Universal Music Publishing

On June 30^th, 2014, the Complete Music Update (CMU) posted an article about Universal Music Publishing pledging to make its entire songs catalogue accessible via its website, including the facility to export a list of every work owned or coordinated by the major music publisher.

The absence of a dominant database that tells licensees which organizations control or speak to the copyrights in musical structures and recordings, on even a national not to mention ecumenical substructure, has turned out to be a greater amount of an issue as of late which drove as a consequence of both the amplification of a grassroots sync market, and the raise of the computerized music area, where publishers permit advanced stages specifically, instead of authorizing the names which discharge recordings of their musical pieces.

In spite of the fact that copyright ownership information is an issue for both the record business and the music publishing area, most see the issue as being greater in the last space, with distributer data for the most part harder to get to online than name information, in addition to obviously there is significantly more co-responsibility for in the publishing world.

Obviously, Global Repertoire Database (GRD) project was designated to be addressing that issue, however some publishers and digital accommodation providers have commenced to become frustrated with the slow progress in that domain. Meanwhile, pressure perpetuates to elevate in the political community (and elsewhere) for music licensing to be simplified, and copyright ownership information is a key part of that procedure.

In the United States, the issue has emerged again as a component of the civil argument about whether the publishers ought to be permitted to pull back from the aggregate authorizing framework in the advanced space, so they can cut direct deals with any appearance of Pandora as opposed to giving licenses by means of their social orders BMI and ASCAP.

Pandora has whined that if any likeness of Universal pull back from the BMI/ASCAP authorizing course of action it makes issues, since it's hard for the computerized administration to work out what songs are spoken to by the major (the circulation of distributed sovereignties to the right distributer/songwriter having dependably been the gathering social orders' issue to date

That puts much more weight on the organization to do a rapid direct contract with the publisher, with the goal that it doesn't get itself incidentally gushing songs no more secured by its BMI/ASCAP licenses. Also Pandora would likely contend, is another reason the music publishers ought to be obliged to keep permitting online radio administrations through their gathering social orders. All-inclusive information offers, subsequently, is likely intended to counteract one of Pandora's contentions in this question.

Industry Liabilities Blog

On June 19, 2015, Daily News postedan article about Justin Bieber and his mentor Usher facing 10 million dollars utilized lawsuit over “Somebody to Love”. Usher who was Bieber’s producer at the time gave him the song in 2010 and appeared on a remix of the record. Copeland and Overton claimed they wrote the song, which appeared on Copeland’s 2008 album, My story II. In the original lawsuit, the case was initially dismissed in 2014, with a ruling that the two sounded different but the court recently found the opposite true after listening to both songs as wholes. In my opinion, if the original case was dismissed, just leave it as it is. Why go back one year later and re-open the case again. It shows that in this industry, nothing is final. You have to be really careful when making music because it can come bite you years later especially when it involves two superstars and was a huge hit.

On February 20, 2015, there was an article posted by PRWeb about Stephen Silverman, in which it was revealed that he filed a lawsuit against Bold Films accusing them of copyright infringement for one of their Oscar-nominated movies. The lawsuit filed by Mister Silverman was made in support of Richard Dutcher, which was a Utah Filmmaker. Attorney Stephen Silverman filed a lawsuit on behalf of Utah filmmaker Richard Dutcher. The lawsuit was seeking an injunction since Mister Dutcher firmly believed that the film (Nightcrawler) was in violation of his copyright. Therefore, the injunction would prohibit all display, distribution or copying of that film. In my opinion, the entertainment business has so many rules that must be followed. There will always be an attorney waiting for a lawsuit. Studios, producers, directors, writers all must really know the rules and follow them closely. The court was right for granted Mister Dutcher of his rights.

            On February 20, 2014, ABC News posted an article about Wolf of Wall Street hit with $25M Lawsuit. The character of Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff in The Wolf of Wall Street was based on Andrew Greene, has entered a $25 million disparagement lawsuit against Paramount Pictures, Red Granite Pictures, producers and directors of the Oscar-nominated film. Greene was head of corporate finance and a board member for the firm depicted in the film and was referenced in Belfort’s memoir, which served as the basis for the movie by his real name. But, he never gave the studio consent to depict him in the film. A representative for Paramount Pictures declined comment and a representative for Red Granite Picture did not respond to ABC News’s request. The Wolf of Wall Street has received five Oscar nominations. In my opinion, you can’t just use someone’s name like that without his consent. Again, there are rules and although it was such a successful movie, they got hit with a big lawsuit for no reason. If only they had asked him or agree upon giving him an amount before the fact, all this could have been avoided. One thing I learned so far in this class, you must follow the rules. You can’t do whatever you want in this industry. Research or consult an entertainment attorney.

Professional Blog- Dwyane Wade re-signing with the Miami Heat

On July 2^nd, 2015, Sports Illustrated posted an article about a heat lifer agreeing to a one-year contract with the team that drafted him, the team that he played for 11 seasons without ever thinking about leaving, his city, his home and his house. Dwyane Wade is an American professional basketball player who has been playing for the Miami Heat of the National Basketball Association since 2003. 

He has established himself as one of the most well-known and popular players in the league.

In 2010, Wade agreed to take a pay cut so that he could play with two superstars, Lebron James and Chris Bosh. For the term of the contract which was for 6 years, Wade signed a deal for $107.5 million, leaving $15 million on the table, but could opt-out after 4 years. In 2014, Lebron James decided to return to his hometown leaving Wade and Bosh to play for the Heat. The contract, which

would have kept D Wade in Miami for his 12^th season, took the place of a $16.1 million player option Wade turned down earlier this summer.

After the season ended during the summer, Wade decided to opt out of his contract leaving his fans worried that the heat lifer would go play for another team. His hometown, the Chicago Bulls, was very interested in gaining the basketball player. All his fans were panicking and wondering if he would be leaving the Heat. The Miami Heat and D Wade couldn’t come to an agreement due to Heat not willing the pay the superstar the money that he thinks he’s worth.

After long weeks of waiting, Dwyane Wade had agreed to a one-year deal of $20 million contract to re-sign with the Heat. That raise returned to Wade some of the money he sacrificed by opting out of $41 million over two years last summer. “It is no secret that my goal was to sign a long–term deal this summer”, Wade told the Ap. “That’s what I was focused on. Once I realized that probably wasn’t the best thing for me right now, where everything is financially with the NBA and a lot of things coming up that we don’t know yet, one year deal isn’t a bad thing.”

We, his fans were ecstatic that they were able to reach an agreement together. He is beyond loved in Miami as he calls it: My city, My home, My house. Wade-county.

A Better Way To Talk About Abortion

I never heard about TED.com speeches and I cant believe it. The stories are very inspiring and motivating that I couldn’t just watch one. I watched at least ten for the past two hours. You learned so much and have a different aspect on things. I have chose to talk about abortion. I have always supported aborting because I believe people do make mistake and not everybody is very to take such a big responsibility. Aspen Baker from Ted.com is a great speaker. She opened up about her life and how she wasn’t ready to have a baby few months after she graduated college. She was worried and afraid that she would never be able to get pregnant again. But she realized that one in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime and she wouldn’t be the first or last one to have one. When she decided to open up about her pregnancy to a close friend, the friend told her that she had one before and that she would be okay. Aspen stated that she had just started a new relationship and she just wasn’t ready. She also talked about pro-voice, how it is good to talk to close friends and family when you are lost and confused. You also need to be a good listener by asking questions and also share your stories. If you had been through an abortion, it is good to talk about it and express yourself. “Pro-voice focuses that conversation on human experience and it makes support and respect possible for all”.

The reason why I have always been for abortion is because not only people do make mistake specially when you are young but also for financial reasons. Babies are expensive and take a lot of your time. Most of the people to have an abortion are high school or college students. Students always enjoy the party life. Therefore, they don’t know how to take care of a child or how to be responsible. They barely know what they want to major in. It is hard to raise a child specially doing it on your own. That’s why aborting is not always a bad thing for the less fortunate people.

One thing I am starting to accept that I was always against is giving away your child for adoption. I always asked why would a mother carry a baby for nine months to just give it away to strangers that you are not sure will take care of that kid. I always wondered why not just abort after finding out the first couple of weeks. As I grew up, I understood that they are couple that can’t have kids no matter how hard they try and are fortunate to take care of that baby or the mother might want her child to have a better life by giving it away to other family members but I can imagine how hard it could be after carrying your child for nine months. I have always been for abortion and it is not always a bad thing to do.

Fatal death of an icon leads to a successful movie

Fast and Furious has always been a popular series. However, due to Paul Walker’s death, Furious 7 was one of the most viewed and the most successful movie. Another name that the crew gave this movie was a family film. The family being their fans who have stuck with the series since the beginning in 2001. Walker was a huge movie star and was loved by many. Everyone that ever encountered him, he had a way of just talking to people and making everyone feel like they were the most important person in the world. He loved cars and had so many different passions. He was multi-faceted, an adventurer, spontaneous, and obsessive-compulsive.

On November 30, 2013, Walker and his financial advisor Rodas had a horrible car accident causing their death. The car crashed into a concrete lamppost and two trees. Rodas was driving and Walker was a passenger. Their bodies were burned beyond recognition. Walker died while filming Furious 7. Upon his death, the cast decided to temporary cease all production to honor him. With only half of Walker’s scenes finished at the time of his tragic death, it took an act of will to decide the fate of Furious 7. Walker’s brothers stepped up to fill in for scenes that digital grafting couldn’t cover. It had to look seamless. The movie was fueled by dedication and passionate heart. It brought the best in everyone finishing the film in Paul’s honor.

The filmmakers had to figure out an ingenious and graceful way to give Paul a happy ending of sorts. Bringing out his brothers and finding a way to conclude the movie was very impressive. With the new and advanced technology, filmmakers have different ways to make or finish a movie without the presence of the actors. Among other movies, Furious 7 is one example.