Rolling Stones, Queen, George Harrison's Estate and, I'm sure, others...

[63splitwindow]

have gone on record complaining about Don the Con and Repugnazanti use of their songs. There is nothing more that can be done? Significant $$$ could not be awarded in such a case of repeated, multiple and blatant disregard of the property rights of the owners?

[Hoyt]

1. Truthfully, as long as the campaigns pay royalties, I don't think there's a lot that can be done

except to howl.

[63splitwindow]

4. The owners HAVE to allow the use if the royalties are paid? nt

[rjsquirrel]

7. Yes.

Not to put too fine a point on it.

[smirkymonkey]

2. Just goes to show you what a complete lack of respect the man has

for other people. He is a disgusting piece of excrement.

[rjsquirrel]

3. Nope

Commercial popular music recordings generally have a "compulsory license" provision for public performance.

Think about it -- an artist can't tell a radio station not to play their work, or a cover band. As long as the right licenses are obtained and paid for, artists or songwriters can't just stop you from playing their recording.

[63splitwindow]

5. Thanks. That sucks. Are artists constantly asking this be changed? nt

[rjsquirrel]

6. No because it protects them too

And many artists are not the writers of their own songs. Songwriters have a very strong interest in compulsory license.

There is a freedom of speech element to this that's worth thinking about. You can't ask someone not to read a book or see a movie, or a bookstore can't be forbidden from selling a book or a theater from showing a movie because of who owns it, etc. but the bottom line is that compulsory license is basic to the economics of pop music.

[former9thward]

8. Most of these bands do not even own their music.

So it is a moot point. For example the Rolling Stones sold their songs to ABKCO Records decades ago.

[rjsquirrel]

10. More complicated than that

[rug]

9. He still has this.

[spooky3]

11. What IS that???? :-)