With so much drama, hype, and propaganda, the media machine drowns society. No longer seeming like the source to get information, the news simply presents what advances its corporate agenda. Stories don’t have to be meaningful or important, the intention is to excite the masses and drive ratings.
Topics are covered to exaggerate the drama which captivates the nation and world. For the media, the boring truth is often less important than the market shares that determine profits for stakeholders. And from that business perspective, regardless of how (in)significant news ultimately is, the news presented can simply be the information that has the best financial impact for a company. Data can be found to support pretty much anything.
If people base their idea of what is important from what seems to capture attention, then they actually don’t know what is important -- they only know what is trending. This has been the true story. Compared to real news, and as the weekend approaches, many passionately hooked fans are more entertained by next week’s exciting episode.
Read Ascendents.net News and stay updated on what to know.
The music industry rejoiced as different sides united. Even opposing politicians seemed to find agreement. Countless sources ran articles to help celebrate that after many rounds of hard work and addressing concerns, the Music Modernization Act finally passed Congress and is on its way to the president.
Originally introduced in April 2018 to the House of Representatives by Rep. Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA), was bill H.R.5447, which seemingly earned full representative support with 415-0 votes. The act had a harder time before eventually on September 18 passing lobbied senators, likely because as it affects many aspects of the music business, the possibility of the bill becoming law and changing the marketplace landscape got realer. As of September 25, there have been links reported by Copyright Alliance and stories from several other sources that Senator Orrin Hatch's revised Music Modernization Act successfully made its final pass through the House of Representatives and is indeed ready for presidential approval.
Leave it to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) to hold up the laws for music modernization. In August, April Baer for OPB reported, “music industry professionals are lobbying (Wyden) to stand down and allow a bill updating music rights laws to pass,” however; blindly letting another Modernization Act slide passed him isn’t on the senator's agenda. Maybe his impression is similar to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that which promised to revolutionize the U.S. broadcasting industry, actually loosened some of the restrictions for keeping reporting fair. This April, Radio Ink outlined major law changes. In the article, New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler also said regarding music modernization, "because of loopholes in the law, there has been litigation in federal and state courts with mixed results, and that has put music creators’ rights at risk and created uncertainty for digital streaming services."
Mitch Glazier, President, RIAA communicated, “the Music Modernization Act is based on two simple principles – streamline the licensing system and work towards fair-market-value based rules for creators.” The August OPB story continued, “but Wyden introduced an alternative bill this spring that suggests streamlined laws for older music and less strenuous copyright protections than the Music Modernization Act," (S.2293, the ACCESS to Recordings Act). Tracy Maddux, CEO of CD Baby said in an Oregonian/Oregon Live article, "we urge Sen. Wyden to reconsider his support of the ACCESS Act and to join dozens of Senators in supporting the Music Modernization Act (H.R. 5447)." Upon looking for further clues, trying to contact his office, and being led to the “Issues” section of his website, there didn't seem to be a section for music, but the section under the "Technology: Copyright" heading said, “he has introduced legislation to reform the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to ensure that security researchers, journalists and owners of everyday devices have the ability to undertake legitimate activities.” According to an August Billboard report, he and the Senate might have reached an agreement.
LATELY -- compared to web radio app station playlists, on-demand ad-supported streaming with custom playlists seem to be preferred, since services such as YouTube and Spotify have grown more. Among the on-demand streaming player giants, July and March Billboard reports by Cherie Hu and Ed Christman suggest Apple Music and Spotify significantly pulled ahead with their advertising/subscription-based service model. Oftentimes, subscribing allows for unlocking enhanced features of music applications and stopping advertising from interrupting the music experience.
This isn't official advice from a lawyer, but after reading articles/reports about varying court decisions, it doesn't take a lawyer to see that loosely-enforced copyright laws regarding "fair use" are clear as mud. Supposedly, it is legal to photograph and film people without their permission, but only as long as they aren't the sole focus of the content. Ultimately, legality becomes an issue when the intentions and effects/results of content use cause damages or losses to the rightsholder(s). Someone else's copyright image(s) or exhibits are not the main part of this article. The factual captions below the images attempt to demonstrate various ways to (without needing permission) fairly use copyright images and other content for your articles.
In report writing, it is generally understood that each sentence, paragraph, and/or claim should be looked at individually and written credibly as a fact. For example, explicit permission is not required to fairly and simply state the fact that author Jane Friedman, and creator of article, A Writer’s Guide to Permissions and Fair Use, said, “you have to consider, for each use, whether or not it’s necessary to seek explicit, legal permission from the work’s creator or owner,” however; the writer’s guide and author, were still referenced/stated in "good faith" and credited. An italicized note said, “Remember that crediting the source does not remove the obligation to seek permission.” When something might not fall into the fair-use category, then experts agree to seek permission(s).
Is the content being stated as a fact? Titles, names, companies, and places are facts. When presented, interpreted, and credited, things other people said and their images also become stated facts for others to include and further analyze. Scribbling your name on someone else's work (claiming it’s yours) is lying, illegal, and unfair. Legal fair use is to identify/reference someone else and their work (attribution) and then (with your name) add more/do extra work to interpret it (commentary/criticism and/or parody of copyright material for a limited and transformative purpose).
Try to find examples of how others widely use the same content or same type of content. Businesses have different stances, however; since it can be difficult and expensive to follow up every case, as long as an instance doesn't become the company's biggest problem, there probably won’t be a lawsuit filed, however; by fairly crediting sources, and being a team player, it is easier to earn industry respect. The Associated Press said, "You are solely responsible for determining whether or not "fair use" or similar doctrines apply in various jurisdictions and/or whether any permissions, licenses, clearances and/or releases are required in connection with any proposed use of the Content. If You are unsure, You are responsible for contacting competent legal counsel." Do not source from uncredited photos/media or steal paid stock photo content. Some free stock photos that usually do not require attribution are available on sites such as Pexels and MorgueFile. Also visit the Creative Commons search page for seemingly limitless amounts of more free content, often with no attribution requirements from CC image sites like Pixabay, the Open Clip Art Library, and Flickr.