Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
gussy

The Trump Years- Every day something more shocking than the last!

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, shader said:

Seems pretty logical. Play hardball with Congress, then release a stimulus that benefits people through an EO.  If it’s not lawful, are the democrats going to sue or fight a stimulus package that is needed?  

I have a hard time believing the guy whose whole family is in real estate is going to extend the moratorium on evictions. He wants to do a payroll tax break, which doesn’t help the people without a job, and without forgiving those taxes simply makes them due later anyway. There are a lot of moving parts that makes a payroll tax holiday tricky, and it doesn’t help a lot of the people who need it most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shader said:

Seems pretty logical. Play hardball with Congress, then release a stimulus that benefits people through an EO.  If it’s not lawful, are the democrats going to sue or fight a stimulus package that is needed?  

What are they disagreeing on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Goes against his cruelty ethos, but low-hanging fruit to desperately appeal to people who otherwise find him unworthy of oxygen.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON — Since the first days after she was elected governor of South Dakota in 2018, Kristi Noem had been working to ensure that President Trump would come to Mount Rushmore for a fireworks-filled July 4 extravaganza.

After all, the president had told her in the Oval Office that he aspired to have his image etched on the monument. And last year, a White House aide reached out to the governor’s office with a question, according to a Republican official familiar with the conversation: What’s the process to add additional presidents to Mount Rushmore?

 

 

 

John Barron: "Asking for a friend!"

  • Laughing 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just put this here:

Neil Young’s Lawsuit Against The Trump Campaign Ventures Into Legally Uncharted Territory

...

But Young is not suing the Trump campaign based on a claim of false endorsement or right of publicity. He is suing for copyright infringement, a much stronger legal claim, alleging that the Trump campaign in fact never procured a public performance license for his music. The Trump campaign has not issued a statement on the matter, nor did it respond to requests for comment for this article. And ASCAP, the society responsible for issuing a license in this case, has also not spoken publicly on the issue.

If the Trump campaign had indeed procured a license, it would likely be easy enough for them to refute Young’s claim by simply providing it, which they have not. Perhaps, as the Trump campaign has continued to ignore Young’s objections to their use of his music, Young requested that his songs be removed from ASCAP’s blanket license to the Trump campaign.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adelson?   Should I have heard that name?  Has he caddied for me?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a LONG read - NYT magazine piece on how Trump has dismantled the US Intelligence agencies

Unwanted Truths: Inside Trump’s Battles With U.S. Intelligence Agencies

Last year, intelligence officials gathered to write a classified report on Russia’s interest in the 2020 election. An investigation from the magazine uncovered what happened next.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lutherman2112 said:

Didnt know where to put this, but found this interesting. Young is suing for copyright infringement, rather than false endorsement or right of publicity.

Neil Young’s Lawsuit Against The Trump Campaign Ventures Into Legally Uncharted Territory

 

 

13 hours ago, Lutherman2112 said:

I'll just put this here:

Neil Young’s Lawsuit Against The Trump Campaign Ventures Into Legally Uncharted Territory

...

But Young is not suing the Trump campaign based on a claim of false endorsement or right of publicity. He is suing for copyright infringement, a much stronger legal claim, alleging that the Trump campaign in fact never procured a public performance license for his music. The Trump campaign has not issued a statement on the matter, nor did it respond to requests for comment for this article. And ASCAP, the society responsible for issuing a license in this case, has also not spoken publicly on the issue.

If the Trump campaign had indeed procured a license, it would likely be easy enough for them to refute Young’s claim by simply providing it, which they have not. Perhaps, as the Trump campaign has continued to ignore Young’s objections to their use of his music, Young requested that his songs be removed from ASCAP’s blanket license to the Trump campaign.

...

 

 

Hmm....  🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Gator said:

 

 

 

Hmm....  🤔

Left draft open on my computer, posted on my phone last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lutherman2112 said:

Didnt know where to put this, but found this interesting. Young is suing for copyright infringement, rather than false endorsement or right of publicity.

Neil Young’s Lawsuit Against The Trump Campaign Ventures Into Legally Uncharted Territory

 

I'm philosophically on the side of the Trump campaign on this one.  Our IP laws need to be reformed in general, and in particular it is not healthy to establish a system in which use licenses are allocated on a partisan basis.  If Trump wants to play "Rockin' in the Free World" (dumb of course) at his rallies, he should be able to get a license to do so regardless of what Neil Young thinks about it.  If a campaign fails to get a license beforehand, they should be able to do so retroactively.  

Edit: This is the part of the story that I'm referencing:

Quote

Young requested that his songs be removed from ASCAP’s blanket license to the Trump campaign.

But it is unclear, even if this were the case, whether ASCAP would have actually been able to honor Young’s request. In the 1940s, ASCAP and BMI, which essentially hold a monopoly on rights to American songs, entered into general consent decrees with the Department of Justice holding that anybody who seeks a license and is willing to pay gets to use the songs for which they paid. Iser explained, “If in fact ASCAP says they deleted Neil Young’s songs from Trump’s license, is that a violation of the consent decree? I don’t know.”

 

Edited by IvanKaramazov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, gianmarco said:

I didn’t see it in this article, but I read that the states are being told that the USPS will be charging them full first class letter rates ($0.55) to mail each ballot, about 3 times the cost of the bulk rate that they’ve been able to mail them under previously.

If true, that seems like a pretty blatant attempt to suppress voting. His internal polling numbers must be a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm philosophically on the side of the Trump campaign on this one.  Our IP laws need to be reformed in general, and in particular it is not healthy to establish a system in which use licenses are allocated on a partisan basis.  If Trump wants to play "Rockin' in the Free World" (dumb of course) at his rallies, he should be able to get a license to do so regardless of what Neil Young thinks about it.  If a campaign fails to get a license beforehand, they should be able to do so retroactively.  

Edit: This is the part of the story that I'm referencing:

 

See I'm the opposite.  I believe you should be able to control your art and if you don't want it used for political purposes than you have that right.  It's not as cut and dry as playing it at birthday party.  Your music becomes associated with a movement and you should have a say in that.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm philosophically on the side of the Trump campaign on this one.  Our IP laws need to be reformed in general, and in particular it is not healthy to establish a system in which use licenses are allocated on a partisan basis.  If Trump wants to play "Rockin' in the Free World" (dumb of course) at his rallies, he should be able to get a license to do so regardless of what Neil Young thinks about it.  If a campaign fails to get a license beforehand, they should be able to do so retroactively.  

Edit: This is the part of the story that I'm referencing:

 

I kind of disagree here.

The person who controls the rights should be able to limit who gets a license to use the material.

In this case, there is a danger that people will associate Young with Trump via use of the song - as either a tacit endorsement or simply an association that attaches to the song.  If you are the artist, and you are fine with that association - then no harm, no foul.  But, if you think it damages your brand - then you should have some ability to protect your brand.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, The Gator said:

I kind of disagree here.

The person who controls the rights should be able to limit who gets a license to use the material.

In this case, there is a danger that people will associate Young with Trump via use of the song - as either a tacit endorsement or simply an association that attaches to the song.  If you are the artist, and you are fine with that association - then no harm, no foul.  But, if you think it damages your brand - then you should have some ability to protect your brand.

Guys like trump love Keep on Rocking in Free World and Born in the USA even though both songs are brutal criticisms of everything guys like Trump believe in...

I love the irony that they can't even be bothered to listen to the lyrics

Edited by killface
  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, killface said:
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm philosophically on the side of the Trump campaign on this one.  Our IP laws need to be reformed in general, and in particular it is not healthy to establish a system in which use licenses are allocated on a partisan basis.  If Trump wants to play "Rockin' in the Free World" (dumb of course) at his rallies, he should be able to get a license to do so regardless of what Neil Young thinks about it.  If a campaign fails to get a license beforehand, they should be able to do so retroactively.  

Edit: This is the part of the story that I'm referencing:

See I'm the opposite.  I believe you should be able to control your art and if you don't want it used for political purposes than you have that right.  It's not as cut and dry as playing it at birthday party.  Your music becomes associated with a movement and you should have a say in that.  

I agree, and for the most part the music industry also agrees. If you want to use copyrighted music for a commercial endeavor (in a movie, a TV show, an advertisement jingle, etc.), you must get permission from the copyright holder for each individual use.

But if you want to license music for passive use (on the radio, a jukebox, in an elevator), then you don't need permission from the copyright holder. You just pay for the licensing fee, and the copyright holder cannot prevent you from playing their songs.

A political rally is a gray area, IMO. On the one hand, it's relatively small event and (theoretically) non-commercial. On the other hand, it's still promoting a "product" -- except that in this case, the "product" is a candidate and their views. In that case, an artist should have a certain amount of leeway in controlling how their art is used.

Also, in the internet age, I think you could argue that a political rally is basically a TV show. Trump couldn't use Neil Young's music on "The Apprentice" without permission.....but slap a "political rally" label on the show, stick it on YouTube, and suddenly it's fair game? That just doesn't seem right.

I think the crux of the issue is that copyright law and licensing have not kept up with the times. Some of the regulations are fairly archaic and were clearly not designed to deal with the information superhighway.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, killface said:

Guys like trump love Keep on Rocking in Free World and Born in the USA even though both songs are brutal criticisms of everything guys like Trump believe in...

I love the irony that they can't even be bothered to listen to the lyrics

Trump listens but does not hear. 

Edited by Green Balloons
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm philosophically on the side of the Trump campaign on this one.  Our IP laws need to be reformed in general, and in particular it is not healthy to establish a system in which use licenses are allocated on a partisan basis.  If Trump wants to play "Rockin' in the Free World" (dumb of course) at his rallies, he should be able to get a license to do so regardless of what Neil Young thinks about it.  If a campaign fails to get a license beforehand, they should be able to do so retroactively.  

Edit: This is the part of the story that I'm referencing:

 

If anyone can get a license, even retroactively and the artist has no say, what's the point of a license in the first place?

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, moleculo said:

If anyone can get a license, even retroactively and the artist has no say, what's the point of a license in the first place?

To compensate the artist for having produced something that another person wants to consume.  That's the main reason why IP rules exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

To compensate the artist for having produced something that another person wants to consume.  That's the main reason why IP rules exist.

In a free market, should a merchant be allowed to refuse service for political reasons?

Eta: obviously not on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.  Political affiliation is not a protected class.

Edited by moleculo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:
22 minutes ago, moleculo said:

If anyone can get a license, even retroactively and the artist has no say, what's the point of a license in the first place?

To compensate the artist for having produced something that another person wants to consume.  That's the main reason why IP rules exist.

IP rules already give an artist control over their art in certain circumstances (being broadcast on a TV show, for example). Why should "being streamed on an internet show" be any different?

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great line today from a Trump supporter I golf with: “he’s just a little goofy”.  I’m stealing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, joffer said:

great line today from a Trump supporter I golf with: “he’s just a little goofy”.  I’m stealing that.

Mickey Mouse's friend Goofy is just a little goofy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, moleculo said:

In a free market, should a merchant be allowed to refuse service for political reasons?

Eta: obviously not on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.  Political affiliation is not a protected class.

Sure.  I think Neil Young should be free to refuse to perform a private concert for Trump.  Once a song is in the public sphere, so that Young doesn't have to personally do anything when somebody buys his music, I think that materially changes things.  

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Sure.  I think Neil Young should be free to refuse to perform a private concert for Trump.  Once a song is in the public sphere, so that Young doesn't have to personally do anything when somebody buys his music, I think that materially changes things.  

I would like to make you CEO of my new streaming service, Barely Legal Disney. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Sure.  I think Neil Young should be free to refuse to perform a private concert for Trump.  Once a song is in the public sphere, so that Young doesn't have to personally do anything when somebody buys his music, I think that materially changes things.  

 

That's interesting. When I buy a "song" on Itunes, what am I actually buying? I have to admit I've never thought about that before. I'm going to go look.

Edited by whoknew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Sure.  I think Neil Young should be free to refuse to perform a private concert for Trump.  Once a song is in the public sphere, so that Young doesn't have to personally do anything when somebody buys his music, I think that materially changes things.  

So it looks like when I buy a song from ITunes, I agree to only use it for my personal use. Can't Neil Young require the same of the Trump administration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Sure.  I think Neil Young should be free to refuse to perform a private concert for Trump.  Once a song is in the public sphere, so that Young doesn't have to personally do anything when somebody buys his music, I think that materially changes things.  

Using an artist's work to promote a product at least implies the artist's endorsement. They should be able to control this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, whoknew said:
3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Sure.  I think Neil Young should be free to refuse to perform a private concert for Trump.  Once a song is in the public sphere, so that Young doesn't have to personally do anything when somebody buys his music, I think that materially changes things.  

So it looks like when I buy a song from ITunes, I agree to only use it for my personal use. Can't Neil Young require the same of the Trump administration?

It's a different type of licensing. Political rallies fall under the same umbrella as radio stations; once an artist agrees to "release" his music to radio, then they must agree to allow ALL radio stations to have equal access to the music. As long as the radio station (or the political campaign) pays the standard licensing fee, then they're allowed to play any song that they want.

The rules are all based on 20th-century concepts, such as the belief that radio stations can only be heard locally, or that political rallies can only be accessed by a few thousand people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

Using an artist's work to promote a product at least implies the artist's endorsement. They should be able to control this.

This is probably where some of our disagreement stems from.  I don't think any reasonable person should infer endorsement from playing somebody's music passively in the background.  I can imagine situations in which a campaign goes overboard with this sort of thing, but that isn't the claim that Young is making anyway.  

Edited by IvanKaramazov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This is probably where some of our disagreement stems from.  I don't think any reasonable person should infer endorsement from playing somebody's music passively in the background.  I can imagine situations in which a campaign goes overboard with this sort of thing, but that isn't the claim that Young is making anyway.  

Playing music passively in the background is one thing. Using a song as part of a rally to introduce a speaker or similar is where I think it is a problem. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2020 at 10:54 AM, killface said:

Guys like trump love Keep on Rocking in Free World and Born in the USA even though both songs are brutal criticisms of everything guys like Trump believe in...

I love the irony that they can't even be bothered to listen to the lyrics

Seriously? The guy who played "You Can't Always Get What You Want" to start his campaign rallies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, apalmer said:

Seriously? The guy who played "You Can't Always Get What You Want" to start his campaign rallies?

Better than "Live and Let Die" in the middle of a pandemic.   That's happened at least twice now, during his visit to the mask factory in AZ in May and last week during his visit to the Whirlpool factory in Ohio.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Green Balloons said:

Something crazy going on, Trump was just escorted from the press briefing room mid-sentence by SS.

:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Green Balloons said:

Something crazy going on, Trump was just escorted from the press briefing room mid-sentence by SS.

There was a shooting. Someone jumped the fence. 

All back to normal now. Trump came back up is taking questions and lying like nothing happened now - Biden will triple your taxes and 180 million people will lose health care (actual quote)

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The General said:

Biden will triple your taxes and 180 million people will lose health care (actual quote)

 

Just now, The General said:

“Spanish flu ended WW II” -DJT

*sigh* for the millionth time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OAN “question” for Trump during his presser was that Biden is picking Susan Rice as VP so she can cover up ObamaGate!!

That was brilliant :lol:

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The General said:

“Spanish flu ended WW II” -DJT

Wait. What? He said this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, The General said:

“Spanish flu ended WW II” -DJT

First the Kaiser and then all of WWII. Impressive little bug. 

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

Wait. What? He said this?

In his defense he did say “probably”

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

Wait. What? He said this?

It's amazing that this man, of all people, can claim that someone else is mentally incompetent.

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, killface said:

It's amazing that this man, of all people, can claim that someone else is mentally incompetent.

Beat me to it. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

Wait. What? He said this?

Yup. :lol: He also started this history lesson off with saying it was in 1917, the great pandemic. :lol:

Not The Onion.

Edited by The General
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member