Musicians Fight Back

[me]

I'm not taking issue with the nuances of this specific case, I'm talking about this statement you made right here:

Once something is put out in the public, it's up for grabs?  Is that what you're saying?

Basically.  It doesn't appear that any copyright laws were violated and Fox has stated they went through the proper channels to use it so the political reason seems to be the only one which is not a valid one as far as I'm concerned.  They may not like it but too bad.

[Exterminator]

The only requirement for using any of these songs for either of the parties or anyone else is to purchase a blanket license from ASCAP.  Once they've acquired the rights, they can legally use virtually any song licensed through that organization, which means virtually any song from any record label of any consequence.

Having said that, the artists can request that specific interests do not use their music and can create a lot of controversy if they continue to do so but there is no real legal avenue for forcing them to stop if they simply don't want to. 

[The Troll]

The only requirement for using any of these songs for either of the parties or anyone else is to purchase a blanket license from ASCAP.  Once they've acquired the rights, they can legally use virtually any song licensed through that organization, which means virtually any song from any record label of any consequence.

Having said that, the artists can request that specific interests do not use their music and can create a lot of controversy if they continue to do so but there is no real legal avenue for forcing them to stop if they simply don't want to.

  Don't worry about it, "ME" is just talking out of her ass as usual. 

[Exterminator]

Actually, she had it right even if she doesn't know why beyond Fox said so; there are no laws being broken or copyrights being infringed.

[Locutus]

Actually, she had it right even if she doesn't know why beyond Fox said so; there are no laws being broken or copyrights being infringed.

Exactly.  But I'm more interested in that blanket statement that she made inferring that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs.  That part is certainly not true. 

[Exterminator]

Exactly.  But I'm more interested in that blanket statement that she made inferring that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs.  That part is certainly not true.

Of course not but that is the conservative mentality...what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine.

[The Troll]

Actually, she had it right even if she doesn't know why beyond Fox said so; there are no laws being broken or copyrights being infringed.

  What I don't understand is, if Fox News and the Republican Party like free trade and outsourcing and importing so much why didn't they import some Chinese music in to the convention.     Just saying.   

[me]

Actually, she had it right even if she doesn't know why beyond Fox said so; there are no laws being broken or copyrights being infringed.

This was the first I had heard about it so Fox had no bearing on what I posted. 

[me]

Exactly.  But I'm more interested in that blanket statement that she made inferring that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs.  That part is certainly not true.

So you're saying that someone can put out a song for public distribution and can dictate who can play it and for what even though the person has done it legally.  Is that correct? 

I'm sorry, but aren't those songs the property of the artists? Did they get permission to use them?

As for scorn for the politicians using their music/name to bolster their reputation, probably with the intent of appealing to another demographic, without really understanding the music to begin with...I agree with them. They're posers and disgusting.

Guess the dems had better not use any songs done by artists who don't agree with their politics then either. 


Do you realize how petty and insignificant that whole thing is in the scheme of things?  It meant NOTHING.

[Bo D]

So you're saying that someone can put out a song for public distribution and can dictate who can play it and for what even though the person has done it legally.  Is that correct?

Bill Cosby had the perfect description for your inability to reason .... "BRAIN DAMAGE!"

[Locutus]

Bill Cosby had the perfect description for your inability to reason .... "BRAIN DAMAGE!"

Holy cow!  That's the truth.  I never said anything remotely along those lines and yet that leap of illogic comes out of her mouth. 

[Locutus]

So you're saying that someone can put out a song for public distribution and can dictate who can play it and for what even though the person has done it legally.  Is that correct?

You are clueless beyond help. How you could possibly infer that from my postings in this thread is beyond me. 

[The Troll]

You are clueless beyond help. How you could possibly infer that from my postings in this thread is beyond me.

  Do you think that if a prince kiss "ME" on the lips, she would turn into a frog.    Twank your magic twanger Froggy, I'm Buster Brown and I live in a shoe.

[me]

You are clueless beyond help. How you could possibly infer that from my postings in this thread is beyond me. 

Exactly.  But I'm more interested in that blanket statement that she made inferring that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs.  That part is certainly not true.

[Locutus]

^^ My question stands.   There is no way to infer from that statement that the following is my belief.  Hence Olias' comment about your inability to reason. 

So you're saying that someone can put out a song for public distribution and can dictate who can play it and for what even though the person has done it legally.  Is that correct?

I'm starting to think you really are as dense as some on here have claimed you to be. 

You made a statement that once something is out in public, it's up for grabs.  That is absolutely not true at all.