[daniel1212]

Believe it or not, ASCAP actually sends people to public places such as restaurants, bars and retail shops and if they hear music that is protected by copyright and the proprietor is not paying the necessary royalty, he can get assessed a fine and even be sued. I believe businesses have actually been shut down over this.

Did a little research on this:

A Trump spokesperson confirms that the business mogul has paid the required fees to license Adele’s music for his rallies. It’s actually likely that his camp secured a blanket license with ASCAP and BMI to play any and all songs that are governed by those music organizations.

There is ongoing debate about this:

There is a line, however. Trump, and every candidate, would need an additional license to use the artist in question’s music for campaign commercials or video. But since that’s not the issue at hand here, there’s little Adele can do. The situation is reminiscent of one Trump faced last year when his own friend, Steven Tyler, sent a cease-and-desist letter over the Republican contender’s use of “Dream On.” The Aerosmith frontman’s attorney was later forced to acknowledge, “The Trump organization obtained public performance licenses from both ASCAP and BMI which cannot decline a public performance license even when a songwriter may not approve of the use.” - http://www.gossipcop.com/donald-trump-right-adele-songs-permission-music-license-objection/

In creating these blanket licenses, PRO’s are protecting the only right copy right law promises to protect in the interest of musicians; the economic right the musician owns to earn compensation for the playing of their music. The right which is not protected by this tandem of copyright law and the blanket license is the moral rig ht of a musician to object to a particular use of their work. 5.. as a more popular alternative to copyright law claims, some musicians have brought trademark claims as a means to close the gap left by copyright law. More: http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&context=student_scholarship

But consider the paradox. Liberals and certain courts assert that a Christian baker can be heavily fined for refusing to sell a specially created work of art due to his objections to the content and purpose of it, but the same type of liberals support a liberal musician refusing to allow their work of art from being used due to their objections to purpose of it. Likewise in the case of musicians or other artists for hire being compelled to make a work of art promoting what they object to.

[SamAdams76]

Good info, and see my reply #42 just under yours. The ASCAP law basically agrees with what you just said. If an ASCAP license is obtained, the license holder has public performance rights to the entire ASCAP catalog. So all these whining recording artists can go shove it. Or they can remove their catalog from ASCAP and negotiate directly for every public performance license.

Also, thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy regarding the Christian bakers not having the right to decide who gets to consume their products.

[FreedomNotSafety]

That’s was some mighty fine logical reasoning. I was grasping to verbify the hypocrisy of the singers but couldn’t quite stretch the decaying neurons around it. I will use that tonight with some liberals at a party.

[Yaelle]

consider the paradox. Liberals and certain courts assert that a Christian baker can be heavily fined for refusing to sell a specially created work of art due to his objections to the content and purpose of it, but the same type of liberals support a liberal musician refusing to allow their work of art from being used due to their objections to purpose of it. Likewise in the case of musicians or other artists for hire being compelled to make a work of art promoting what they object to.

---

Excellent catch.

Why is it that LIBERALS are the ones who want to control what others do, except when it involves sex or murdering babies?