Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is too short of a byte of the song, for anything other than them just not using that again any time soon.
For some odd reason, the misinformed have once again been told, that the entire song was played.
I see that you didn't read what I was responding too (or read it well) because your post is arguing a point that is not even in discussion. You're making an argument that's consistent with what I said. Please seek first to understand.
I was agreeing with you, Rggr. I wasn't trying to be confrontational with you at all, and I apologize if you took it that way. I did add some stuff as an addition to your comment.
The music biz has a lot of obscure complications that most folks don't know about, so I only attempted to clarify your post to those who may not have understood all of it.
There were over a dozen pages of codes involved, what one says Fox is special and outside of the same scope as everyone else?
The U.S. Code doesn't set the rights and limitations for a specific copyright owner. The code is only a general guideline, not an actually copyright licensing agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
It is too short of a byte of the song, for anything other than them just not using that again any time soon.
For some odd reason, the misinformed have once again been told, that the entire song was played.
It was 5 seconds as they were going to a break.
Ignorance controls the fools.
Please be quiet. You have no idea what you are talking about. The issue has nothing to do with how much of the song was played.
Please be quiet. You have no idea what you are talking about. The issue has nothing to do with how much of the song was played.
Yet the laws do!
The length of the part of the song played, is the part where it is legal, or illegal to do.
You are trying to imply, something that has been legal to do for decades, is now illegal to do.
Making, or changing the laws as you go, seems to be the norm these days.
I know, the truth hurts you, more than the lies you tell.
Yet the laws do!
The length of the part of the song played, is the part where it is legal, or illegal to do.
You are trying to imply, something that has been legal to do for decades, is now illegal to do.
Making, or changing the laws as you go, seems to be the norm these days.
I know, the truth hurts you, more than the lies you tell.
Please research how fair use does not apply to corporations in the way that it does to non-commercial entities. It is much more limited. And as Fox News was not critiquing REM's song, but using it to critique the DNC, fair use does not apply. Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.
Just like when druggie Limbaugh uses the Pretenders environmental song on his hate filled radio show.
Moron Limbaugh never bothered to listen to the lyrics to realize what the song is about. When confronted he responded with his usual "I meant to do that" or "It's a joke"
Just like when druggie Limbaugh uses the Pretenders environmental song on his hate filled radio show.
Moron Limbaugh never bothered to listen to the lyrics to realize what the song is about. When confronted he responded with his usual "I meant to do that" or "It's a joke"
Yeah, sure
In Limbaugh's defense (ugh, I just threw up a little ), Limbaugh has a license of which the Pretenders are a part, so he was within his right to use that song. However, the Pretenders could revoke that right like Peter Gabrielle did after Limbaugh used his songs.
In Limbaugh's defense (ugh, I just threw up a little ), Limbaugh has a license of which the Pretenders are a part, so he was within his right to use that song. However, the Pretenders could revoke that right like Peter Gabrielle did after Limbaugh used his songs.
I'm not saying Limbaugh didn't have a legal right, I'm saying he foolishly played a pro environment song on his show
I was agreeing with you, Rggr. I wasn't trying to be confrontational with you at all, and I apologize if you took it that way. I did add some stuff as an addition to your comment.
The music biz has a lot of obscure complications that most folks don't know about, so I only attempted to clarify your post to those who may not have understood all of it.
In reading again, I see where I misunderstood your post. I apologize - my fault.
I think Obama settled that issue with his famous slogan "You did not build that"...so to the band "You did not own that"...
A little out of context, don't you think?
But if faux and rush tell you, it must be true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.