Dear Mick, You Can't Always Get What You Want

[CrusaderFrank]

Get this, The ROLLING STONES are trying to sue Trump (at least threatening to at this point) to stop him from using their 51 year old song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" song at his rallies! Sorry, Mick, but if I'm not mistaken, that song is in the public domain now, and it is tough cookies for you.

I hope Trump starts playing it MORE. Trump has more money that Mick and I hope he runs the Stones into the ground with legal costs.

But no matter, he might be better served to play songs by Ted Nugent, I'm sure Ted won't mind one bit and Nugent's music is better anyway.

Rolling Stones to Trump: Quit using our music at rallies or we'll sue

The Rolling Stones are threatening President Donald Trump with legal action for using their songs at his rallies despite cease-and-desist directives.

www.usatoday.com

The Rolling Stones suck moose cock. Their only decent song was "Sympathy for the Devil" because it speaks to who they were as artists, derivative shitbags with nothing original to say about anything

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

When you’re incorporating music into training materials or a business presentation, you might wonder if fair use can apply to your situation.

“Fair use” is an exception to copyright protection (or, more accurately, a defense to a copyright infringement claim) that allows limited use of a copyrighted work without the copyright holder’s permission.

This might appear simple, but the truth is: fair use is very subjective. It’s so case-specific, in fact, it’s decided on a case-by-case basis. There might be situations or circumstances where using music in training materials has some credible fair use arguments. However, those situations are likely to be very narrow.

If you’re going to rely on fair use, the bottom line is, you need to factor in how much risk you’re willing to take. Why? Because some uses are riskier than others and the risk of a failed fair use defense is copyright infringement.

Music Licensing: What is Considered Fair Use?

 

[Dana7360]

Get this, The ROLLING STONES are trying to sue Trump (at least threatening to at this point) to stop him from using their 51 year old song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" song at his rallies! Sorry, Mick, but if I'm not mistaken, that song is in the public domain now, and it is tough cookies for you.

I hope Trump starts playing it MORE. Trump has more money that Mick and I hope he runs the Stones into the ground with legal costs.

But no matter, he might be better served to play songs by Ted Nugent, I'm sure Ted won't mind one bit and Nugent's music is better anyway.

Rolling Stones to Trump: Quit using our music at rallies or we'll sue

The Rolling Stones are threatening President Donald Trump with legal action for using their songs at his rallies despite cease-and-desist directives.

www.usatoday.com

Yes that applies to all music after 1972.

Yours and trump's problem is that the song You Can't Always Get What You Want was written, recorded and released in 1968.

The law covers public performance of the songwriting but not the sound recording. Federal laws don't apply. State laws do. So you will have to look to the individual states and their laws on whether The Rolling Stones has a case or not. Which most states have laws that protect copyright ownerships.

You should learn the law before you post.

I know the copyright laws. They apply to me and my work. If trump had bought a license to use the song, then The Rolling Stones wouldn't have a case. trump was too cheap to do that.

Why Donald Trump Should Have Gotten Song Permission from The Rolling Stones (But Not Queen)

An ASCAP license covered much of what was played at the Republican National Convention. But maybe not everything.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

.

 

[Dana7360]

Get this, The ROLLING STONES are trying to sue Trump (at least threatening to at this point) to stop him from using their 51 year old song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" song at his rallies! Sorry, Mick, but if I'm not mistaken, that song is in the public domain now, and it is tough cookies for you.

I hope Trump starts playing it MORE. Trump has more money that Mick and I hope he runs the Stones into the ground with legal costs.

But no matter, he might be better served to play songs by Ted Nugent, I'm sure Ted won't mind one bit and Nugent's music is better anyway.

Rolling Stones to Trump: Quit using our music at rallies or we'll sue

The Rolling Stones are threatening President Donald Trump with legal action for using their songs at his rallies despite cease-and-desist directives.

www.usatoday.com

Yes it's now Public Domain because of the 50 year rule BUT this would NOT be down to that song being Copyrighted it would be down to Licensing Rights which are held by the song writers ie. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. If a song is Copyrighted then it is unlawful to perform or play that song without the permission of the Copyright holder, this was already a situation in 2016 see below, and so this new situation in 2020 HAS to be about Licensing Rights and Licensing Rights do NOT FALL under Public Domain again see below.

The song IS Copyrighted, Trump used the SAME song during 2016 but his campaign got permission from ASCAP to use it. Now Mick Jagger who co-wrote the song with Keith Richards is going to the BMI, which this will be all about Licensing Rights as the SONG WRITER or CO-SONG WRITER, the song is NOT Copyrighted to Jagger/Richards BUT the song writing LICENSING RIGHTS will be with the song writer and/or song writers which are Jagger/Richards. Song writer and/or song writers CAN REFUSE the Licensing of their song to whoever they want to and this is different from Copyrighted songs which are usually Copyrighted to the record label, in the case of The Rolling Stones that would be Decca Records and in America it would be London Records who for any pre-1979 London recordings the Copyright would be held by UMG.

I don't know the legal details but I think there is a difference between just singing a song in the public domain vs using a recording of that song that was copyrighted.

Yes there is. Plus there's a distinction on when the music was written and recorded. Anything before 1972, doesn't fall under the federal public domain laws.

If trump had someone else perform the song live there wouldn't be a case.

He used the recording.

Plus the song was written and recorded in 1968.

I

 

[toobfreak]

Get this, The ROLLING STONES are trying to sue Trump (at least threatening to at this point) to stop him from using their 51 year old song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" song at his rallies! Sorry, Mick, but if I'm not mistaken, that song is in the public domain now, and it is tough cookies for you.

I hope Trump starts playing it MORE. Trump has more money that Mick and I hope he runs the Stones into the ground with legal costs.

But no matter, he might be better served to play songs by Ted Nugent, I'm sure Ted won't mind one bit and Nugent's music is better anyway.

Rolling Stones to Trump: Quit using our music at rallies or we'll sue

The Rolling Stones are threatening President Donald Trump with legal action for using their songs at his rallies despite cease-and-desist directives.

www.usatoday.com

Yes it's now Public Domain because of the 50 year rule BUT this would NOT be down to that song being Copyrighted it would be down to Licensing Rights which are held by the song writers ie. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. If a song is Copyrighted then it is unlawful to perform or play that song without the permission of the Copyright holder, this was already a situation in 2016 see below, and so this new situation in 2020 HAS to be about Licensing Rights and Licensing Rights do NOT FALL under Public Domain again see below.

The song IS Copyrighted, Trump used the SAME song during 2016 but his campaign got permission from ASCAP to use it. Now Mick Jagger who co-wrote the song with Keith Richards is going to the BMI, which this will be all about Licensing Rights as the SONG WRITER or CO-SONG WRITER, the song is NOT Copyrighted to Jagger/Richards BUT the song writing LICENSING RIGHTS will be with the song writer and/or song writers which are Jagger/Richards. Song writer and/or song writers CAN REFUSE the Licensing of their song to whoever they want to and this is different from Copyrighted songs which are usually Copyrighted to the record label, in the case of The Rolling Stones that would be Decca Records and in America it would be London Records who for any pre-1979 London recordings the Copyright would be held by UMG.

I don't know the legal details but I think there is a difference between just singing a song in the public domain vs using a recording of that song that was copyrighted.

Actually there is no difference, if you sing a song that has been legitimately officially recorded the BMI CAN come for you and demand that a License fee is paid. It is though more difficult for the BMI to prove unless someone in the venue or bar or whatever tells the BMI that so and so was singing this song etc

I have several friends who own Independent Record Shops and of course the nature of this is that when someone goes in they might want to play a record to see how it sounds or whatever. The BMI know this and so my friends each year have to pay an upfront fee to the BMI to cover whatever costs and they also have to keep a written record of what songs they play in their stores.

The whole situation with the BMI covers literally EVERYTHING including the radio, eg. you have a store or a bar or ANYTHING public that members of the public go into, if you have a radio on that's playing music you could be even liable to pay them a set fee each year for playing the radio.

I don't know the process of how the BMI collect all the Royalty moneys on behalf of EVERY song writer they represent but they do and for eg. the BMI represent tens of THOUSANDS of song writers.

I could get into the whole Mechanical Copyright (which you would need if you were going to record a song that has already been recorded ie. Cover Version) and Performance Copyright (this is you have to get Performance Rights from the Copyright holder of whatever song and that would be permission from the actual Record Label because they own the MAJORITY of song Copyrights) as well but then it gets too complicated if we go there. So I'll just leave it at my above comments.

Sounds like Union Madness personified. I once had a union phone tech try to tell me I had to send in a trouble ticket and have them called out just to change the user setting for the sound of the ringer. I can broadcast music out my window 20 feet up above ground level over a mile away with my 3000 watt stereo. Maybe the BMI needs to come to my house and charge me a fee for the records I play.

 

[toobfreak]

You should learn the law before you post.

Huh? Learn what before I merely post a news event? Huh?

If trump had bought a license to use the song, then The Rolling Stones wouldn't have a case. trump was too cheap to do that.

Lucy already said that. You should read a thread before you post.

 

[toobfreak]

Get this, The ROLLING STONES are trying to sue Trump (at least threatening to at this point) to stop him from using their 51 year old song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" song at his rallies! Sorry, Mick, but if I'm not mistaken, that song is in the public domain now, and it is tough cookies for you.

I hope Trump starts playing it MORE. Trump has more money that Mick and I hope he runs the Stones into the ground with legal costs.

But no matter, he might be better served to play songs by Ted Nugent, I'm sure Ted won't mind one bit and Nugent's music is better anyway.

Rolling Stones to Trump: Quit using our music at rallies or we'll sue

The Rolling Stones are threatening President Donald Trump with legal action for using their songs at his rallies despite cease-and-desist directives.

www.usatoday.com

The Rolling Stones suck moose cock. Their only decent song was "Sympathy for the Devil" because it speaks to who they were as artists, derivative shitbags with nothing original to say about anything

I have several of their original LPs. I never play them. Stones are rock ready for the FM dial.

 

[toobfreak]

When you’re incorporating music into training materials or a business presentation, you might wonder if fair use can apply to your situation.

“Fair use” is an exception to copyright protection (or, more accurately, a defense to a copyright infringement claim) that allows limited use of a copyrighted work without the copyright holder’s permission.

This might appear simple, but the truth is: fair use is very subjective. It’s so case-specific, in fact, it’s decided on a case-by-case basis. There might be situations or circumstances where using music in training materials has some credible fair use arguments. However, those situations are likely to be very narrow.

If you’re going to rely on fair use, the bottom line is, you need to factor in how much risk you’re willing to take. Why? Because some uses are riskier than others and the risk of a failed fair use defense is copyright infringement.

Music Licensing: What is Considered Fair Use?

Trump could milk this out until after the election if he wants to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Get this, The ROLLING STONES are trying to sue Trump (at least threatening to at this point) to stop him from using their 51 year old song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" song at his rallies! Sorry, Mick, but if I'm not mistaken, that song is in the public domain now, and it is tough cookies for you.

I hope Trump starts playing it MORE. Trump has more money that Mick and I hope he runs the Stones into the ground with legal costs.

But no matter, he might be better served to play songs by Ted Nugent, I'm sure Ted won't mind one bit and Nugent's music is better anyway.

Rolling Stones to Trump: Quit using our music at rallies or we'll sue

The Rolling Stones are threatening President Donald Trump with legal action for using their songs at his rallies despite cease-and-desist directives.

www.usatoday.com

The Rolling Stones suck moose cock. Their only decent song was "Sympathy for the Devil" because it speaks to who they were as artists, derivative shitbags with nothing original to say about anything

I have several of their original LPs. I never play them. Stones are rock ready for the FM dial.

I never took a liking to them. I head "Satisfaction" literally once every half hour when they're producer was paying the NY stations to play it. They were definitely "only in it for the Money"

 

[BULLDOG]

Ted Nugent music would be better for Trump anyway. Since nugent never played more than 3 chords anyway, it would be easier for Trump supporters to understand.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Get this, The ROLLING STONES are trying to sue Trump (at least threatening to at this point) to stop him from using their 51 year old song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" song at his rallies! Sorry, Mick, but if I'm not mistaken, that song is in the public domain now, and it is tough cookies for you.

I hope Trump starts playing it MORE. Trump has more money that Mick and I hope he runs the Stones into the ground with legal costs.

But no matter, he might be better served to play songs by Ted Nugent, I'm sure Ted won't mind one bit and Nugent's music is better anyway.

Rolling Stones to Trump: Quit using our music at rallies or we'll sue

The Rolling Stones are threatening President Donald Trump with legal action for using their songs at his rallies despite cease-and-desist directives.

www.usatoday.com

The Rolling Stones suck moose cock. Their only decent song was "Sympathy for the Devil" because it speaks to who they were as artists, derivative shitbags with nothing original to say about anything

Actually "Let It Bleed" is one of the greatest albums ever, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" is the last track on the album, it also was released as a "7 as the B Side to "Honky Tonk Women" (1969) But "Let It Bleed" has "Gimme Shelter" and "Midnight Rambler" which are two of their GREATEST songs.

I would say all their studio albums from "Aftermath" (1966) to "Let It Bleed" (1969) are VERY FANTASTIC, they went downhill after Brian Jones died. The US version of "Aftermath" contains "Paint It Black" which in my opinion IS their GREATEST song, it was also released as a "7 on both sides of the Atlantic in 1966 with two different B Sides "Stupid Girl" on the American side of the Atlantic and "Long, Long While" on the European side of the Atlantic. Also I would have in their top songs would be "The Last Time" "7 released 1965 with "Play With Fire" as the B Side on both sides of the Atlantic.

Here is "Paint It Black" as I said in my opinion this IS The Rolling Stones GREATEST song (I HATE videos with the lyrics on screen, but I could not find a video without the lyrics in, I refuse to post a sub-standard sound Live Version of this song)



The Rolling Stones were good from 1965-1969 until Brian Jones died then they went shit UNLIKE The Beatles who in my opinion were ALWAYS shit. I really HATE The Beatles. I especially BEYOND HATE John Lennon, a Hypocrite and a Communist.

Edited to add the "Paint It Black" video.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Ted Nugent music would be better for Trump anyway. Since nugent never played more than 3 chords anyway, it would be easier for Trump supporters to understand.

I consider Ted Nugent a non-talent, his music is literally TERRIBLE. I do not base music, art or films on POLITICS on what political persuasion the musicians, artists and actors and film makers are IF I did then 90% of EVERYTHING I like musically, artistically and cinematic I would have to trash. I can easily separate politics from ALL art forms and I wish more peoples would do this also.

I do have a problem for eg. with Robert De Niro screaming his head off about Conservatives BUT that does NOT mean I still do not LOVE for eg. "Goodfellas" and "Raging Bull"

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Get this, The ROLLING STONES are trying to sue Trump (at least threatening to at this point) to stop him from using their 51 year old song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" song at his rallies! Sorry, Mick, but if I'm not mistaken, that song is in the public domain now, and it is tough cookies for you.

I hope Trump starts playing it MORE. Trump has more money that Mick and I hope he runs the Stones into the ground with legal costs.

But no matter, he might be better served to play songs by Ted Nugent, I'm sure Ted won't mind one bit and Nugent's music is better anyway.

Rolling Stones to Trump: Quit using our music at rallies or we'll sue

The Rolling Stones are threatening President Donald Trump with legal action for using their songs at his rallies despite cease-and-desist directives.

www.usatoday.com

Yes it's now Public Domain because of the 50 year rule BUT this would NOT be down to that song being Copyrighted it would be down to Licensing Rights which are held by the song writers ie. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. If a song is Copyrighted then it is unlawful to perform or play that song without the permission of the Copyright holder, this was already a situation in 2016 see below, and so this new situation in 2020 HAS to be about Licensing Rights and Licensing Rights do NOT FALL under Public Domain again see below.

The song IS Copyrighted, Trump used the SAME song during 2016 but his campaign got permission from ASCAP to use it. Now Mick Jagger who co-wrote the song with Keith Richards is going to the BMI, which this will be all about Licensing Rights as the SONG WRITER or CO-SONG WRITER, the song is NOT Copyrighted to Jagger/Richards BUT the song writing LICENSING RIGHTS will be with the song writer and/or song writers which are Jagger/Richards. Song writer and/or song writers CAN REFUSE the Licensing of their song to whoever they want to and this is different from Copyrighted songs which are usually Copyrighted to the record label, in the case of The Rolling Stones that would be Decca Records and in America it would be London Records who for any pre-1979 London recordings the Copyright would be held by UMG.

I don't know the legal details but I think there is a difference between just singing a song in the public domain vs using a recording of that song that was copyrighted.

Actually there is no difference, if you sing a song that has been legitimately officially recorded the BMI CAN come for you and demand that a License fee is paid. It is though more difficult for the BMI to prove unless someone in the venue or bar or whatever tells the BMI that so and so was singing this song etc

I have several friends who own Independent Record Shops and of course the nature of this is that when someone goes in they might want to play a record to see how it sounds or whatever. The BMI know this and so my friends each year have to pay an upfront fee to the BMI to cover whatever costs and they also have to keep a written record of what songs they play in their stores.

The whole situation with the BMI covers literally EVERYTHING including the radio, eg. you have a store or a bar or ANYTHING public that members of the public go into, if you have a radio on that's playing music you could be even liable to pay them a set fee each year for playing the radio.

I don't know the process of how the BMI collect all the Royalty moneys on behalf of EVERY song writer they represent but they do and for eg. the BMI represent tens of THOUSANDS of song writers.

I could get into the whole Mechanical Copyright (which you would need if you were going to record a song that has already been recorded ie. Cover Version) and Performance Copyright (this is you have to get Performance Rights from the Copyright holder of whatever song and that would be permission from the actual Record Label because they own the MAJORITY of song Copyrights) as well but then it gets too complicated if we go there. So I'll just leave it at my above comments.

Sounds like Union Madness personified. I once had a union phone tech try to tell me I had to send in a trouble ticket and have them called out just to change the user setting for the sound of the ringer. I can broadcast music out my window 20 feet up above ground level over a mile away with my 3000 watt stereo. Maybe the BMI needs to come to my house and charge me a fee for the records I play.

Not sure about Union Madness, the BMI started in I think 1938/1939 and it's always been about making sure that song-writers get the Royalities they should be getting, some don't care they will for Free have their work up online and that's good too.

" Maybe the BMI needs to come to my house and charge me a fee for the records I play."

No they have no issue with that as you are playing music in PRIVATE as opposed to a PUBLIC situation eg. bar, restaurant, store etc.

 

[toobfreak]

The Rolling Stones suck moose cock.

I would say all their studio albums from "Aftermath" (1966) to "Let It Bleed" (1969) are VERY FANTASTIC, they went downhill after Brian Jones died. The Rolling Stones were good from 1965-1969 until Brian Jones died then they went shit UNLIKE The Beatles who in my opinion were ALWAYS shit. I really HATE The Beatles.

Well, Jones did CREATE the Stones, he put the band together, named it, set its direction, everything, until their manager pushed them in the direction away from blues towards more pop rock.

As to the Beatles, never a fan of theirs back in the day, they grew on me a bit over the years, but only ONE song of theirs ever really sent me, the obscure, seldom played "Tomorrow Never Knows."



McCartney had one other song I liked, his "Uncle Albert," which for some reason, seems tied to a particular time and event in my life that brings back a lot of memories.



OMMV.

 

[Dana7360]

You should learn the law before you post.

Huh? Learn what before I merely post a news event? Huh?

If trump had bought a license to use the song, then The Rolling Stones wouldn't have a case. trump was too cheap to do that.

Lucy already said that. You should read a thread before you post.

It's always a very good idea to learn about something before you post. That way you don't give people like me a chance to point out how lazy and stupid you are.

Don't be absurd. I post as I read the thread. Most people do. Most don't wait until they are finished reading the whole thread before they reply to a post.

Who do you think you are that you can tell me how to read and reply to a thread? I will read and reply to a thread as I please.

If you don't like it, that's your problem.

 

[Desperado]

Get this, The ROLLING STONES are trying to sue Trump (at least threatening to at this point) to stop him from using their 51 year old song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" song at his rallies! Sorry, Mick, but if I'm not mistaken, that song is in the public domain now, and it is tough cookies for you.

I hope Trump starts playing it MORE. Trump has more money that Mick and I hope he runs the Stones into the ground with legal costs.

But no matter, he might be better served to play songs by Ted Nugent, I'm sure Ted won't mind one bit and Nugent's music is better anyway.

Rolling Stones to Trump: Quit using our music at rallies or we'll sue

The Rolling Stones are threatening President Donald Trump with legal action for using their songs at his rallies despite cease-and-desist directives.

www.usatoday.com

Guess what, you record a song and people buy the cd, it is theirs to do as they please, they can play it anywhere and any tie they want.
you have no say in it.. There is no fine print in the purchasing agreement that stipulates anything else.

 

[toobfreak]

Not sure about Union Madness, the BMI started in I think 1938/1939 and it's always been about making sure that song-writers get the Royalities they should be getting

That same thing spilled over into the movie trade and led to much of the copyguards on video as well as the obnoxious HDMI video interface which is so restrictive compared to DVI to prevent copying that not only can't you insert anything into the chain between player and TV but sometimes even at that with a direct connection, people have trouble getting the HDMI to sync up.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Just another wacko leftist musician who watches too much CNN in his mansion.

 

[toobfreak]

That way you don't give people like me a chance to point out how lazy and stupid you are.

Well, I kinda figured I OWED YOU ONE Dana, to make up for the at least 299 times I've had to point out what a flaming idiot dickwad jackass you were. In this case, there was no laziness or stupidity involved as I clearly pointed out that I was just assuming on public domain, didn't know for sure, was putting out FB for others here to confrm or deny to invite discussion, and didn't know for sure myself.

SO NOW WE CAN COUNT YOU AS 0 for 300.

But since you are so perfect, informed and infallible, next time you start a thread and already know it all and have all the answers, there needn't be any reason for anyone else to neither READ your threads much less CONTRIBUTE to them.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

The Rolling Stones suck moose cock.

I would say all their studio albums from "Aftermath" (1966) to "Let It Bleed" (1969) are VERY FANTASTIC, they went downhill after Brian Jones died. The Rolling Stones were good from 1965-1969 until Brian Jones died then they went shit UNLIKE The Beatles who in my opinion were ALWAYS shit. I really HATE The Beatles.

Well, Jones did CREATE the Stones, he put the band together, named it, set its direction, everything, until their manager pushed them in the direction away from blues towards more pop rock.

As to the Beatles, never a fan of theirs back in the day, they grew on me a bit over the years, but only ONE song of theirs ever really sent me, the obscure, seldom played "Tomorrow Never Knows."



McCartney had one other song I liked, his "Uncle Albert," which for some reason, seems tied to a particular time and event in my life that brings back a lot of memories.



OMMV.

There is evidence also that Brian Jones wrote MANY of their songs but was NEVER given a writing credit and that Jagger/Richards took all the credit. Brian Jones was the creative force behind The Rolling Stones and was treated like shit, if you listen to their records with Brian Jones and then hear their records Post-Brian Jones there is a complete downhill turn, as you said it's basically all Pop Rock. Andrew Loog Oldham was the BEST manager they had, he made ONE mistake hiring that POS Allen Klein who then RUINED The Rolling Stones, the decline was set from 1967 when Klein took FULL control of ALL their rights, of course Brian Jones was still with them but I also blame Klein for the mental health decline of Brian Jones. Allen Klein could be credited with turning The Rolling Stones into PURELY a Commercial Enterprise.

Allen Klein was bad news, he already had ruined Sam Cooke. Of course The Beatles got involved with Allen Klein also and the whole Apple thing got fucked up because of Klein.

In music terms Allen Klein is up there in the POS category with Don Arden and Arden was a 24 ct gold POS.

I only like a few Beatles songs, I like "Eleanor Rigby" and "Norwegian Wood"