby's music for lots of purposes personally.

I feel like you are overthinking this, I don't think it's about what you believe in, it's about what you think Moby would approve of. If you wanted to release a video promoting veganism, you could obviously use his music (even if you're a democrat). If you wanted to release a video promoting the Democratic party, there's some chance he'd revoke the license (but almost no chance he could successfully sue you). Even if you were a far-right activist using his music for a video supporting an abortion ban, he wouldn't be able to sue you (because banning abortion isn't exclusively a right-wing position), but I expect he would revoke your license if he became aware of the use and didn't believe in banning abortion.

I say that using it for Democratic party propaganda would be unwise because Moby himself is a socialist, or something in that direction. If you were AOC or Bernie and wanted to use his music for your own platform, you could probably get away with it; Whatever Moby's views on social democrats (or democratic socialists depending on who you ask), I think it's incredibly unlikely he'd revoke the license.

So you don't need to worry about "getting sued" unless you're using his music for clear violations of the license (e.g. "significant" commercial usage , or literal republican party promotional materials). If you're not clearly, unambiguously violating the license which itself contains much ambiguity, you don't need to worry about anything other than the license being revoked. And for determining if it might be revoked, consider why Moby made his music available for causes he cares about in the first place.

For many uses of the music, it can be replaced with something else fairly easily anyway

[1]: https://www.json.org/license.html

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs&t=2480s "I give permission to IBM, it's customers, partners, and minions to use JSLint for evil"

I think I’ll just avoid it.

Here’s a controversial view point I hold. It’s not a good idea to have loser friends ( unemployed, unable to support themselves), even if it’s not strictly their fault.

These people have a tendency to pull you down and will laugh about it .

Is that a right wing viewpoint? Left wing ?

No body knows.

The fact that you call these people who are unemployed losers is pretty wild to me. And what if your "non-loser" friends become unemployed? Do you put your friendship on hold?

It's just easier to filter people out this way. The last time I put trust in someone without a stable income he ended up robbing me.

Even if you bag groceries at Vons you have my respect and we can be friends.

If you don't work and expect others to provide for you, I don't want to be around you.

Going from a discussion about an artist opening up his work to this is extremely bizarre.

I do love when people show their true colors like the person you're replying to. I feel pretty safe saying they would in fact find themselves on moby's bad side.

If I have a modicum of integrity, why would I do business with someone who wants to destroy the parts of society I love and cherish?

You and the Republicans are both free to the use the music for whatever other purposes you want

The only thing that bothers me about these terms is the blatant misuse of the semicolon. Too much work to hire a copyeditor?