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

[toobfreak]

I fact check my posts all of the time.

Gee, coulda fooled me! You must use the Mad Magazine Guide To Stupidity and Ignorance" for your "facts!"

 

[toobfreak]

Mick Jagger is tighter than bark to a tree

Like you. I'm sure no one has peeled you in years.

 

[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

I'd like to hear the exact reason why The Rolling Stones want to prohibit the use of their song by Trump. It can't be because he is racist, after all the Stones had 'Brown Sugar' and other racist tunes. It also can't be because of Trump's supposed sexual escapades that would obviously be pretty hypocritical considering the Stones' history. Mabye Mick and the boys are getting a bit geriatric and are forgetting all about their past history of womanizing, drugging, swearing, using nasty innuendos in their lyrics.

Obviously, they are leftist progressive dickheads who despise all things conservative and want to make a show of rejecting Trump publicly in order to glean the approval and applause of their liberal friends.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

I wouldn't count on Trump being able to grind the Stones into the ground. Mick Jagger is tighter than bark to a tree, and is said to have the first dollar he ever made.

D. Trump has never displayed anything even close to a scintilla of creativity compared to the Rolling Stones. They're just doing it for spite that's all.

Don't make me laugh. Trump established his entire business career and fortune on creative solutions to things no one else could do, from cracking into the Manhattan highrise market his own father couldn't touch, to solving ice rink construction problems the entire city couldn't do, to building a highly successful TV brand he gave up to enter politics, to beating out the entire GOP and beating the DNC dweebs and Hippo Hillary to rip the presidency right out from under them. And he has been spanking them ever since.

Let Mick Jagger the bone-sucking wanker try that.

Trump has never used anything but bullying, intimmidation, and law suits to dodge his business obligations, and grind those who refuse to bend to his will, into dust. Trump always pulls these tactics on little people he knows can't afford a long drawn out fight.

Mick will have a court issued "Cease and Desist Order" by noon tommorow, should be decide to ask for one. Not only can Mick go after the Trump Campaign for using the song, he can also go after the owners of any venue which plays the music without authorization.

I used to work for a lawyer who did due dilligence on television production companies for their "lawsuit insurance". First question: What music are you using? Do you have Broadcast Releases from the performers? Which ones are you missing? We spent all day Friday, clearing shows to be broadcast on the weekend: generally awards shows, musical variety shows, and interview shows.

Sometimes, we would issue a limited clearance, but clearance was never issued without Releases for all of the music being used. If the Release could not be obtained, a back up piece would be used - one they had a Release for. The venue can also be sued for violating a Cease and Desist Order, which gives them a vested interest in ensuring the campaign has rights to use the music.

Artists have every right to determine who uses their music and how it's used. Bruce Springsteen barred the Reagan Campaign from using Born in the USA, and suggested they might try reading the lyrics.

Seems in your case, your company wanted to make sure they were not using a tune without paying. I doubt many recording artists would balk at anyone wanting to use their music. A production company has to get their 'ducks in a row' before going into actual publication that's all. If it were me, and I do have published and copyrighted material, what good would it do me to try to block royalties? Not only do I get paid but I also would be getting exposure. Rich elites like the Stones and Springsteen don't care about any of that because they are already household names and are rich.

My law firm was there to make sure that the production company was not sued for using material they didn't have the right to broadcast, or profit from. We worked for the company issuing the errors and omissions (lawsuit) insurance. For example, in a documentary film about underage sex trade workers, the logo on the coffee cups had to be pixilated since they didn't have permission to shoot the interview in the coffee shop.

The whole project got deep sixed because the underaged sex trade workers were basically saying they were on the streets because of sexual abuse by their parents - some of whom were quite wealthy. Basically it came down to the "children" were too young to legally consent to the interviews - some were 12 and 13. They were making criminal allegations against their parents, who could sue for slander. We couldn't clear it for broadcast.

My boss' least favourite job was to review rough tapes of a shock comedian's weekly TV show, and then spend two hours on the phone with the producer arguring about what the insurance company would and would not cover. All I had to do was say "The [name of comic] tape is in the boardroom for you" and watch the vein on his forehead pop.

This wasn't to ensure everyone got paid for the use of their work. It was to ensure that no one got sued for using stuff without permission. If I write a song, and you want to use it in your movie, I may be so thrilled for the exposure, I give you a Release without you paying me a cent. But since I have released you, I can't come back to you later and say that I want to be paid.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

I'm sure it would be more Trump's scene to use a Pedo's music,

 

[Dr Grump]

Obviously, they are leftist progressive dickheads who despise all things conservative and want to make a show of rejecting Trump publicly in order to glean the approval and applause of their liberal friends.

Then again, maybe they don't their music associated with a disgusting pig of a person.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

I'd like to hear the exact reason why The Rolling Stones want to prohibit the use of their song by Trump. It can't be because he is racist, after all the Stones had 'Brown Sugar' and other racist tunes. It also can't be because of Trump's supposed sexual escapades that would obviously be pretty hypocritical considering the Stones' history. Mabye Mick and the boys are getting a bit geriatric and are forgetting all about their past history of womanizing, drugging, swearing, using nasty innuendos in their lyrics.

Probably because Trump is a disgusting pig, and they don't want their songs associated with him.

 

[Leo123]

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

I wouldn't count on Trump being able to grind the Stones into the ground. Mick Jagger is tighter than bark to a tree, and is said to have the first dollar he ever made.

D. Trump has never displayed anything even close to a scintilla of creativity compared to the Rolling Stones. They're just doing it for spite that's all.

Don't make me laugh. Trump established his entire business career and fortune on creative solutions to things no one else could do, from cracking into the Manhattan highrise market his own father couldn't touch, to solving ice rink construction problems the entire city couldn't do, to building a highly successful TV brand he gave up to enter politics, to beating out the entire GOP and beating the DNC dweebs and Hippo Hillary to rip the presidency right out from under them. And he has been spanking them ever since.

Let Mick Jagger the bone-sucking wanker try that.

Trump has never used anything but bullying, intimmidation, and law suits to dodge his business obligations, and grind those who refuse to bend to his will, into dust. Trump always pulls these tactics on little people he knows can't afford a long drawn out fight.

Mick will have a court issued "Cease and Desist Order" by noon tommorow, should be decide to ask for one. Not only can Mick go after the Trump Campaign for using the song, he can also go after the owners of any venue which plays the music without authorization.

I used to work for a lawyer who did due dilligence on television production companies for their "lawsuit insurance". First question: What music are you using? Do you have Broadcast Releases from the performers? Which ones are you missing? We spent all day Friday, clearing shows to be broadcast on the weekend: generally awards shows, musical variety shows, and interview shows.

Sometimes, we would issue a limited clearance, but clearance was never issued without Releases for all of the music being used. If the Release could not be obtained, a back up piece would be used - one they had a Release for. The venue can also be sued for violating a Cease and Desist Order, which gives them a vested interest in ensuring the campaign has rights to use the music.

Artists have every right to determine who uses their music and how it's used. Bruce Springsteen barred the Reagan Campaign from using Born in the USA, and suggested they might try reading the lyrics.

Seems in your case, your company wanted to make sure they were not using a tune without paying. I doubt many recording artists would balk at anyone wanting to use their music. A production company has to get their 'ducks in a row' before going into actual publication that's all. If it were me, and I do have published and copyrighted material, what good would it do me to try to block royalties? Not only do I get paid but I also would be getting exposure. Rich elites like the Stones and Springsteen don't care about any of that because they are already household names and are rich.

My law firm was there to make sure that the production company was not sued for using material they didn't have the right to broadcast, or profit from. We worked for the company issuing the errors and omissions (lawsuit) insurance. For example, in a documentary film about underage sex trade workers, the logo on the coffee cups had to be pixilated since they didn't have permission to shoot the interview in the coffee shop.

The whole project got deep sixed because the underaged sex trade workers were basically saying they were on the streets because of sexual abuse by their parents - some of whom were quite wealthy. Basically it came down to the "children" were too young to legally consent to the interviews - some were 12 and 13. They were making criminal allegations against their parents, who could sue for slander. We couldn't clear it for broadcast.

My boss' least favourite job was to review rough tapes of a shock comedian's weekly TV show, and then spend two hours on the phone with the producer arguring about what the insurance company would and would not cover. All I had to do was say "The [name of comic] tape is in the boardroom for you" and watch the vein on his forehead pop.

This wasn't to ensure everyone got paid for the use of their work. It was to ensure that no one got sued for using stuff without permission. If I write a song, and you want to use it in your movie, I may be so thrilled for the exposure, I give you a Release without you paying me a cent. But since I have released you, I can't come back to you later and say that I want to be paid.

OK but we were discussing copyrights and recording rights in the music industry. When a tune is published, hopefully the artist copyrighted it and registered with BMI or ASCAP. When that tune is used to make money, then ASCAP collects royalties for the artist. If Trump did not pay royalties then I can see the lawsuit but, that particular tune (You Can't Always Get What You Want) has been for sale and promoted for decades upon decades to anyone who had the money to pay royalties, buy a record, CD or go on iTunes. I don't think Mick has legal standing to prohibit it's use. He signed a contract. However, this may be a ploy by him to fleece Trump like Chrissy Hindes fleeced Rush Limbaugh.

 

[skye]

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

BINGO

 

[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

I wouldn't count on Trump being able to grind the Stones into the ground. Mick Jagger is tighter than bark to a tree, and is said to have the first dollar he ever made.

D. Trump has never displayed anything even close to a scintilla of creativity compared to the Rolling Stones. They're just doing it for spite that's all.

Don't make me laugh. Trump established his entire business career and fortune on creative solutions to things no one else could do, from cracking into the Manhattan highrise market his own father couldn't touch, to solving ice rink construction problems the entire city couldn't do, to building a highly successful TV brand he gave up to enter politics, to beating out the entire GOP and beating the DNC dweebs and Hippo Hillary to rip the presidency right out from under them. And he has been spanking them ever since.

Let Mick Jagger the bone-sucking wanker try that.

Trump has never used anything but bullying, intimmidation, and law suits to dodge his business obligations, and grind those who refuse to bend to his will, into dust. Trump always pulls these tactics on little people he knows can't afford a long drawn out fight.

Mick will have a court issued "Cease and Desist Order" by noon tommorow, should be decide to ask for one. Not only can Mick go after the Trump Campaign for using the song, he can also go after the owners of any venue which plays the music without authorization.

I used to work for a lawyer who did due dilligence on television production companies for their "lawsuit insurance". First question: What music are you using? Do you have Broadcast Releases from the performers? Which ones are you missing? We spent all day Friday, clearing shows to be broadcast on the weekend: generally awards shows, musical variety shows, and interview shows.

Sometimes, we would issue a limited clearance, but clearance was never issued without Releases for all of the music being used. If the Release could not be obtained, a back up piece would be used - one they had a Release for. The venue can also be sued for violating a Cease and Desist Order, which gives them a vested interest in ensuring the campaign has rights to use the music.

Artists have every right to determine who uses their music and how it's used. Bruce Springsteen barred the Reagan Campaign from using Born in the USA, and suggested they might try reading the lyrics.

Seems in your case, your company wanted to make sure they were not using a tune without paying. I doubt many recording artists would balk at anyone wanting to use their music. A production company has to get their 'ducks in a row' before going into actual publication that's all. If it were me, and I do have published and copyrighted material, what good would it do me to try to block royalties? Not only do I get paid but I also would be getting exposure. Rich elites like the Stones and Springsteen don't care about any of that because they are already household names and are rich.

My law firm was there to make sure that the production company was not sued for using material they didn't have the right to broadcast, or profit from. We worked for the company issuing the errors and omissions (lawsuit) insurance. For example, in a documentary film about underage sex trade workers, the logo on the coffee cups had to be pixilated since they didn't have permission to shoot the interview in the coffee shop.

The whole project got deep sixed because the underaged sex trade workers were basically saying they were on the streets because of sexual abuse by their parents - some of whom were quite wealthy. Basically it came down to the "children" were too young to legally consent to the interviews - some were 12 and 13. They were making criminal allegations against their parents, who could sue for slander. We couldn't clear it for broadcast.

My boss' least favourite job was to review rough tapes of a shock comedian's weekly TV show, and then spend two hours on the phone with the producer arguring about what the insurance company would and would not cover. All I had to do was say "The [name of comic] tape is in the boardroom for you" and watch the vein on his forehead pop.

This wasn't to ensure everyone got paid for the use of their work. It was to ensure that no one got sued for using stuff without permission. If I write a song, and you want to use it in your movie, I may be so thrilled for the exposure, I give you a Release without you paying me a cent. But since I have released you, I can't come back to you later and say that I want to be paid.

OK but we were discussing copyrights and recording rights in the music industry. When a tune is published, hopefully the artist copyrighted it and registered with BMI or ASCAP. When that tune is used to make money, then ASCAP collects royalties for the artist. If Trump did not pay royalties then I can see the lawsuit but, that particular tune (You Can't Always Get What You Want) has been for sale and promoted for decades upon decades to anyone who had the money to pay royalties, buy a record, CD or go on iTunes. I don't think Mick has legal standing to prohibit it's use. He signed a contract. However, this may be a ploy by him to fleece Trump like Chrissy Hindes fleeced Rush Limbaugh.

Like I said, Mick is bug-squirt to Trump and if Trump wants to, he can keep using the Stone's song at his rallies right through to November giving Mick the finger. It takes courts months to do anything and by then, Trump will either be reelected or not. After that, he can't run anymore anyway and there will be no more rallies.

 

[Dragonlady]

-

Mick Jagger is tighter than bark to a tree

Like you. I'm sure no one has peeled you in years.

I love it when you idiots stumbled over old English idioms. "Tight" is an expression meaning he holds onto his money. We don't peel bark.

 

[toobfreak]

I love it when you idiots stumbled over old English idioms.

I love it when you braindead clodhoppers mix past and present tense together into the same sentence, then arrogantly assume that the joke that went right over your head was because the OTHER person was confused!

If brains were TNT, Draggingletch, and you had 10,000X as much, you still couldn't even blow your nose!

 

[Leo123]

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

I wouldn't count on Trump being able to grind the Stones into the ground. Mick Jagger is tighter than bark to a tree, and is said to have the first dollar he ever made.

D. Trump has never displayed anything even close to a scintilla of creativity compared to the Rolling Stones. They're just doing it for spite that's all.

Don't make me laugh. Trump established his entire business career and fortune on creative solutions to things no one else could do, from cracking into the Manhattan highrise market his own father couldn't touch, to solving ice rink construction problems the entire city couldn't do, to building a highly successful TV brand he gave up to enter politics, to beating out the entire GOP and beating the DNC dweebs and Hippo Hillary to rip the presidency right out from under them. And he has been spanking them ever since.

Let Mick Jagger the bone-sucking wanker try that.

Trump has never used anything but bullying, intimmidation, and law suits to dodge his business obligations, and grind those who refuse to bend to his will, into dust. Trump always pulls these tactics on little people he knows can't afford a long drawn out fight.

Mick will have a court issued "Cease and Desist Order" by noon tommorow, should be decide to ask for one. Not only can Mick go after the Trump Campaign for using the song, he can also go after the owners of any venue which plays the music without authorization.

I used to work for a lawyer who did due dilligence on television production companies for their "lawsuit insurance". First question: What music are you using? Do you have Broadcast Releases from the performers? Which ones are you missing? We spent all day Friday, clearing shows to be broadcast on the weekend: generally awards shows, musical variety shows, and interview shows.

Sometimes, we would issue a limited clearance, but clearance was never issued without Releases for all of the music being used. If the Release could not be obtained, a back up piece would be used - one they had a Release for. The venue can also be sued for violating a Cease and Desist Order, which gives them a vested interest in ensuring the campaign has rights to use the music.

Artists have every right to determine who uses their music and how it's used. Bruce Springsteen barred the Reagan Campaign from using Born in the USA, and suggested they might try reading the lyrics.

Seems in your case, your company wanted to make sure they were not using a tune without paying. I doubt many recording artists would balk at anyone wanting to use their music. A production company has to get their 'ducks in a row' before going into actual publication that's all. If it were me, and I do have published and copyrighted material, what good would it do me to try to block royalties? Not only do I get paid but I also would be getting exposure. Rich elites like the Stones and Springsteen don't care about any of that because they are already household names and are rich.

My law firm was there to make sure that the production company was not sued for using material they didn't have the right to broadcast, or profit from. We worked for the company issuing the errors and omissions (lawsuit) insurance. For example, in a documentary film about underage sex trade workers, the logo on the coffee cups had to be pixilated since they didn't have permission to shoot the interview in the coffee shop.

The whole project got deep sixed because the underaged sex trade workers were basically saying they were on the streets because of sexual abuse by their parents - some of whom were quite wealthy. Basically it came down to the "children" were too young to legally consent to the interviews - some were 12 and 13. They were making criminal allegations against their parents, who could sue for slander. We couldn't clear it for broadcast.

My boss' least favourite job was to review rough tapes of a shock comedian's weekly TV show, and then spend two hours on the phone with the producer arguring about what the insurance company would and would not cover. All I had to do was say "The [name of comic] tape is in the boardroom for you" and watch the vein on his forehead pop.

This wasn't to ensure everyone got paid for the use of their work. It was to ensure that no one got sued for using stuff without permission. If I write a song, and you want to use it in your movie, I may be so thrilled for the exposure, I give you a Release without you paying me a cent. But since I have released you, I can't come back to you later and say that I want to be paid.

OK but we were discussing copyrights and recording rights in the music industry. When a tune is published, hopefully the artist copyrighted it and registered with BMI or ASCAP. When that tune is used to make money, then ASCAP collects royalties for the artist. If Trump did not pay royalties then I can see the lawsuit but, that particular tune (You Can't Always Get What You Want) has been for sale and promoted for decades upon decades to anyone who had the money to pay royalties, buy a record, CD or go on iTunes. I don't think Mick has legal standing to prohibit it's use. He signed a contract. However, this may be a ploy by him to fleece Trump like Chrissy Hindes fleeced Rush Limbaugh.

Like I said, Mick is bug-squirt to Trump and if Trump wants to, he can keep using the Stone's song at his rallies right through to November giving Mick the finger. It takes courts months to do anything and by then, Trump will either be reelected or not. After that, he can't run anymore anyway and there will be no more rallies.

Agreed, which further bolsters my opinion that Jagger is pulling a stunt. After all, Trumps constituents are probably mostly older folks.

 

[Leo123]

I love it when you idiots stumbled over old English idioms.

I love it when you braindead clodhoppers mix past and present tense together into the same sentence, then arrogantly assume that the joke that went right over your head was because the OTHER person was confused!

If brains were TNT, Draggingletch, and you had 10,000X as much, you still couldn't even blow your nose!

I wonder how 'tight' some posters here are.

 

[Leo123]

-

Mick Jagger is tighter than bark to a tree

Like you. I'm sure no one has peeled you in years.

I love it when you idiots stumbled over old English idioms. "Tight" is an expression meaning he holds onto his money. We don't peel bark.

We do...

Timber Tuff Log/Bark Peeler

Transforms your chainsaw into a debarking tool—included planer blades easily cut through bark and wood.

www.rockler.com

Timber Tuff Log/Bark Peeler

Transforms your chainsaw into a debarking tool—included planer blades easily cut through bark and wood.

 

[toobfreak]

After all, Trumps constituents are probably mostly older folks.

You mean people closer to Mick's age and mine. People who grew up with the Stones who might be fans. And I thought Mick was a shrewd businessman.

 

[toobfreak]

-

Mick Jagger is tighter than bark to a tree

Like you. I'm sure no one has peeled you in years.

I love it when you idiots stumbled over old English idioms. "Tight" is an expression meaning he holds onto his money. We don't peel bark.

We do...

Timber Tuff Log/Bark Peeler

Transforms your chainsaw into a debarking tool—included planer blades easily cut through bark and wood.

www.rockler.com

Timber Tuff Log/Bark Peeler

Transforms your chainsaw into a debarking tool—included planer blades easily cut through bark and wood.

That must be how Draggylady gets the stubble off her legs.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

I wouldn't count on Trump being able to grind the Stones into the ground. Mick Jagger is tighter than bark to a tree, and is said to have the first dollar he ever made.

D. Trump has never displayed anything even close to a scintilla of creativity compared to the Rolling Stones. They're just doing it for spite that's all.

Don't make me laugh. Trump established his entire business career and fortune on creative solutions to things no one else could do, from cracking into the Manhattan highrise market his own father couldn't touch, to solving ice rink construction problems the entire city couldn't do, to building a highly successful TV brand he gave up to enter politics, to beating out the entire GOP and beating the DNC dweebs and Hippo Hillary to rip the presidency right out from under them. And he has been spanking them ever since.

Let Mick Jagger the bone-sucking wanker try that.

Trump has never used anything but bullying, intimmidation, and law suits to dodge his business obligations, and grind those who refuse to bend to his will, into dust. Trump always pulls these tactics on little people he knows can't afford a long drawn out fight.

Mick will have a court issued "Cease and Desist Order" by noon tommorow, should be decide to ask for one. Not only can Mick go after the Trump Campaign for using the song, he can also go after the owners of any venue which plays the music without authorization.

I used to work for a lawyer who did due dilligence on television production companies for their "lawsuit insurance". First question: What music are you using? Do you have Broadcast Releases from the performers? Which ones are you missing? We spent all day Friday, clearing shows to be broadcast on the weekend: generally awards shows, musical variety shows, and interview shows.

Sometimes, we would issue a limited clearance, but clearance was never issued without Releases for all of the music being used. If the Release could not be obtained, a back up piece would be used - one they had a Release for. The venue can also be sued for violating a Cease and Desist Order, which gives them a vested interest in ensuring the campaign has rights to use the music.

Artists have every right to determine who uses their music and how it's used. Bruce Springsteen barred the Reagan Campaign from using Born in the USA, and suggested they might try reading the lyrics.

Seems in your case, your company wanted to make sure they were not using a tune without paying. I doubt many recording artists would balk at anyone wanting to use their music. A production company has to get their 'ducks in a row' before going into actual publication that's all. If it were me, and I do have published and copyrighted material, what good would it do me to try to block royalties? Not only do I get paid but I also would be getting exposure. Rich elites like the Stones and Springsteen don't care about any of that because they are already household names and are rich.

My law firm was there to make sure that the production company was not sued for using material they didn't have the right to broadcast, or profit from. We worked for the company issuing the errors and omissions (lawsuit) insurance. For example, in a documentary film about underage sex trade workers, the logo on the coffee cups had to be pixilated since they didn't have permission to shoot the interview in the coffee shop.

The whole project got deep sixed because the underaged sex trade workers were basically saying they were on the streets because of sexual abuse by their parents - some of whom were quite wealthy. Basically it came down to the "children" were too young to legally consent to the interviews - some were 12 and 13. They were making criminal allegations against their parents, who could sue for slander. We couldn't clear it for broadcast.

My boss' least favourite job was to review rough tapes of a shock comedian's weekly TV show, and then spend two hours on the phone with the producer arguring about what the insurance company would and would not cover. All I had to do was say "The [name of comic] tape is in the boardroom for you" and watch the vein on his forehead pop.

This wasn't to ensure everyone got paid for the use of their work. It was to ensure that no one got sued for using stuff without permission. If I write a song, and you want to use it in your movie, I may be so thrilled for the exposure, I give you a Release without you paying me a cent. But since I have released you, I can't come back to you later and say that I want to be paid.

OK but we were discussing copyrights and recording rights in the music industry. When a tune is published, hopefully the artist copyrighted it and registered with BMI or ASCAP. When that tune is used to make money, then ASCAP collects royalties for the artist. If Trump did not pay royalties then I can see the lawsuit but, that particular tune (You Can't Always Get What You Want) has been for sale and promoted for decades upon decades to anyone who had the money to pay royalties, buy a record, CD or go on iTunes. I don't think Mick has legal standing to prohibit it's use. He signed a contract. However, this may be a ploy by him to fleece Trump like Chrissy Hindes fleeced Rush Limbaugh.

Like I said, Mick is bug-squirt to Trump and if Trump wants to, he can keep using the Stone's song at his rallies right through to November giving Mick the finger. It takes courts months to do anything and by then, Trump will either be reelected or not. After that, he can't run anymore anyway and there will be no more rallies.

Agreed, which further bolsters my opinion that Jagger is pulling a stunt. After all, Trumps constituents are probably mostly older folks.

Unlike Trump, Jagger doesn't pull "stunts", and this isn't the first time that the Stones have told Trump not to use their music.

You fools keep thinking that people really like Trump, but even Dee Snider, who is a friend of Trump's, won't let him use Twisted Sister's music, because they all think he's a racist asshole.

 

[jc456]

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"

and you pay him for his lack of appreciation.

 

[Camp]

After all, Trumps constituents are probably mostly older folks.

You mean people closer to Mick's age and mine. People who grew up with the Stones who might be fans. And I thought Mick was a shrewd businessman.

His net worth is estimated at 500 million on Google.