David Andrews Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Pat Speer said: The Dylan catalogue is a gold mine, and his songs will be everywhere for a long long time. "And that's the glory of the arts." 1n the 1960s and 1970s, it used to be popular among novelists to quote pop song lyrics in their books, three or four lines here and there just to lend atmosphere. (Stephen King, e. g.) I found out that this went out of style once conglomerates that own record companies and publishers started insisting that song lyrics be copyright-credited in the books' front matter, permissions applied for and use fees paid, similar to sound sampling in rap records. The payments cut into a book's publishing overhead. Edited December 11, 2020 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 Donald Trump can rest easy. If he goes to jail, he'll finally get his wall. Four of them. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 (edited) P. S. - Dylan's songs were previously owned by Sony Music. Apparently he had a renewal deal expiring this year, and Sony wouldn't meet the price Dylan got from Universal. It's possible part of that $300 mil goes to a buyout from Sony. And - germane to this thread - there's a political motive for his acting now: "An extra impetus to get deals done quickly is the election of a new US president, with Joe Biden aiming to significantly raise capital gains tax for composers whose songs sell for more than $1m." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/11/going-for-a-song-why-music-legends-are-lining-up-to-sell-their-rights Stevie Nicks cashed in ahead for $150 mil, and the article says Dolly Parton and David Crosby are scrambling. Edited December 11, 2020 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 Texas AG hit by FBI subpoena as he tries to overturn the 2020 presidential election: report https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/texas-ag-hit-by-fbi-subpoena-as-he-tries-to-overturn-the-2020-presidential-election-report/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 Manhattan D.A. intensifies investigation of Trump https://dnyuz.com/2020/12/11/manhattan-d-a-intensifies-investigation-of-trump/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said: Unless they also use Comcast, I would say yes. Yes. This IS funny!! I'm adding Clink though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said: Donald Trump can rest easy. If he goes to jail, he'll finally get his wall. Four of them. Steve Thomas This is ALSO funny hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said: I can see why you guys would "slide" my partisan posts, or when I make fun of some of you. It's part of the antagonistic nature of many message boards. If I just post a politically neutral news item, and you still try to slide the comment without actually attempting to engage or address the news item, it comes across as censorship. It says to the thread participants and guest observers, "I don't want others to see news that does not conform to the narrative I'm trying to spin." As most of you should know, the State of Texas filed suit against WI, NI, PA and GA. The map below shows where each state stands. From a friend. This sums it up pretty well: “Hey, everyone. Former attorney & Constitutional Law professor here. I see a lot of people starting to panic/get worried about the Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court because 106 House Republicans & 17 states have "joined" the suit. First of all, they have not actually joined the suit in the legal sense - that means becoming a party to the lawsuit. They have not done that. They have merely filed or added their names to an amicus brief (which is basically an affidavit of support for a lawsuit which may or may not provide some additional argument for a court to consider in a suit). 1) Courts are free to ignore amicus briefs (and frequently do) AND such an amicus brief does NOT lend additional credence to an argument. I want you to remember this simple equation when looking at these headlines: 17 x 0 = 0. Likewise, 106 x 0 = 0. 2) Ken Paxton, who filed this action, is Texas's Attorney General. What he is not is Texas's Solicitor General. That's Kyle Hawkins. It is the actual job of the Solicitor General of a state to represent that state in appellate cases - including at the Supreme Court. So, filing suits of this nature is Kyle Hawkins's ENTIRE JOB. Yet, Kyle Hawkins (who is, not incidentally, a Republican) not only did not file this lawsuit, he has kept his deputy solicitor generals from participating. You have to ask yourself why the man whose entire job it is to represent Texas before SCOTUS isn't the one doing this (spoiler alert: it's because the lawsuit is frivolous). 3) In order to sue someone like this, you need to have what's called "standing" to do so. Which means that you have to show you have a dog in this fight - an actual, direct injury you suffered because the other party did the thing of which you're complaining (that you would not have suffered had they not taken that action). Texas suffered NOTHING from PA, MI, WI, and GA made (perfectly legal and constitutional) changes to their election laws. It does not count as an injury to Texas that Trump wasn't elected. It does not count as an injury to Trump that he wasn't elected, either - he would have to have proof that there was widespread voter fraud, which he has been unable to do in 51 prior lawsuts. Texas does not have standing to bring this suit. I fully expect it to be dismissed as a result. 4) SCOTUS hates original jurisdiction cases. Most of their cases are appellate, which means they've been through, at minimum, a hearing at the district court level and the outcome of that is being disputed due to some sort of procedural/legal error made by the lower court ("I don't like that they ruled against me" is not grounds for appeal - "they made a mistake in interpreting the law or applying procedural rules that was big enough to potentially change the outcome of the whole case" is grounds for appeal). Original jurisdiction means it is filed directly with SCOTUS. And, in order to show you have a right to original jurisdiction, you have to show that the suit could NOT have been brought at a lower court level (a bar I'm not sure they can jump over). Also, Texas has to get 5 of the 9 Justices to agree that they will take up the case (in appellate jurisdiction, you only need 4 justices). Further, SCOTUS really hates stepping into the political arena and deciding issues that are better handled by the legislature or the voters. I do not see SCOTUS even taking up this case. Full stop. 5) The GOP knows they will not get a win here. They know that Biden will be the next president. So, why are they doing this? Politics. Ken Paxton may or may not be angling to get a pardon from Trump for alleged SEC violations. But, he and the rest of the politicians who are supporting this suit are angling to keep the support of Trump's voters for elections in coming years. You see, Trump voters are loyal to Trump, not the GOP. They will turn on GOP candidates as fast as Trump does. The GOP doesn't care whether Trump is in office at this point - because they know it's not going to happen (and any method for it to happen would damage our democracy beyond repair, which they don't really want, either). What they care about is getting and keeping power in the future. The only way they see victory for themselves in the upcoming GA runoffs, the 2022 midterm elections, and the 2024 Presidential election is if they can keep the Trump voters happy. And if they can keep the Trump voters without having to keep Trump himself? So much the better. This is a Machiavellian trend I do not like and am concerned about - but it will not result in Biden's not getting to be President.” Edited December 11, 2020 by Bob Ness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 32 minutes ago, Bob Ness said: From a friend. This sums it up pretty well: “Hey, everyone. Former attorney & Constitutional Law professor here. I see a lot of people starting to panic/get worried about the Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court because 106 House Republicans & 17 states have "joined" the suit. First of all, they have not actually joined the suit in the legal sense - that means becoming a party to the lawsuit. They have not done that. They have merely filed or added their names to an amicus brief (which is basically an affidavit of support for a lawsuit which may or may not provide some additional argument for a court to consider in a suit). 1) Courts are free to ignore amicus briefs (and frequently do) AND such an amicus brief does NOT lend additional credence to an argument. I want you to remember this simple equation when looking at these headlines: 17 x 0 = 0. Likewise, 106 x 0 = 0. 2) Ken Paxton, who filed this action, is Texas's Attorney General. What he is not is Texas's Solicitor General. That's Kyle Hawkins. It is the actual job of the Solicitor General of a state to represent that state in appellate cases - including at the Supreme Court. So, filing suits of this nature is Kyle Hawkins's ENTIRE JOB. Yet, Kyle Hawkins (who is, not incidentally, a Republican) not only did not file this lawsuit, he has kept his deputy solicitor generals from participating. You have to ask yourself why the man whose entire job it is to represent Texas before SCOTUS isn't the one doing this (spoiler alert: it's because the lawsuit is frivolous). 3) In order to sue someone like this, you need to have what's called "standing" to do so. Which means that you have to show you have a dog in this fight - an actual, direct injury you suffered because the other party did the thing of which you're complaining (that you would not have suffered had they not taken that action). Texas suffered NOTHING from PA, MI, WI, and GA made (perfectly legal and constitutional) changes to their election laws. It does not count as an injury to Texas that Trump wasn't elected. It does not count as an injury to Trump that he wasn't elected, either - he would have to have proof that there was widespread voter fraud, which he has been unable to do in 51 prior lawsuts. Texas does not have standing to bring this suit. I fully expect it to be dismissed as a result. 4) SCOTUS hates original jurisdiction cases. Most of their cases are appellate, which means they've been through, at minimum, a hearing at the district court level and the outcome of that is being disputed due to some sort of procedural/legal error made by the lower court ("I don't like that they ruled against me" is not grounds for appeal - "they made a mistake in interpreting the law or applying procedural rules that was big enough to potentially change the outcome of the whole case" is grounds for appeal). Original jurisdiction means it is filed directly with SCOTUS. And, in order to show you have a right to original jurisdiction, you have to show that the suit could NOT have been brought at a lower court level (a bar I'm not sure they can jump over). Also, Texas has to get 5 of the 9 Justices to agree that they will take up the case (in appellate jurisdiction, you only need 4 justices). Further, SCOTUS really hates stepping into the political arena and deciding issues that are better handled by the legislature or the voters. I do not see SCOTUS even taking up this case. Full stop. 5) The GOP knows they will not get a win here. They know that Biden will be the next president. So, why are they doing this? Politics. Ken Paxton may or may not be angling to get a pardon from Trump for alleged SEC violations. But, he and the rest of the politicians who are supporting this suit are angling to keep the support of Trump's voters for elections in coming years. You see, Trump voters are loyal to Trump, not the GOP. They will turn on GOP candidates as fast as Trump does. The GOP doesn't care whether Trump is in office at this point - because they know it's not going to happen (and any method for it to happen would damage our democracy beyond repair, which they don't really want, either). What they care about is getting and keeping power in the future. The only way they see victory for themselves in the upcoming GA runoffs, the 2022 midterm elections, and the 2024 Presidential election is if they can keep the Trump voters happy. And if they can keep the Trump voters without having to keep Trump himself? So much the better. This is a Machiavellian trend I do not like and am concerned about - but it will not result in Biden's not getting to be President.” Sums it all up well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, David Andrews said: P. S. - Dylan's songs were previously owned by Sony Music. Apparently he had a renewal deal expiring this year, and Sony wouldn't meet the price Dylan got from Universal. It's possible part of that $300 mil goes to a buyout from Sony. And - germane to this thread - there's a political motive for his acting now: "An extra impetus to get deals done quickly is the election of a new US president, with Joe Biden aiming to significantly raise capital gains tax for composers whose songs sell for more than $1m." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/11/going-for-a-song-why-music-legends-are-lining-up-to-sell-their-rights Stevie Nicks cashed in ahead for $150 mil, and the article says Dolly Parton and David Crosby are scrambling. Exactly. It's all about the money, taxes, etc. Remember, all these hugely successful entertainers are business and money minded to a very tough degree. But, yes, Dylan's work will last and be of interest for way longer than most all the other singer/song writers. His poetry sets him apart. Don't think songs like "oh sugar, oh honey honey ... you are my candy girl" or "tip toe through the tulips" will be studied and replayed 3 and 4 generations from now. Edited December 12, 2020 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said: Exactly. It's all about the money, taxes, etc. Remember, all these hugely successful entertainers are business and money minded to a very tough degree. There have been legendary rip-offs in the rock and roll world: Dylan’s contract with Albert Grossman is one. Rolling Stones with Allan Klein (which Keith Richards referred wryly as “the price of an education”). Creedence Clearwater. Leonard Cohen licensed his work and believed he had a lasting nest egg to retire to Mt Baldy with, only to discover his manager lost/stole the whole thing and he had to go out on tour for three years when in his seventies. Even the punk rock world was prone to bitter recrimination from record contracts - and this over thousands, not millions, of dollars. Dylan’s long time manager has done an outstanding job representing his client, keeping him in the public eye, and shoring up his legacy. The Bootleg Series alone has resulted in 15 multi-disc collections since the early ‘90s, most of which is excellent and not redundant. Last week they released an extremely limited edition of 3 CDs of previously unavailable studio outtakes from 1970 - which renews the performance copyright for that material and was specifically labelled “Copyright Collection”. Dylan will be one of those artists - like, say, Billie Holliday or Miles Davis - who will retain a public profile and sell records for a very very long time, so it’s to his credit that his business affairs have been run so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 Democrat wants to use Civil War law about traitors to ban 126 Republicans from being seated in Congress https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/democrat-wants-to-use-civil-war-law-about-traitors-to-ban-126-republicans-from-being-seated-in-congress/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: There have been legendary rip-offs in the rock and roll world: Dylan’s contract with Albert Grossman is one. Rolling Stones with Allan Klein (which Keith Richards referred wryly as “the price of an education”). Creedence Clearwater. Leonard Cohen licensed his work and believed he had a lasting nest egg to retire to Mt Baldy with, only to discover his manager lost/stole the whole thing and he had to go out on tour for three years when in his seventies. Even the punk rock world was prone to bitter recrimination from record contracts - and this over thousands, not millions, of dollars. Elvis Presley's manager Colonel Tom Parker took more than half of Elvis's earnings. How he got away with it I have no idea unless Elvis was (as a high-school classmate of mine described him with his onstage gyrations) just a "plain idiot." Not only that, but Parker deprived Elvis of millions that he could have earned in overseas tours because Parker was an illegal Dutch immigrant and was afraid that if he left the country with Elvis he might not be allowed to come back. Someone should make a movie about this master criminal who controlled Elvis's life including the making of all those awful movie musicals. I remember reading that early on Elvis, who had serious acting aspirations, could have had the Tony Curtis role opposite Sidney Poitier as escaped convicts in "The Defiant Ones," but Parker felt that Elvis's fans wouldn't like to see him chained to a black man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Prutsok Posted December 11, 2020 Share Posted December 11, 2020 BREAKING: AMY CONEY BARRET TELLS CORRUPT AG KEN PAXTON HE'S FULL OF IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted December 12, 2020 Share Posted December 12, 2020 (edited) Hahaha that was close! 9-0 F right off thank you! No standing. Edited December 12, 2020 by Bob Ness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts