Secret Chief
Degrow!
Maybe RATM or Sleaford Mods?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump looses another legal battle
- Thread starter ChristineM
- Start date
Except that he steals rather than pay what is in reality pittance for copyright royalties.
Trump's position was that he was making use under the fair use doctrine. Stealing requires intent. There is no evidence Trump intended on stealing anything. You are making a baseless slander against Trump.
You care enough to attempt to play down an international crime because your hero is the criminal.
Consider why every movie, cd, blue ray disk carries a FACT warning about copyright theft. Not because it's a nothing burger but because it's theft.
If he had simply played the music for himself no problem, but no, he used it for commercial gain during his campaign which is illegal.
All this shows is the depths Trump worshippers will stoop to to try to play down their hero's criminal activity.
If nobody cared do you really think he'd have been found guilty?
No, he was using the music for commercial gain without paying royalty. The judge decided the motive was theft and found him guilty.
He has a boatload of lawyers to advise him of the law, no stander involved.
I wonder why he would use these artists' songs anyway. I recall a recent case in which ABBA sent a cease-and-desist order to get Trump to stop using their songs at his rallies.
I guess playing anything by Taylor Swift is also out of the question.
Would the holders of the copyright on Napoleon XIV's "They're Coming to Take Me Away Ha-Haaa!" agree to allow Trump to play that song at his rallies? If they do, that might be appropriate music to play.
Im not sure when copyright runs out on that, it may be copyright free, anyway im sure Napoleon XIV would agree to its use
Sadly, Napoleon XIV passed away last year. (His real name was Jerrold Laurence Samuels.) Perhaps his heirs or estate still hold the copyright on the song.
Limited use of copyrighted material is covered in the U.S. by the Fair Use doctrine.
"Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use."
U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index
The OP's cited article failed to mention that Trump's defense was based on the Fair Use doctrine. Which other sources mention. Eddy Grant filed the suit in Manhattan. Basically it was forum shopped to a biased anti-Trump venue. The judge in this case adjudicated the case incorrectly, ignoring the Fair Use doctrine case law and precedents. No damage amount has been decided. The case is subject to appeal and has a good likelihood of being overturned. Also, since this involved Trump's election bid, it would not be paid for by Trump personally but by campaign funds should the appeals succeed. Which won't even happen and Eddy Grant is never going to see a dime. For a variety of reasons this case is not a major legal loss at all for Trump.
Also, the correct the spelling is loses, not "looses" as in the thread title.
"Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use."
U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index
The OP's cited article failed to mention that Trump's defense was based on the Fair Use doctrine. Which other sources mention. Eddy Grant filed the suit in Manhattan. Basically it was forum shopped to a biased anti-Trump venue. The judge in this case adjudicated the case incorrectly, ignoring the Fair Use doctrine case law and precedents. No damage amount has been decided. The case is subject to appeal and has a good likelihood of being overturned. Also, since this involved Trump's election bid, it would not be paid for by Trump personally but by campaign funds should the appeals succeed. Which won't even happen and Eddy Grant is never going to see a dime. For a variety of reasons this case is not a major legal loss at all for Trump.
Also, the correct the spelling is loses, not "looses" as in the thread title.
Clairvoyance is a wonderful tool.
As it stands Trump is guilty of copyright theft.
As stated several times in this thread commercial use is not covered by fair use.
And im pretty sure the judge knows the law
I suggest you re-read the article, the judge rejected the fair use claim
Your spelling may be hot but your reading skilla seem to be lacking.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Intent is not a part of the law. Licensing and copyright laws are very strict and they give no consideration to intent. This is why Happy Birthday was not used in commercials, TV or restaurants, because there was a copyright on it and it was not legally available for unlicensed use.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
It is not "a baseless slander" to present the official court rulings of a case in which Trump lost.
Tomef
Well-Known Member
So shiny!What do you mean?
In a more serious note, his condo looks like a casino
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The gaudiness didn't blind you?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Compared to 34 other legal losses, yes.
It is more a PR disaster that he seemingly can't find an artist who is willing to let him play their music on the campaign trail.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
For the record
Yes, Kid Rock has been supportive of Donald Trump and has permitted the use of his music during Trump's rallies. Unlike many artists who have objected to their music being used in political campaigns, Kid Rock has openly backed Trump, and their relationship has been friendly over the years. There haven't been any legal or public objections from Kid Rock regarding the use of his songs by Trump during the campaign trail [oai_citation:1,Musicians who oppose Donald Trump's use of their music - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musicians_who_oppose_Donald_Trump%27s_use_of_their_music) [oai_citation:2,Trump and Harris' use of music in presidential campaigns - The Cincinnati Herald](https://thecincinnatiherald.com/2024/09/14/music-in-presidential-contests/).
(ChatGPT)
lol