Well, naturally Donald only steals the best music.
I can understand how this tactic might work, once. But why would anyone then chose to do business with him again? Is he really that powerful in NY that you can’t be successful in any kind of construction industry if you refuse to do business with any of the Trump companies?
“In the interview, Trump told USA Today that underpayments were the result of poor work on the part of his hires.”
Trump on his presidential cabinet: “I will hire the best people.”
Has Trump not bought the rights from ASCAP? If he has, then he’s probably well within his rights to play the music. Artists that want permission to use their music might want to retain the rights themselves rather than sell it to ASCAP. It’s like having Wal-mart carry your shirts and then getting mad when you see Donald Trump wear one.
It sounds a lot like the way many abusive relationships work, so doesn’t surprise me as much. The other person starts acting in a way that is hostile to you but doesn’t make sense, you get confused and try to handle it rationally, you end up doing what they want, and in the end trauma bonding means you like them even more because you’ve been through a rough time together.
It could also be a measure of:
“You want me to tell the world you run a crappy business? Who are they going to believe - Mr. Fabulous Me, or little old you? You better do what I tell you or I will ruin your business.”
The Lannisters motto may be “The Lannisters always pay their debts”, but Trumps motto seems to be “I will screw you over and you’d better just take it because I’ll lie about you and ruin you.”
ASCAP is doing ass covering there. There has not yet been a successful lawsuit against a public figure over use of music. Only threats and settlements.
No reasonable person confuses the use of music with an endorsement, anymore than the use of an outfit implies an endorsement by the designer. This is nothing more than artists claiming ownership over something they already sold to the public.
No politician wants the music so badly as to risk a court case that brings down an actual ruling.
Hence the settlements and pulling the music on a threat of a lawsuit.
Are you saying that ASCAP is wrong about their own rules that they set up to cover that specific situation?
No, it’s just ass covering. It’s a way to say, “yeah, we’re selling you the right to play this music, but you might still not have the right to play it. Caveat Emptor.”
ASCAP should have to refund campaigns.
It would also take a pretty simply law to end this stupid practice and I’m surprised Republicans haven’t passed it. Politicians should respect artists wishes if the artists have a credible claim on the music(they don’t always, sometimes they didn’t even write it, or if they did, no one knows they did), but it should not be possible to sue over it. If ASCAP has the right to sell music, then the buyer should have assurances that they have the right to play it.
The campaigns know going what the rules are(or they should). Nothing is hidden.
It’s not like ASCAP is changing the rules after the fact, they’ve been that way for a long time.
I wouldn’t call artists’ whims “rules”. That’s the opposite actually. The rules are, if you buy a license to play a song publicly, you can play a song publicly. Artists are just citing creative interpretations of other laws to try to squelch that. Eventually someone will go to court with them and put a stop to it. I’d hoped Trump would have the balls, so he can perform at least one public service for us.
You didn’t even read what I linked to, did you?
It explains very clearly the protections that artists have against unauthorized use of their music, reputation and image.
ASCAP makes it very clear that the license does not cover those types of claims.
Those laws were not written specifically for artists. They are just standard trademark protections which artists could conceivably use, but whose validity has not been tested in court.
As for the other two:
There is no federal publicity or false endorsement right, those are covered by states and are in turn limited by the 1st amendment. It would be VERY hard to argue that an artists’ concerns about their image(which are not valid anyway since no one confuses use of music with an endorsement), trump political speech.
I’d also note that when artists actually sue, they don’t invoke anything ASCAP listed most of the time. Their suits generally don’t cite any legal authority beyond “MINE! MINE! MINE!”