Karaoke Forums

Funny. Wouldn't be the first time a song used for a political agenda wasn't authorized though.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Not authorized could still be tacit because of the free publicity.

Not authorized and unwanted association means they have the right to sue.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

YUP!!!...


https://www.yahoo.com/music/rem-slams-d ... 61521.html

I love it that Conservative politicians are getting caught up in this!! Liberal musician suing Conservative politicians makes me happy!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I listened to an interview with one of the authors of the song. He really didn't want to get in to his view of the political topic. His reasoning for the suit was, this is a song associated with sports and they fight to keep it that way. I was very impressed with how he handled the interview. Far too many famous people wish to share their foolish political views. It's foolish because their opinion isn't any more informed than 98% of non-famous people but they're too foolish to understand that.

Maybe they paid the fees( BMI/ASCAP)...........if so, the artist can't say who can and who can't play their songs.

If anyone should be sued it's the TV Station that aired the event and subsequent and incidental BROADCAST of the the song. The event, itself, did NOT BROADCAST the song. All they did was play a song through SPEAKERS, which IS NOT A BROADCAST. Maybe the REPUBLICAN event hosts should SUE the Democrat leaning TV Stations that ARE RESPONSIBLE for the BROADCASTS.

Anyone, with any RUDIMENTARY electronic background, knows that BROADCAST data is TRANSMITTED by having the Primary Data added to a CARRIER WAVE and, subsequently, the Data removed from the CARRIER WAVE at the receiving end.

Sound coming out of SPEAKERS NEVER has a CARRIER WAVE involved. Therefore, NO BROADCAST.

As a matter of fact, I believe ALL Karaoke DJ Hosts should be REQUIRED to take and PASS and Electronic Communications Course. So they know what the hell their talking about.

And Kim Davis should file criminal charges against the Fed Judge for involving her in a case that was CLEARLY not legal. The Supreme Court CAN NOT MAKE LAW, by adding "Sexual Orientation," etc., to the Constitution. Therefore, there is NO SUCH LAW. The subsequent CONTEMPT charge was Bogus based on her NOT complying with the Bogus Supreme Court ruling.

Why do you think the Fed Judge let her out when he did. Because the Fed Judge didn't want Davis' attorneys to follow through on the Lawsuit filed against the Fed Judge to gain traction in the courts concerning the Supreme Court decision that the subsequent Contempt charge was based on.

It was a public performance of the song, which, if done without permission from the composition copyright owner, is a copyright infringement.

Federal judges are immune from lawsuits based on their rulings. Any lawsuit against this judge would have been dismissed immediately.

She was released from jail because once her clerks agreed to issue the licenses, her office was no longer in contempt of court. Once contempt has been purged, the contemnor must be released; that's the law.

I say all of these things from a strictly nonpartisan standpoint. You are simply wrong on the facts and the law.

Dang, it's pretty nice to have our own legal source in here. Thanks for that clarification Jim. I think we have too many folks just ignoring the laws in this country. Now I do think there are some bad laws, but we need something to maintain civility.

they did not add anything to the constitution about sexual orientation. there is nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation at all, yet licenses were refued based on sexual orientation. SCOTUS did not make any law concerning sexual orientation, they said that the ones who DID make laws concerning sexual orientation did not have the right to do that.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Exactly. The Supreme Court is there as a check and balance for Congress and the Executive Office. Their job is to interpret laws and decide if laws are constitutional sound. That is exactly what they did in this case. Whether they interpreted the law correctly is certainly up for debate, but they did not over step their bounds and "create" law as some say. Congress and the Executive Office can review their findings and act accordingly if they feel the Court interpretation does not fit with the will of the people. Again, part of the check and balance.

It is not up to some lowly elected paper pusher in random KY to decide if the law was interpreted correctly. I've got no dog in the Gay marriage fight other than this woman applying religious beliefs to her elected government duties, which is a black and while violation of the First Amendment.

Sorry for the semi off topic rant..

Wait. You mean Fox News and Sean Hannity are WRONG?! Say it ain't so.

Kick this Rube of a woman and her Anti-American BS to the curb.

The artists contract the right to use their songs to a third party......if you purchase the proper license, the artist no longer has a say in it.