Fordgalaxy

supposed winter storm warning

xmas time is here, almost

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum Very entertaining but you really have to suspend any sense of reality.

funny movie showing

HEY! Don’t take Muse away from me! Lol. that was totally EP bait. Got ya, lol but yea i also mean it lol Mick Tell you what, you can have Imagine Dragons, and I’ll toss in Beiber and Levine as well, if I can have three more Muse albums and finally get to see them on tour. :P I've been to a lot of concerts over the years and they put on the best overall show I've ever seen. I don't get the mountain of hate for Coldplay. Sure, they're basic pop music, but even Steven Wilson put out a couple of those. That doesn't make it bad, just not what some people like.

somewhat funny spectacle

interstellar inhabitants

decorum lost

skirting the rules

or maybe it's cicero

lurid and loathsome tales from the bend

that one province in Canada should be renamed, Sasqatchawan for the tourism dollars

hyphenated names, how do they work?

The pelts, they are a callin'

Local news.

I couldn't locate a thread about hip hop (maybe because it won't let you search for three letter words like hip, hop, or rap :huh: ) but if there is one, there'll be two (or more) now. As a fan of some old school rap like the YO! MTV Raps era, I figured there may be others that liked that or even newer stuff. I ran across this video earlier today and immediately recognized the "Woo-Hah" parts. I had no idea who performed it but now that I do, I'm starting a thread with it. Feel free to add any and all of the ones you like. RIP ODB. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFrl7rnCx4A

The issue isn't really about whether the artist gets paid for the show that was recorded. The issue is payment for the commercial use of a song he or she or they wrote. Billy Squier is one of the most financially successful recording artists ever, not because of record sales or concert receipts, but because one of his songs was so widely used in sampling by rap artists. If you watch the excellent Go-Gos documentary, Jane Wiedlin talks about how important it was that their relatively inexperienced manager knew enough to hold onto their publishing rights to We Got the Beat. Don't get me wrong, I love bootlegs myself, but I can see why artists don't. I'm not a guitarist myself, and I don't get the Clapton love, but EVH worshipped him (even though Clapton was a jerk to Eddie). I always just assume that there's something about his playing that I just don't see. He married George's ex-wife, which was a scumbag move IMO. As far as his politics may go, there are a lot of artists I love whose opinions on politics I don't share. I never let that influence my feelings about their music. But in the cases of both Billy Squire and the Go-Go's those are recordings they made themselves that got sampled and used in commercials. Not bootlegs someone took of the artists at a live show. I don't think it's really comparable. Sure you may have written the song, but someone's going to play it for someone else who hasn't heard it at some point, and that person's not going to go and buy tickets to see your show or their own copy if you slap a lawsuit on them. I understand music copyright law is tricky though, but it also just seems way simpler to let the bootleggers be. They aren't causing any real harm. Not like Spotify is. Of course it's the same, just not on the same scale as Spotify or Apple Music. But the concept is exactly the same. The woman is selling Clapton's songs, which is what the buyer is paying for, without receiving licensing permission from him. If I write a song, and copyright it, you can't use it for any commercial purpose unless you get my permission. If the bootleggers want to share the music, that's one thing. If they want to sell it, that's another. Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean. I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right." Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs. Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt. As Goose pointed out, Clapton’s lawyers did this and the woman decided that she would ignore the legal demands to desist and she wanted to go to court so that she could sell an illegal bootleg and earn about $10. She could have ended this at any time without any consequence to her, but she wanted a fight and got one. I don't think that overrides the point that Clapton and his legal team could have decided it wasn't worth the trouble, and instead decided to call the woman's bluff. It's a jerk move no matter who motivated the lawsuit. Reading more it seems that Clapton's reps have executed dozens if not 100s of these suits over the years. German law, for various reasons, is such that it is favorable to artists to do so. Not sure why this is getting so much press. I was going to try and position Clapton on a rock star jerk spectrum with Dave Grohl at the far nice end, but then I realized Clapton has become my current standard for the far jerk end. The Foo Fighters are entirely more entertaining too. Dave Grohl is an awesome front man and seems like a genuinely nice guy. The only person in the big time music business that I know of that is nicer, is Garth Brooks.

The issue isn't really about whether the artist gets paid for the show that was recorded. The issue is payment for the commercial use of a song he or she or they wrote. Billy Squier is one of the most financially successful recording artists ever, not because of record sales or concert receipts, but because one of his songs was so widely used in sampling by rap artists. If you watch the excellent Go-Gos documentary, Jane Wiedlin talks about how important it was that their relatively inexperienced manager knew enough to hold onto their publishing rights to We Got the Beat. Don't get me wrong, I love bootlegs myself, but I can see why artists don't. I'm not a guitarist myself, and I don't get the Clapton love, but EVH worshipped him (even though Clapton was a jerk to Eddie). I always just assume that there's something about his playing that I just don't see. He married George's ex-wife, which was a scumbag move IMO. As far as his politics may go, there are a lot of artists I love whose opinions on politics I don't share. I never let that influence my feelings about their music. But in the cases of both Billy Squire and the Go-Go's those are recordings they made themselves that got sampled and used in commercials. Not bootlegs someone took of the artists at a live show. I don't think it's really comparable. Sure you may have written the song, but someone's going to play it for someone else who hasn't heard it at some point, and that person's not going to go and buy tickets to see your show or their own copy if you slap a lawsuit on them. I understand music copyright law is tricky though, but it also just seems way simpler to let the bootleggers be. They aren't causing any real harm. Not like Spotify is. Of course it's the same, just not on the same scale as Spotify or Apple Music. But the concept is exactly the same. The woman is selling Clapton's songs, which is what the buyer is paying for, without receiving licensing permission from him. If I write a song, and copyright it, you can't use it for any commercial purpose unless you get my permission. If the bootleggers want to share the music, that's one thing. If they want to sell it, that's another. Well even if it is the same (which I disagree with, but I guess that's a personal opinion), going after bootleggers still seems pointless to me. And mean. I agree that it's punching down. What he did is obviously legal (he did, after all, win a lawsuit) but that's not the same as "right." Clapton could have simply had the eBay listing removed and merely threatened her with legal action should he find her listing it again. That would have gotten the message across. Also, you have to figure she didn't know that it's bad form to sell concert bootlegs. Yes - this would have solved the problem without being a total c=nt. This is the guy who told the world in his autobiography that he only married his ex-wife (you know, the one who he seduced when she was still married to his best friend, after telling her that if she didn't go with him he would intentionally become a heroin addict) to distract media attention away from his arrest for drunk driving. I expect that being a total c*** was pretty much the point of the lawsuit. I haven't and won't read that book, but she should have called his bluff.

Living in the Northwest, when we look skyward in the winter, day or night, most times it's just clouds. I miss a lot of meteor showers. Pretty cool you could see all that at once.

What does Santa get bad children for Christmas? A package of batteries with the note, "toy not included."

The Grateful Dead, and maybe other bands, encouraged people to record their shows with the hope of reaching a wider audience, and they seemed to have done okay. Maybe not $300 million okay, but they didn't (or don't) live in a refrigerator box near Haight & Ashbury.

In this case, the word I'd use is douchebag. He sued a German woman for a trying to sell a 30 year old burned cd of one of his live shows. Her now dead husband burned it to listen to and she decided to sell it. Now she has to pay $4000 in court fees, including his (he's worth an estimated $300,000,000). Add this to his anti-vaccine crap and his racist rants from many years ago, and it seems like he's just not a very nice person. Bitter, old man Eric Clapton is not happy with the bootleg scene and has gone the extra mile to secure his artistry. As noted by Guitar World, Clapton has successfully sued a 55-year-old German widow in a copyright infringement case for posting a bootleg live CD on eBay for $11. In court papers, the woman, who is referred to as Gabrielle P, will have to pay court costs for herself and the musician, totaling $4,000. The item up for debate is a burned copy of one of his records called Live USA, which was purchased by Gabriele P's late husband at a department store more than three decades ago. The defendant put the CD on eBay for about $11 in July and was set to profit an estimated $9.30 after fees. As the story goes, Clapton caught wind of the listing and filed an affidavit with the court over the illegal nature of the album. The Düsseldorf Regional Court has since ruled in Clapton’s favor. Clapton's lawsuit is just the latest headline-making story for the musician. Last year, he denounced state-mandated lockdowns during the COVID-19 outbreaks and even refused to perform in venues where unvaccinated concert-goers were banned from attendance.

The Power Of The Dog.

noncurrent responses made