Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler Mad That Trump Dissed His Cease And Desist, Came Back With More

Published

on

Why do most of the good singers and groups have to be left-wing sympathizers?

Country Music Nation is reporting that after finding out that President Donald Trump is still using his music at political rallies, Aerosmith’s lead singer Steven Tyler has decided to take matters into his own hands.

At a Trump rally in West Virginia on Tuesday, August 21st, Aerosmith’s 1993 hit song “Livin’ On The Edge” could be heard blaring from the arena’s speakers.

Trending: Corvette Driver Rolls Window Down & Flips Guy The Bird – Will Never Do That Again!

Tyler immediately called up his attorneys and had them draw up and send President Trump a cease and desist letter through his attorney Dina LaPolt. The letter accused the president of “willful infringement in broadcasting the song.”

Steven Tyler already told Trump, “No,” before in regards to his song “Dream On.” Back when candidate Donald Trump was using it during his 2016 presidential campaign and the singer personally told the then-Republican candidate, “Donald, you can’t use ‘Dream On’ – that’s for causes…not campaigns.”

Trump then kept using his song and Tyler ended up suing the president.

Here is more on this issue via The Legal Artist:

“Let’s clear this up first: using a copyrighted song without a license is infringement, even if it’s for a non-commercial/political reason. Songs generally have many copyright owners (the writers, musicians, record label, licensing houses, publishers, etc.) and that means you need several licenses, not just one. The RIAA has a useful primer illustrating a campaign’s legal responsibility when licensing music. Here are some highlights:

“‘When music is played in public, such as at a campaign event, it is typically necessary to obtain a license for the musical composition (words and music). It is not necessary to obtain a license from the owner of the sound recording (usually a record label).”

“‘A campaign must obtain permission from the owner of the musical composition (usually a music publisher [such as ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC]). This is known as a ‘synch license.’”

“'[I]f a campaign wants to use a specific recording of the song (e.g., Survivor’s recording of ‘Eye of the Tiger’), then the campaign must obtain permission from the owner of the sound recording (usually the record label). This is known as a ‘master license.’”

“ASCAP has its own primer, stating:

“'[I]f the campaign wants to use a song as its theme, they should contact the management for the artists and/or songwriters of the song in question and obtain their permission.”

“So you need permission. And fair use, an oft-claimed but little-understood doctrine, won’t give you relief either. As this Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review article points out, using a song without permission for a political campaign typically won’t qualify for fair use protection because:

  1. The use of the music is rarely transformative – despite the fact that political campaigns are not commercial, the song’s meaning is rarely altered, commented upon, or otherwise changed enough to differentiate itself from the initial use;
  2. The use of the music, often to bolster a candidate’s standing in the eyes of supporters and/or to bash other candidates, does not serve the public interest and is therefore not worthy of free usage; and
  3. If the music is used repeatedly, it could create a financial harm to the artist who would have otherwise been paid if the music had been properly licensed.

“But let’s not kid ourselves; this is not a copyright issue. Copyright is merely the mechanism by which a musician can get the candidate to stop and/or pay damages. This is about politics. There’s a reason you rarely see musicians going after Democrats, after all… they don’t endorse conservative candidates and they don’t want their fans thinking they do either. And when we talk about an endorsement, we’re really talking about the artist protecting his or her brand. And that falls into the realm of a trademark.

“Artists, especially established ones, rightly view their reputation as a business asset. If people like the brand, they buy the product. If the brand offends them, they don’t buy the product. A good brand gives you not only money but influence. That’s how Taylor Swift is able to force Apple to change its policy with a single blog post. So when artists perceive their brand to be under attack, they understandably lash out. Trademark law can give them the tools to do that.

“Under the Lanham Act (the law governing trademarks), trademark infringement can occur if the use of a song by a politician is likely to create confusion** in the marketplace that the musician endorses the politician, especially if this association harms the musician’s reputation (referred to as “dilution by tarnishment”). But meeting this bar isn’t so easy. To determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists, the federal courts have developed an eight-factor test (called “the Sleekcraft factors” after the landmark 1979 Ninth Circuit case, AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats). Those factors are:

  1. The strength of the mark;
  2. The proximity or relatedness of the goods;
  3. The similarity of the marks;
  4. Any evidence of actual confusion;
  5. The marketing channels used;
  6. The degree of care customers are likely to exercise in purchasing the goods;
  7. The defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; and
  8. The likelihood of expansion into other markets.

“A quick perusal of the list shows why there’s been so little litigation on this topic… there are a lot of factors and it’s hard to meet them all! And that’s because most people don’t confuse usage of a song with a political endorsement. In other words, they don’t assume REM supports Trump even when the songs play prominently during his rallies. We all know that musical taste is not determined by ones’ political leanings; people just like the music they like. That’s all there is to it. Here’s a bit of truth for you: I find Ted Nugent to be one of the most repugnant human beings alive, but I still haven’t found a better song to exercise to than “Stranglehold.”

“That’s why artists are generally content to play the copyright infringement card or are satisfied with badmouthing the candidate. They definitely have legal options, but they butt up against the harsh reality of the situation, which is that no one cares if a Republican uses a pop song during a campaign. No one is denouncing REM just because Trump used their song, and if they actually did, well they probably weren’t going to buy REM’s record anyway, were they?”

The article above clearly explains the law when it comes to this. But what really makes me wonder is if Steven Tyler would be putting up such a fuss about the use of a song that is over a quarter of a decade old if it were Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders who were using it.

The truth of the matter here is that in a way Steven Tyler’s position is understandable. Aerosmith really hasn’t had much to show for itself after the mid-90’s. And they still need to live, so it’s best they aren’t seen as partisan, but all this whining by Tyler is still bound to produce animosity with people on the right. People who tend to buy albums, especially oldies.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Details Of The Death Threats Mrs. Kavanaugh Is Getting Will Churn Your Stomach

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by The Daily Caller:

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s wife Ashley Estes Kavanaugh has received a battery of death threats in recent days, after allegations appeared in the press that the judge sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in 1982.

The vivid missives are just one iteration of the inflamed rhetoric surrounding Kavanaugh’s nomination to the high court, following Ford’s accusations. The Ford family has similarly been threatened.

“May you, your husband and your kids burn in hell,” one message to Mrs. Kavanaugh read.

Another told Mrs. Kavanaugh to put a bullet in her husband’s skull.

The Wall Street Journal obtained the emails on Thursday, which were delivered as federal law enforcement is tracking an uptick in threats against Judge Kavanaugh and his family. The messages were sent to Mrs. Kavanaugh’s work email address. The U.S. Marshals Service is pursuing the matter.

The Kavanaugh family has drawn intense media attention since Ford’s accusations were publicized Sunday in The Washington Post. Mrs. Kavanaugh delivered cupcakes to a gaggle of reporters stationed outside their home on Tuesday.

Mrs. Kavanaugh is no stranger to political conflict. She was an assistant to former President George W. Bush when he was governor of Texas and later served as his personal secretary in the White House. She is currently a town manager in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

Ford herself has also been subject to vile threats. She and her family have been forced from their home in California and remain concerned for their safety, according to her attorneys.

Continue Reading

Republicans Quietly Set All-Time Record While Democrats Collapse Overnight

Published

on

While the American Left is busy trying to pull the rug from under hard-working Americans by pushing an anti-Trump narrative that’s about as believable as the conspiracy that the earth is flat, the GOP was doing a bit of magic of its own.

It’s now being reported that the Republican National Committee has smashed all fundraising records by raising $213 million so far for the fall midterm elections. And what’s even better is the fact the 99% of the money comes from small donations.

Here is more via CNN:

“The Republican National Committee has raised more than $200 million this election cycle, according to an RNC official, the fastest the committee has reached the milestone in a midterm period.

The fundraising achievement, which was expected after the committee came within $900,000 of $200 million last month, is significant for a party that is trying to buck historical norms in 2018. The political party in power traditionally gets rejected at the ballot box two years after they take power, a fact that President Donald Trump has mentioned numerous times in public and private as Republicans prepare for November.

The RNC raised $13.9 million in the month of June — the most it has raised in that month in a non-presidential year — bringing its total fundraising haul to $213 million for the 2017-2018 cycle.

The committee has $50.7 million in the bank and no debt.

The RNC’s numbers will officially be released on Friday when the committee files with the Federal Election Commission.

The RNC haul far eclipses the more than $101 million the Democratic National Committee has raised this cycle, giving the committee upwards of five times the amount of cash-on-hand as the Democrats.

“What I see when I travel the country is that Americans continue to be enthusiastic about President Trump and the Republican agenda,” RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. “That enthusiasm has allowed for me to grow our war chest and invest it into what has become the biggest ground game in our Party’s history.”

Despite the excitement McDaniel says she has experienced traveling the country, polling has consistently shown Democrats, motivated by anti-Trump fervor, are more excited to vote in 2018 and see the election as a referendum on the President. That excitement, though, has not turned into a fundraising boon for the DNC.

The DNC raised $67 million in 2017, half of the $132.5 million the RNC raised that year. And, to date, the committee has raised $101 million this cycle, according to a DNC official, a number that pales in comparison to the RNC haul.

The fundraising woes have left the Democrats without much in the bank. According to its last FEC report, the RNC had $47 million in cash on hand, five times as much as the $9 million the Democrats have.

Party Chair Tom Perez, who was tasked with rebuilding a beleaguered DNC after Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, has tried to focus on fundraising while also investing their smaller war chest in more strategic ways than previous chairs.

“For me, the north star is not can we match them dollar for dollar,” Perez told CNN of the RNC. “It is can we raise the money we need to execute our game plane.”

The DNC under Perez, for example, has spent no money on television ads, something his predecessors did do.

McDaniel, who became RNC chair in December 2016, has led the committee’s effort to raise massive sums during the 2018 midterms.

With an eye on investing $250 million into the party’s midterm efforts, McDaniel has spent a bulk of her time traveling from state-to-state to raise money for the party.”

Western Journalism is reporting that this is, in fact, the fasted the GOP has ever surpassed the $200 million mark during a midterm election year. Which would point to the fact that people are happy with President Donald Trump and his agenda.

Chairwoman of the GOP Ronna McDaniel has said she is traveling the nation and that she sees the fact that people are happy with the Republican agenda wherever she goes. And that’s what is causing this influx of funds at such a high rate of speed. McDaniel has held over 88 fundraisers and is on the phone with donors for six hours a day.

Now what’s even better is that according to the fundraiser numbers that will be released today the Republican party broke the record for the most amount of money raised in June during a non-presidential election year: $13.9 million. And what’s perhaps even a better gauge is that the GOP also has $50.7 million in the bank and zero debt. This alone places them well ahead of the Democrat National Committee, which has raised $101 million and has $9 million on hand. That’s 5 times less than the money the RNC has to spend in the upcoming midterms. This is not a new problem for the DNC, in 2017 they were only able to raise $67 million compared to the $132.5 million raised by the RNC. Pretty pathetic if you consider the DNC owns all of Hollywood.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend