(08-26-2024 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I would go with the Trump campaign rep being smart enough to go to the legal holder of the license.

I wouldn't.

See Rudy G., Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, et. al.

Well, that's a shocker.

Let's see what happens. I bet it's much ado about nada.

Perhaps...just saying I would not trust anything trump.

And as Tanq said, there are a lot of caveats in these things. I've sang in choirs and have seen all sorts of interpretations, many of them wrong, as to how one can use and copy music.

Didn’t know the Church of Satan had a choir.


OK, maybe that was a low ball. But I don’t really care.

(08-26-2024 11:48 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Bwahahahah!

THIS is the NPC unified Monday morning weekly screed? That is great news for Trump.

You’re right. A complete waste of time. See yall.

can't believe none of ya ol' coots plowed this biatch over ... yeah, I still remember ... while they're different, the premise is the same ... it's like waves and particles can coexist in the quantum ...

(08-26-2024 12:50 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems some artists want the best of best worlds. They want the lucrative payday that comes will selling off the rights to their music and then they still want say over what happens with that music. Unless there is something spelled out in the sales contract that dictates otherwise, I think the artist ceases to have sway in what happens with their music afterwards.

The rights owner still has the say. And in terms of the clearance houses, ASCAP and BMI may have the ability to license their licensees works to a base large amount of other third parties, and uses. Yet their agreement with the rights holder still allows the rights holder to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down in many circumstances. Like campaign licenses.

(08-26-2024 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 12:50 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems some artists want the best of best worlds. They want the lucrative payday that comes will selling off the rights to their music and then they still want say over what happens with that music. Unless there is something spelled out in the sales contract that dictates otherwise, I think the artist ceases to have sway in what happens with their music afterwards.

The rights owner still has the say. And in terms of the clearance houses, ASCAP and BMI may have the ability to license their licensees works to a base large amount of other third parties, and uses. Yet their agreement with the rights holder still allows the rights holder to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down in many circumstances. Like campaign licenses.

is that fed law or state by state?

(08-26-2024 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:52 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They are getting roasted on that tweet. Doing something stupid like this on twitter will cause things they have said but forgotten about and thought were long buried gets resurrected. Like this, when Grohl publicly bitcched about Lars Urlich from Mettallica getting bent out of shape on napster years ago.

I cant disagree with the comment "Music should be available for those who wish to hear it."

This isnt the case -- this is using music to sell an item. I dont think any rights holder would agree that their music should be used freely for commercial purposes. And yes, a political campaign *is* a commercial use -- they are using every component of a rally, produced ad, etc to sell the candidate.

How would you react to the local Kamala campaign using your photo as a push to vote for their cause?

I believe at one time and still might be the case today, Google, Facebook, or Yahoo, one of those can use your picture any way they want in any ad they want, without your permission. You agreed to that when you decided to upload it to one of the sites they own....

so technically that could happen if she paid the company for the use.


Same thing in this case

Foo: "OH MUH GERD! THEY USED OUR SONG FOR RFK JR AT A TRUMP RALLY WHERE THEY DIDNT REQUIRE COVID VAX FOR ENTRY LIKE WE DO AT OUR CONCERTS!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

RAGE AGAINST THE PEOPLE AND OUR SUPPORTERS! WE'RE RICH NOW, WE DONT CARE!"

(08-26-2024 01:03 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:52 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They are getting roasted on that tweet. Doing something stupid like this on twitter will cause things they have said but forgotten about and thought were long buried gets resurrected. Like this, when Grohl publicly bitcched about Lars Urlich from Mettallica getting bent out of shape on napster years ago.

I cant disagree with the comment "Music should be available for those who wish to hear it."

This isnt the case -- this is using music to sell an item. I dont think any rights holder would agree that their music should be used freely for commercial purposes. And yes, a political campaign *is* a commercial use -- they are using every component of a rally, produced ad, etc to sell the candidate.

How would you react to the local Kamala campaign using your photo as a push to vote for their cause?

I believe at one time and still might be the case today, Google, Facebook, or Yahoo, one of those can use your picture any way they want in any ad they want, without your permission. You agreed to that when you decided to upload it to one of the sites they own....

so technically that could happen if she paid the company for the use.


Same thing in this case

Yes, you are absolutely correct that Facebook has that right -- but solely under your contract with them.

That doesnt necessarily transfer to a third party simply taking it down of their site and using it for whatever purpose.

In the section that the poster highlighted as something critical of Grohls current comments -- but that previous comment, the context of the Grohl statement is to the effect that he doesnt agree with rights holders pursuing *listeners* of music.

Gohl doesnt mention people taking rights in music for commercial purposes. And I doubt that anyone who is in the arts creation business would support free use of anyone's creation for an unmonitored commercial use.

Lets remove the intermediate party in your example. Lets say you have your own personal website -- you call it WKUYG.com. You have in it personal comments, and photos of your house and family (not saying that is smart, mind you).

If some dude from the American Nazi Party decided to use your photo of yourself in their commercial campaign -- I dont think you would be pleased.

One has an absolute right not to be associated with things they dont want to. One has a very strong right to not have to be used as supposedly endorsing a cause. Any cause. I would be mortified and pissed as **** if my likeness was part and parcel of a Greenpeace ad campaign -- and as part of that I would pissed that it caused a notion that I endorsed their cause (not that *my* endorsement would sway any needle).

Relatedly, you would be surprised at the DD places go to when using stock photos of randos in any commercial sense. For exactly that reason above. The clearance efforts in that regard are extraordinarily high when a legitimate body is wanting to make use of stills of people for any commercial or political cause.

(08-26-2024 01:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Foo: "OH MUH GERD! THEY USED OUR SONG FOR RFK JR AT A TRUMP RALLY WHERE THEY DIDNT REQUIRE COVID VAX FOR ENTRY LIKE WE DO AT OUR CONCERTS!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

RAGE AGAINST THE PEOPLE AND OUR SUPPORTERS! WE'RE RICH NOW, WE DONT CARE!"

Spoken like a true generalizing obtuse pinhead. Yay.

(08-26-2024 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 12:50 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems some artists want the best of best worlds. They want the lucrative payday that comes will selling off the rights to their music and then they still want say over what happens with that music. Unless there is something spelled out in the sales contract that dictates otherwise, I think the artist ceases to have sway in what happens with their music afterwards.

The rights owner still has the say. And in terms of the clearance houses, ASCAP and BMI may have the ability to license their licensees works to a base large amount of other third parties, and uses. Yet their agreement with the rights holder still allows the rights holder to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down in many circumstances. Like campaign licenses.

Isn't the right's owner whomever purchased the music catalogue from the artist? I thought the whole point was that the purchaser was buying the rights to the music, making the purchaser the new rights owner. Seems odd, imo, for a company to pay $500 million for an artist's music catalogue (Springsteen) and then still let the artist dictate things concerning the music.

(08-26-2024 12:57 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  can't believe none of ya ol' coots plowed this biatch over ... yeah, I still remember ... while they're different, the premise is the same ... it's like waves and particles can coexist in the quantum ...

Yeah, I remember that, it was before Layne got with AIC....

90s had some great rock/metal voices and Layne Staley would be in top 3 easily (my top 2 behind Chris Cornell)


Had this one on as I drove my grandson to school this morning and them Bones on the way home

(08-26-2024 01:29 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 12:57 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  can't believe none of ya ol' coots plowed this biatch over ... yeah, I still remember ... while they're different, the premise is the same ... it's like waves and particles can coexist in the quantum ...

Yeah, I remember that, it was before Layne got with AIC....

90s had some great rock/metal voices and Layne Staley would be in top 3 easily (my top 2 behind Chris Cornell)


Had this one on as I drove my grandson to school this morning and them Bones on the way home

seen 'em three times ... once post staley (opened for VH right before Eddie passed ... they smoked VH ... EVH was so fk'd up we left after only a few tunes ... learned Nutshell about 6 mos. ago ... can't remember the last time I picked up me Tele ... it's been awhile...

back in the day, I would listhen to Dirt while sleeping to activate the dreamstate ... you'd be surprised ... that was some dark shite!

#remNotREM ...

this is my go-to when practicing ... when they get it right live, it's special ... plus, I love the 'errors' ... it's when ya know, Ja!?

(08-26-2024 01:24 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 12:50 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems some artists want the best of best worlds. They want the lucrative payday that comes will selling off the rights to their music and then they still want say over what happens with that music. Unless there is something spelled out in the sales contract that dictates otherwise, I think the artist ceases to have sway in what happens with their music afterwards.

The rights owner still has the say. And in terms of the clearance houses, ASCAP and BMI may have the ability to license their licensees works to a base large amount of other third parties, and uses. Yet their agreement with the rights holder still allows the rights holder to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down in many circumstances. Like campaign licenses.

Isn't the right's owner whomever purchased the music catalogue from the artist? I thought the whole point was that the purchaser was buying the rights to the music, making the purchaser the new rights owner. Seems odd, imo, for a company to pay $500 million for an artist's music catalogue (Springsteen) and then still let the artist dictate things concerning the music.

Can you link me to where he sold his catalog?

I'm fairly sure that Dave Grohl still own his music catalog unless the last year or so. Having another company do the licensing doesn't mean he does own it.

Stay in your Lane - "Make me a balloon animal clown". That was one of my favorite lines in Wedding Crashers.

(08-26-2024 01:38 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 01:24 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 12:50 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems some artists want the best of best worlds. They want the lucrative payday that comes will selling off the rights to their music and then they still want say over what happens with that music. Unless there is something spelled out in the sales contract that dictates otherwise, I think the artist ceases to have sway in what happens with their music afterwards.

The rights owner still has the say. And in terms of the clearance houses, ASCAP and BMI may have the ability to license their licensees works to a base large amount of other third parties, and uses. Yet their agreement with the rights holder still allows the rights holder to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down in many circumstances. Like campaign licenses.

Isn't the right's owner whomever purchased the music catalogue from the artist? I thought the whole point was that the purchaser was buying the rights to the music, making the purchaser the new rights owner. Seems odd, imo, for a company to pay $500 million for an artist's music catalogue (Springsteen) and then still let the artist dictate things concerning the music.

Can you link me to where he sold his catalog?

I'm fairly sure that Dave Grohl still own his music catalog unless the last year or so. Having another company do the licensing doesn't mean he does own it.

Ok, gotcha. I think I was confusing licensing and actually owning a music catalog. If that's the case, my apologies.

I would think artists know when they join ASCAP or BMI those organizations protect copyrights but also sell licensing rights to organizations that want to use music controlled by them. Recently here in NC a local bar caught grief for allowing cover bands to play in their establishment but had not paid their "dues" to those organizations.

(08-26-2024 03:02 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I would think artists know when they join ASCAP or BMI those organizations protect copyrights but also sell licensing rights to organizations that want to use music controlled by them. Recently here in NC a local bar caught grief for allowing cover bands to play in their establishment but had not paid their "dues" to those organizations.

Both ASCAP and BMI give the rights owner the ability to 'opt out' of blanket campaign licensing for live events.

Each of the organizations has about 40 or so specific 'venue' or 'live usage' types of licenses, and they are by far the primary outlets for radio and streaming licenses.

(08-26-2024 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 12:50 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems some artists want the best of best worlds. They want the lucrative payday that comes will selling off the rights to their music and then they still want say over what happens with that music. Unless there is something spelled out in the sales contract that dictates otherwise, I think the artist ceases to have sway in what happens with their music afterwards.

The rights owner still has the say. And in terms of the clearance houses, ASCAP and BMI may have the ability to license their licensees works to a base large amount of other third parties, and uses. Yet their agreement with the rights holder still allows the rights holder to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down in many circumstances. Like campaign licenses.

It may be that an artist has that power in a certain instance (or it may not as neither of us knows the details of any individual artist's bands contract). What is clear is all the artist can do is revoke the rights for that purpose---but they would have zero grounds for obtaining millions for past usage by the campaign.

(08-26-2024 05:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 12:50 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems some artists want the best of best worlds. They want the lucrative payday that comes will selling off the rights to their music and then they still want say over what happens with that music. Unless there is something spelled out in the sales contract that dictates otherwise, I think the artist ceases to have sway in what happens with their music afterwards.

The rights owner still has the say. And in terms of the clearance houses, ASCAP and BMI may have the ability to license their licensees works to a base large amount of other third parties, and uses. Yet their agreement with the rights holder still allows the rights holder to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down in many circumstances. Like campaign licenses.

It may be that an artist has that power in a certain instance (or it may not as neither of us knows the details of any individual artist's bands contract). What is clear is all the artist can do is revoke the rights for that purpose---but they would have zero grounds for obtaining millions for past usage by the campaign.

If the piece were on the exceptions list, they could absolutely go for statutory damages for past use without a lot of trouble. Maybe even get an injunction -- which wouldnt look good for the Trump campaign.

I agree that they couldnt go 'for obtaining millions', but disagree with the 'zero grounds' overall.

But I do not know if the piece is on the exceptions for the Trump Blanket Campaign License.

(08-26-2024 08:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 08:13 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 08:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Foo's next song can be about how they were wrong on their own song rights and got community noted.

They don't care. They're gonna try anyway.

List of songs on their upcoming release:

1. I got Community Noted
2. Trump was right........again
3. I need a shot in the ass for my T.D.S.
4. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
5. I dont even control my own sh*t
6. Why do they call me Tom now?
7. The public knows more about my business than me
8. Orange Man Bad is Kicking My Ass


There's only 8 songs on that list because "Reeeeeeeeeeeeee" is 27 minutes long.