Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
I'm too sexy wasn't a one hit wonder, it wasn't even Right Said Fred's biggest hit, that was Deeply Dippy which got to No 1 in 1992.
Dexys had another number 1 after Eileen as well with Gino.
Who remembers 'Your Woman' from White Town which got to the top in 97?
I’m not sure she thinks she’s up to the job, but she would certainly be good at the campaign.
Another article that shows the dangers of betting too heavily on something where anyone can be a candidate, and the result is the personal choice of one man.
Indeed. The rational thing for me and many others would be to cash out now but in these corona-ridden times there is nothing on telly so at least the VP selection gives me something to look at. The wait for Biden to piss or get off the pot is frustrating though.
If you enjoyed Between the Lines, I’d recommend the Korean drama ‘Stranger’ on Netflix.
As a shareholder in popcorn manufacturers it's a gift that keeps on giving..
My signature on another forum reads - "only at clientco for the entertainment", for Brexit that is equally true but I write software so it really doesn't impact me...
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
Yes but there is a logical reason to want medical patents to lapse, it allows a good few years making a decent buck but then allows generics to cheaply provide lifesaving medicine.
Whereas does nobodies life depends upon listening to James singing Sit Down out of copyright.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
For everthing else it is life + 70 years which is even worse. Write a book at age 20 live till you are 100 and it takes 150 years to get into the public domain which defeats the whole point of copyright which was a deal between creators and the people whereby they got a monopoly for originally I believe 14 years as an incentive to create before the work became public domain.
The one that *really* goes up my nose is the 4% artists' tax on resales of any artwork that has already been sold once. Is it called the Artists' Resale Right?
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
You're smarter than that. Things taken out of context can very easily be both accurate and misleading.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha definitely had more than 1 hit - they even had a Bond Theme tune (albeit for The Living Daylights)
That's a great list with some memorably dire efforts. I particularly loathed Sugar Sugar, the product of bored session men hanging around in a recording studio waiting for someone to show up.
When Kenny Everett was in his pomp as a successful DJ he once conducted a poll of Worst Ever Singles. Here's the worthy winner. Nervous Norvous - Transfusion.
What amused me most about the poll was that whilst he didn't actually claim top spot, Jess Conrad had about six entries in the top twenty, so in terms of consistency he had a fair claim to be worst crooner of the era.
I’m not sure she thinks she’s up to the job, but she would certainly be good at the campaign.
Another article that shows the dangers of betting too heavily on something where anyone can be a candidate, and the result is the personal choice of one man.
Indeed. The rational thing for me and many others would be to cash out now but in these corona-ridden times there is nothing on telly so at least the VP selection gives me something to look at. The wait for Biden to piss or get off the pot is frustrating though.
If Biden picked a VP before August he runs the risk of creating another election that the Democrats could lose. Waiting to August means that a replacement Congressman can be nominated by that State without a November election being required.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
You'll never get a job in media or PR with an attitude like that.
You start with the facts. Then see how you present them, so that they *appear* to support your narrative.
A real expert not only does not lie, but twists things *just* in the right way. So that even in an interview or law case you can defend what has been down.
I hate these adverts. Not because they are Brexit related but any like this that Govts often puts out. It is pissing money up the wall that they can only do because they have taxpayers money they can waste. No commercial organisation would create such adverts; there is no obvious possible financial return and there is no educational or public safety reason to justify it. How does it help any business to take advantage of Brexit?
No commercial organisation would create such adverts; there is no obvious possible financial return and there is no educational or public safety reason to justify it. How does it help any business to take advantage of Brexit?
CYA
When the shit hits the fan, the Brexiteers can say "we told you"
Its funny, in my thirty years of cancelled, late and overcrowded carriages, frozen points, leaves on the line and persons under trains, I sometimes mused what the railways would be like if they were not effectively a transport monopoly in the south east.
would the service improve? would they start treating commuters like human being s and not cattle?
I guess we are about to find out.
Meanwhile about 100 companies are pouring billions into the race for electronic air taxis.
The commute is never coming back. Not like it was.
Its a long time since I had to commute into London, and after an initial month of tube/train I abandoned it for the bus. I hear your comments about cattle and its true. But whats the alternative? Many routes running 12 car trains on a very regular frequency. Can't run more trains. Can't run longer trains. What they can do is have less punters - ok so hardly any punters like now means they all need more subsidy, but at least people now have space...
Yes - the environmental dream of everyone on the train *depends* on the train being packed. And the train being the only zero emission technology.
Electric cars are now inevitable - we are looking at prices being *lower* than ICE within the decade. And ranges of 600 miles+ at those prices.
When you factor in the complete inability to take less than a decade and less than a sagan billions to build train lines....
EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.
As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.
Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
I dont know how this works but surely if music is supplied under licence ,as long as a user pays for it, the content owner has given up the right to say who can play it. Cannot have it both ways
Just because music is available under a licence that doesn't stop the copyright owner controlling who can licence it.
So should other business owners be allowed to deny service selectively to people they disagree with politically?
Yes, surely it is up to them to decide how to maximise their revenue and any association with politics could impact that revenue.
So would people OK with a band/artists using cease and desist orders of this type to prevent their music being played at gay weddings?
Legal bod question - would this be under the existing legislation on discrimination in the UK?
@Sandpit I find it interesting that I often like your posts, you often like my posts and often we both mutually like posts others make yet I think we come from different places politically
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
Including Don't Knows, Yes is still not over 50% and of course we now know the Indy vote will be split at a Scottish election next year for the first time since 2014
I hate these adverts. Not because they are Brexit related but any like this that Govts often puts out. It is pissing money up the wall that they can only do because they have taxpayers money they can waste. No commercial organisation would create such adverts; there is no obvious possible financial return and there is no educational or public safety reason to justify it. How does it help any business to take advantage of Brexit?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
Clive Dunn. Grandad.
Lightning in a bottle.
I rate Almond,
OTOH Shaddap Your face - Joe Dolce......
Tainted Love is one of the great no 1s full stop. A lot of it resides in Gloria Jones' original single being great as well though.
@Sandpit I find it interesting that I often like your posts, you often like my posts and often we both mutually like posts others make yet I think we come from different places politically
It means we’re being polite rather than overtly political, that people have more that unites them than divides them, or we’re on a subject way offtopic which interests us both away from politics.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
I dont know how this works but surely if music is supplied under licence ,as long as a user pays for it, the content owner has given up the right to say who can play it. Cannot have it both ways
Just because music is available under a licence that doesn't stop the copyright owner controlling who can licence it.
So should other business owners be allowed to deny service selectively to people they disagree with politically?
Yes, surely it is up to them to decide how to maximise their revenue and any association with politics could impact that revenue.
So would people OK with a band/artists using cease and desist orders of this type to prevent their music being played at gay weddings?
Legal bod question - would this be under the existing legislation on discrimination in the UK?
Since when did the UK come into this occasion. The story started out as a cease and desist request from a US based band to a US company for unlicensed use of their copyright on a streaming video.
It has nothing to do with live use, Cease and Desist is there as a means of informing companies about copyright disputes and allows said companies a means of protecting themselves by removing such videos quickly.
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
Including Don't Knows, Yes is still not over 50% and of course we now know the Indy vote will be split at a Scottish election next year for the first time since 2014
I hate these adverts. Not because they are Brexit related but any like this that Govts often puts out. It is pissing money up the wall that they can only do because they have taxpayers money they can waste. No commercial organisation would create such adverts; there is no obvious possible financial return and there is no educational or public safety reason to justify it. How does it help any business to take advantage of Brexit?
Don't think it's an advert. It's an FT Leader.
It is referring (I think) to the adverts running endlessly current aimed at business with the stupid bloody arrows. As if any business worth its salt isn't thinking about what it should be doing to take advantage or mitigate Brexit. Not that the advert imparts any useful information.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
For everthing else it is life + 70 years which is even worse. Write a book at age 20 live till you are 100 and it takes 150 years to get into the public domain which defeats the whole point of copyright which was a deal between creators and the people whereby they got a monopoly for originally I believe 14 years as an incentive to create before the work became public domain.
The one that *really* goes up my nose is the 4% artists' tax on resales of any artwork that has already been sold once. Is it called the Artists' Resale Right?
A complete scam.
Blame the french for that...
As it happens on the French wrt weekend's woke conversations - I came across something this morning that actually includes a French individual as a real frog .
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
Including Don't Knows, Yes is still not over 50% and of course we now know the Indy vote will be split at a Scottish election next year for the first time since 2014
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
Including Don't Knows, Yes is still not over 50% and of course we now know the Indy vote will be split at a Scottish election next year for the first time since 2014
A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.
Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha definitely had more than 1 hit - they even had a Bond Theme tune (albeit for The Living Daylights)
Definitely.
The Sun Always Shines on TV was another hit.
They were massive for a short while. Which is more than most can say. There comes a point in life when you realize you will never be massive - there will be no Desert Island Discs, no Parky - and I reached that point last Thursday. It wasn't a gradual thing it was sudden. Can't say it was pleasant but no big deal either.
@Sandpit I find it interesting that I often like your posts, you often like my posts and often we both mutually like posts others make yet I think we come from different places politically
It means we’re being polite rather than overtly political, that people have more that unites them than divides them, or we’re on a subject way offtopic which interests us both away from politics.
I suspect it is also that I am from the Orange Book wing, pro business, anti big govt, unnecessary red tape and political correctness so we overlap there, assuming I haven't read you wrong. That doesn't mean I don't believe in protection for individuals, I do, but get annoyed by unnecessary interference in business.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
You're smarter than that. Things taken out of context can very easily be both accurate and misleading.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha had no fewer than 18 top 40 hits (and "Take on Me" wasn't even the biggest - it peaked at number two, whereas "The Sun Always Shines on TV" was number one), Soft Cell had twelve, Dexys Midnight Runners had nine, Right Said Fred had seven, Vanilla Ice had four, Baha Men ("Who Let the Dogs Out?") had three,
Only Los del Rio and Toni Basil truly count in your list.
Sure, bands that are a few decades old and weren't megastars are now normally remembered (if at all) for their biggest hit. But that doesn't make them one hit wonders if, at the time, they had a few.
If it makes millions of people here feel better in themselves - more empowered - then this is arguably a real benefit regardless of it being objectively a project without tangible upside.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
For everthing else it is life + 70 years which is even worse. Write a book at age 20 live till you are 100 and it takes 150 years to get into the public domain which defeats the whole point of copyright which was a deal between creators and the people whereby they got a monopoly for originally I believe 14 years as an incentive to create before the work became public domain.
The one that *really* goes up my nose is the 4% artists' tax on resales of any artwork that has already been sold once. Is it called the Artists' Resale Right?
A complete scam.
Blame the french for that...
As it happens on the French wrt weekend's woke conversations - I came across something this morning that actually includes a French individual as a real frog .
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
If it makes millions of people here feel better in themselves - more empowered - then this is arguably a real benefit regardless of it being objectively a project without tangible upside.
Its funny, in my thirty years of cancelled, late and overcrowded carriages, frozen points, leaves on the line and persons under trains, I sometimes mused what the railways would be like if they were not effectively a transport monopoly in the south east.
would the service improve? would they start treating commuters like human being s and not cattle?
I guess we are about to find out.
Meanwhile about 100 companies are pouring billions into the race for electronic air taxis.
The commute is never coming back. Not like it was.
Its a long time since I had to commute into London, and after an initial month of tube/train I abandoned it for the bus. I hear your comments about cattle and its true. But whats the alternative? Many routes running 12 car trains on a very regular frequency. Can't run more trains. Can't run longer trains. What they can do is have less punters - ok so hardly any punters like now means they all need more subsidy, but at least people now have space...
Yes - the environmental dream of everyone on the train *depends* on the train being packed. And the train being the only zero emission technology.
Electric cars are now inevitable - we are looking at prices being *lower* than ICE within the decade. And ranges of 600 miles+ at those prices.
When you factor in the complete inability to take less than a decade and less than a sagan billions to build train lines....
Hopefully. Our 3 years with a Nissan Leaf was an interesting learning experience (an OK at best car from a space / ergonomics perspective but electric motor beats any gearbox) which makes me absolutely committed to getting another EV. Just not quite yet.
Volvo's Polestar 2 looks stunning. Not as stunning as my S90 but not far off. Problem for any high-capacity battery cars that aren't Tesla is the utter lack of fast (150kW) chargers. And of the few that exist a decent % are run by Ionity who want an absurd 69p for a kWh of leccy. So the next generation of battery chemistry thats supposedly round the corner will be the tipping point to make it doable for us who do distances on the motorway.
As an aside we dumped the Leaf back to Nissan in hefty negative equity having become utterly fed up both of Nissan and their dealers. Had we ponied up the cash to buy out the PCP we'd have the perfect local runabout car and a residual value that rebounded hard after the market got flooded with early adopters like me handing them back.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha had no fewer than 18 top 40 hits (and "Take on Me" wasn't even the biggest - it peaked at number two, whereas "The Sun Always Shines on TV" was number one), Soft Cell had twelve, Dexys Midnight Runners had nine, Right Said Fred had seven, Vanilla Ice had four, Baha Men ("Who Let the Dogs Out?") had three,
Only Los del Rio and Toni Basil truly count in your list.
Sure, bands that are a few decades old and weren't megastars are now normally remembered (if at all) for their biggest hit. But that doesn't make them one hit wonders if, at the time, they had a few.
Dexys were one of the biggest bands of the early-80s. ‘Gino’ was also a no.1 hit - and actually an altogether better song than ‘... Eileen’.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.
As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.
Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).
Orwell is a bit like Adam Smith - something in there for all political persuasions (even the totalitarians get a how-to manual).
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
For everthing else it is life + 70 years which is even worse. Write a book at age 20 live till you are 100 and it takes 150 years to get into the public domain which defeats the whole point of copyright which was a deal between creators and the people whereby they got a monopoly for originally I believe 14 years as an incentive to create before the work became public domain.
The one that *really* goes up my nose is the 4% artists' tax on resales of any artwork that has already been sold once. Is it called the Artists' Resale Right?
A complete scam.
Blame the french for that...
As it happens on the French wrt weekend's woke conversations - I came across something this morning that actually includes a French individual as a real frog .
A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.
Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.
Only if for the £7bn we get the same access that previously cost £10bn. If we get less access it's possible that it may not be worth the £7bn we now have no choice but to pay..
A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.
Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.
I'd imagine the economic benefit of EU single market membership would be more than £3 Bn a year.
If it makes millions of people here feel better in themselves - more empowered - then this is arguably a real benefit regardless of it being objectively a project without tangible upside.
EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.
As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.
Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).
Orwell is a bit like Adam Smith - something in there for all political persuasions (even the totalitarians get a how-to manual).
Just so. A PB poster citing him in support of liberalising private gun ownership was one of my recent favourites.
A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.
Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.
I'd imagine the economic benefit of EU single market membership would be more than £3 Bn a year.
I don't. Any evidence to support that proposition?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And, of course, for the biologicals, copying a product isn't anywhere near as simple as copying a chemical. And often means running clinical trials to prove equivalence.
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
Including Don't Knows, Yes is still not over 50% and of course we now know the Indy vote will be split at a Scottish election next year for the first time since 2014
EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.
As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.
Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).
Orwell is a bit like Adam Smith - something in there for all political persuasions (even the totalitarians get a how-to manual).
Just so. A PB poster citing him in support of liberalising private gun ownership was one of my recent favourites.
He's just brilliantly quotable. A sound bite writer before such things even existed.
If it makes millions of people here feel better in themselves - more empowered - then this is arguably a real benefit regardless of it being objectively a project without tangible upside.
But if it makes even more people feel like shite that negates your point
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
You're smarter than that. Things taken out of context can very easily be both accurate and misleading.
So what is the misleading part of the JL story?
Having cash in the bank doesn't mean that you have cash that you don't need. Solvent businesses need cash in the bank in order to pay suppliers, pay staff, pay the taxman etc - simply saying £900mn is in the bank is misleading by saying "oh look a huge amount in the bank" without having any further context.
There is a difference between recording copyright and written copyright.
So an author, which would include the sheet music of a composer, gets life plus 70 years. This can be owned by a publisher.
Richard Strauss, who died in 1949, has just come out of copyright, and a number of different publishers are now able to print his scores. This can result in cheaper alternatives.
Recording copyright lasts for 70 years from release of the recording. This is a performers right. This was recently increased in length from 50 years to help poor singers, such as Cliff Richard, whose early recordings were coming out of copyright.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
For everthing else it is life + 70 years which is even worse. Write a book at age 20 live till you are 100 and it takes 150 years to get into the public domain which defeats the whole point of copyright which was a deal between creators and the people whereby they got a monopoly for originally I believe 14 years as an incentive to create before the work became public domain.
The one that *really* goes up my nose is the 4% artists' tax on resales of any artwork that has already been sold once. Is it called the Artists' Resale Right?
A complete scam.
Blame the french for that...
As it happens on the French wrt weekend's woke conversations - I came across something this morning that actually includes a French individual as a real frog .
Presciently, Characters from the show appeared alongside various other puppet characters in an episode of The Goodies, in which the puppets take over the running of the United Kingdom as a puppet government.....
Hector could be almost any one of the current cabinet.
A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.
Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.
Understood. I assume therefore the UK government will shoulder the burden and fully fund the alleged £7bn in cost which will be applied to business? Will guarantee no delays of any description?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha had no fewer than 18 top 40 hits (and "Take on Me" wasn't even the biggest - it peaked at number two, whereas "The Sun Always Shines on TV" was number one), Soft Cell had twelve, Dexys Midnight Runners had nine, Right Said Fred had seven, Vanilla Ice had four, Baha Men ("Who Let the Dogs Out?") had three,
Only Los del Rio and Toni Basil truly count in your list.
Sure, bands that are a few decades old and weren't megastars are now normally remembered (if at all) for their biggest hit. But that doesn't make them one hit wonders if, at the time, they had a few.
Yes very often 1 hit wonders are strictly speaking not. Turns out they had at least 1 other.
Even the quintessential 1 hit wonder Peter Sarstedt and his lovely "Lovely" had another minor hit with Buy Me 1 More Frozen Orange Juice (on this fantastic day).
It takes something special to have just 1 monster hit and apart from that nada.
Which is why I keep coming back to Dunn and Grandad.
A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.
Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.
I'd imagine the economic benefit of EU single market membership would be more than £3 Bn a year.
I don't. Any evidence to support that proposition?
All the various counterfactual studies with differing types of brexit ? Don't get me wrong, I think it simply must happen (In fact it already has) but that's a political imperitive due to the vote not any economic argument.
A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.
Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.
I'd imagine the economic benefit of EU single market membership would be more than £3 Bn a year.
I don't. Any evidence to support that proposition?
May I refer you to the link about Amazon I posted earlier today. The paperwork exports are going to require could cost £3bn by itself...
Volvo's Polestar 2 looks stunning. Not as stunning as my S90 but not far off. Problem for any high-capacity battery cars that aren't Tesla is the utter lack of fast (150kW) chargers. And of the few that exist a decent % are run by Ionity who want an absurd 69p for a kWh of leccy. So the next generation of battery chemistry thats supposedly round the corner will be the tipping point to make it doable for us who do distances on the motorway.
We got a 22kw charger at home and just plug it in every night so Mrs DA (not famous for her patience) doesn't have to frig around with public chargers. It gets the Taycan to 80% SoC in about 6 hours.
The Polestar 2 has a very good interior and hits a sweet spot in terms of price and power. I think it'll be a hit.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
For everthing else it is life + 70 years which is even worse. Write a book at age 20 live till you are 100 and it takes 150 years to get into the public domain which defeats the whole point of copyright which was a deal between creators and the people whereby they got a monopoly for originally I believe 14 years as an incentive to create before the work became public domain.
The one that *really* goes up my nose is the 4% artists' tax on resales of any artwork that has already been sold once. Is it called the Artists' Resale Right?
A complete scam.
Blame the french for that...
As it happens on the French wrt weekend's woke conversations - I came across something this morning that actually includes a French individual as a real frog .
Presciently, Characters from the show appeared alongside various other puppet characters in an episode of The Goodies, in which the puppets take over the running of the United Kingdom as a puppet government.....
Hector could be almost any one of the current cabinet.
I would say that Gavin Williamson has come closest to matching the full range of facial expressions.
I am with @SeaShantyIrish2 on this one, namely that Rice would be a very good VP candidate in many ways but that her baggage is significant and that is before the possibility that more revelations come out from the Durham probe into the indictment of Michael Flynn where Rice is centre stage - from this article, it looks as though there will be more revelations soon. If anything, I would be tempted to sell Rice at this point but, as has been said. it's too risky given it's within the gift of one man.
As for Harris, I never really understood why she was so short on the odds given she has baggage and then attacked Biden. The article in HuffPost also probably doesn't help given Big Tech is a focus for
I'll reiterate my tip from before which is Lujan Grisham of New Mexico - Biden is facing a enthusiasm gap with Hispanics and Lujan helps him with that plus in the surrounding states in the South West.
A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.
Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.
The £10 billion cost was for a package of things. The £7 billion only pays for one of those; before there was no border faff, now there's £7 billion's worth.
At government level, the cost of EU membership was about £9 billion in 2018, net of membership fee, rebate and EU grants to farmers and Cornwall. (No, we don't have control of the grants as such, but good luck not spending that sort of money in the future).
So a saving to the UK of £2-3 billion, right? Wrong.
That doesn't count grants from the EU to private sector businesses in the UK. They ran at about £2 billion in 2016. Or the other odds and ends.
There's a reason that the EU frugals aren't beating a path to the exit door that the UK has opened. There's a reason that Norway pays about £140 per head for EEA access. Once you get more detail than fits on the side of a bus, Boris-style leaving is not worth it- even in pure cash terms.
At the risk of sending many into meltdown here, this piece is worth a read - it's why the polls are more likely to be suggesting a Trump victory in November
I am with @SeaShantyIrish2 on this one, namely that Rice would be a very good VP candidate in many ways but that her baggage is significant and that is before the possibility that more revelations come out from the Durham probe into the indictment of Michael Flynn where Rice is centre stage - from this article, it looks as though there will be more revelations soon. If anything, I would be tempted to sell Rice at this point but, as has been said. it's too risky given it's within the gift of one man.
As for Harris, I never really understood why she was so short on the odds given she has baggage and then attacked Biden. The article in HuffPost also probably doesn't help given Big Tech is a focus for
I'll reiterate my tip from before which is Lujan Grisham of New Mexico - Biden is facing a enthusiasm gap with Hispanics and Lujan helps him with that plus in the surrounding states in the South West.
Starting from scratch that would have made a lot of sense but the black community now think that they are on a promise and it would be unwise to disappoint them.
If it makes millions of people here feel better in themselves - more empowered - then this is arguably a real benefit regardless of it being objectively a project without tangible upside.
But if it makes even more people feel like shite that negates your point
Crap odds given he pulled out last week, and anyone who was not aware he was not firing on all cylinders is not too bright.
Er, Malc..... from the Beeb this morning Kanye West has officially launched his campaign for the 2020 US presidential election, with an unorthodox rally in Charleston, South Carolina. West, 43, is running as a candidate for his self-styled "Birthday Party".
Didn't seem the best of rallies, TBH, given the report!
So he was in and then said he was not running and now he is running again. Not the full shilling I think, looking for cheap publicity , surprise surprise.
At the risk of sending many into meltdown here, this piece is worth a read - it's why the polls are more likely to be suggesting a Trump victory in November
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.
Taking the money and then laying off employees anyway is indeed the public relations disaster they are wanting to avoid.
The flip side to this is surely it is obvious John Lewis will have a smaller workforce by the end of next year without taking a £14m grant than they would if they took the grant? If customers and employees want jobs protected surely they would approve of taking the grant?
Or can people really not make that connection between jobs retained and cash in the bank?
To me it says they know they would not be collecting as the jobs will be gone by the deadline and so they would just look stupid, also the extra wages would far outweigh the £1K a head.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
So it looks like the Dutch have taken our place as the most hated nation in the EU. Very glad we're not in this summit, the PM would be there signing the UK up to £120bn in new spending for which we would get absolutely nothing in return. How much is that per week?
The Guardian calls it the most acrimonious EU summit of all time. How can that be, now that we are leaving?
Left not leaving.
Because they no longer have their black sheep whipping boy to pin all frustrations on.
Nice bit of leaver inferiority complex paranoia there Philip! Nationalism is a complex type of psychology isn't it? On the one hand there is the outward appearance of arrogant superiority and national exceptionalism, but underneath just inferiority, anguish and grievance. No wonder you have an empathy for Scottish nationalism. UKIP/Brexit Party/Populist Johnsonians are all so similar to the Nats in Scotland.
No clue what you're ranting about but you are definitely projecting there.
I was joking but you've clearly had a nerve touched.
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
Espcially when it is voodoo economics and absolute bollox that they are subsidising a 1/3 of jobs. They are doing it using borrowed money , 100B and charging us to pay for most of it whilst only sending 36B Crooks.
And Stokes brings up his 50 with a 6 and a strike rate of 139. He is just the most incredible cricketer.
He played golf at my local course last week and I was in the group behind. My god can he hit a golf ball, not always the right way but he can hit it a carry of 320 yards plus.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
For everthing else it is life + 70 years which is even worse. Write a book at age 20 live till you are 100 and it takes 150 years to get into the public domain which defeats the whole point of copyright which was a deal between creators and the people whereby they got a monopoly for originally I believe 14 years as an incentive to create before the work became public domain.
The one that *really* goes up my nose is the 4% artists' tax on resales of any artwork that has already been sold once. Is it called the Artists' Resale Right?
A complete scam.
Blame the french for that...
As it happens on the French wrt weekend's woke conversations - I came across something this morning that actually includes a French individual as a real frog .
Presciently, Characters from the show appeared alongside various other puppet characters in an episode of The Goodies, in which the puppets take over the running of the United Kingdom as a puppet government.....
Hector could be almost any one of the current cabinet.
I would say that Gavin Williamson has come closest to matching the full range of facial expressions.
For the Hectorian mixture of risibility and faux gravitas, though, look no further than Boris.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.
Taking the money and then laying off employees anyway is indeed the public relations disaster they are wanting to avoid.
The flip side to this is surely it is obvious John Lewis will have a smaller workforce by the end of next year without taking a £14m grant than they would if they took the grant? If customers and employees want jobs protected surely they would approve of taking the grant?
Or can people really not make that connection between jobs retained and cash in the bank?
To me it says they know they would not be collecting as the jobs will be gone by the deadline and so they would just look stupid, also the extra wages would far outweigh the £1K a head.
I kind of agree. I think it is more that they reckon the payout on the staff remaining will not be worth the bad press. From firing a big, big chunk of the others.
I think that the COVID19 crisis has accelerated (another one) the existing trend away from the High Street. Department stores are like an old version of internet shopping.
They have their uses - but someone need to work out how to monetise having physical things to look at. Which then get bought, as cheaply as possible, online.
John Lewis has the best brand of the big stores. And they will struggle.
Volvo's Polestar 2 looks stunning. Not as stunning as my S90 but not far off. Problem for any high-capacity battery cars that aren't Tesla is the utter lack of fast (150kW) chargers. And of the few that exist a decent % are run by Ionity who want an absurd 69p for a kWh of leccy. So the next generation of battery chemistry thats supposedly round the corner will be the tipping point to make it doable for us who do distances on the motorway.
We got a 22kw charger at home and just plug it in every night so Mrs DA (not famous for her patience) doesn't have to frig around with public chargers. It gets the Taycan to 80% SoC in about 6 hours.
The Polestar 2 has a very good interior and hits a sweet spot in terms of price and power. I think it'll be a hit.
Haven't got 3-phase, but still have a 7kW charger on the wall next to the driveway which should still recharge something like a P2 overnight. Its just if you wander further afield (and I do) - there are vast numbers of 50kW chargers compared to 2017. But 50kW is too slow for high capacity batteries.
I agree with you on the car though. My S90 is a beautiful thing to sit in, and the Polestar has got the same design language and I assume build quality. "But its made in China" say the wags. Yes, so is mine. And?
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
At the risk of sending many into meltdown here, this piece is worth a read - it's why the polls are more likely to be suggesting a Trump victory in November
Good piece and worth reading (except for last paragraph which is silly). The Harry Enten piece linked notes that voters also thought Clinton would beat Trump, and that Republicans would hold the House in 2018. So it seems that recent elections have been exceptions to the theory proposed.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Deleted for stupidity.
Nobody has plus two legs a few have minus two legs so average is less than two
And Stokes brings up his 50 with a 6 and a strike rate of 139. He is just the most incredible cricketer.
He played golf at my local course last week and I was in the group behind. My god can he hit a golf ball, not always the right way but he can hit it a carry of 320 yards plus.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
£900m was at the last balance sheet date and the world has changed since then
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Comments
Dexys had another number 1 after Eileen as well with Gino.
Who remembers 'Your Woman' from White Town which got to the top in 97?
The other 60m purchase also looks interesting, the government definitely getting on top of he vaccine situation.
My signature on another forum reads - "only at clientco for the entertainment", for Brexit that is equally true but I write software so it really doesn't impact me...
Whereas does nobodies life depends upon listening to James singing Sit Down out of copyright.
It will be a disaster, but not yet...
When Kenny Everett was in his pomp as a successful DJ he once conducted a poll of Worst Ever Singles. Here's the worthy winner. Nervous Norvous - Transfusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThzfNq6BCUQ
What amused me most about the poll was that whilst he didn't actually claim top spot, Jess Conrad had about six entries in the top twenty, so in terms of consistency he had a fair claim to be worst crooner of the era.
As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.
You start with the facts. Then see how you present them, so that they *appear* to support your narrative.
A real expert not only does not lie, but twists things *just* in the right way. So that even in an interview or law case you can defend what has been down.
https://tamebay.com/2020/07/amazon-fba-brexit-bombshell-efn-and-pan-european-fba-ends-for-uk.html
It's not great news for people selling directly through Amazon.
When the shit hits the fan, the Brexiteers can say "we told you"
Electric cars are now inevitable - we are looking at prices being *lower* than ICE within the decade. And ranges of 600 miles+ at those prices.
When you factor in the complete inability to take less than a decade and less than a sagan billions to build train lines....
Legal bod question - would this be under the existing legislation on discrimination in the UK?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/new-pro-indy-party-keen-22378423.amp
I see SeanT's gone up in the world, writing in the FT now.
It has nothing to do with live use, Cease and Desist is there as a means of informing companies about copyright disputes and allows said companies a means of protecting themselves by removing such videos quickly.
Sturgeon has been far better at communicating a consist message then Boris ever was.
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/intellectual-property/patents/supplementary-protection-certificates_en
(doesn't change your basic point, just finally finding a use for my knowledge from my former life as a patent examiner)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiAaMGGY1w
It was made by the .. er .. French.
Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.
Only Los del Rio and Toni Basil truly count in your list.
Sure, bands that are a few decades old and weren't megastars are now normally remembered (if at all) for their biggest hit. But that doesn't make them one hit wonders if, at the time, they had a few.
Volvo's Polestar 2 looks stunning. Not as stunning as my S90 but not far off. Problem for any high-capacity battery cars that aren't Tesla is the utter lack of fast (150kW) chargers. And of the few that exist a decent % are run by Ionity who want an absurd 69p for a kWh of leccy. So the next generation of battery chemistry thats supposedly round the corner will be the tipping point to make it doable for us who do distances on the motorway.
As an aside we dumped the Leaf back to Nissan in hefty negative equity having become utterly fed up both of Nissan and their dealers. Had we ponied up the cash to buy out the PCP we'd have the perfect local runabout car and a residual value that rebounded hard after the market got flooded with early adopters like me handing them back.
"Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood.
But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-016-2323-1
And, of course, for the biologicals, copying a product isn't anywhere near as simple as copying a chemical. And often means running clinical trials to prove equivalence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence
A Survation poll in 2018 had Yes only on 32% once devomax was included with 32% for independence, 15% for devomax and 36% for the status quo
So an author, which would include the sheet music of a composer, gets life plus 70 years. This can be owned by a publisher.
Richard Strauss, who died in 1949, has just come out of copyright, and a number of different publishers are now able to print his scores. This can result in cheaper alternatives.
Recording copyright lasts for 70 years from release of the recording. This is a performers right. This was recently increased in length from 50 years to help poor singers, such as Cliff Richard, whose early recordings were coming out of copyright.
Presciently, Characters from the show appeared alongside various other puppet characters in an episode of The Goodies, in which the puppets take over the running of the United Kingdom as a puppet government.....
Hector could be almost any one of the current cabinet.
That would certainly explain why the House of York was succeeded by the Tudors.
No?
Even the quintessential 1 hit wonder Peter Sarstedt and his lovely "Lovely" had another minor hit with Buy Me 1 More Frozen Orange Juice (on this fantastic day).
It takes something special to have just 1 monster hit and apart from that nada.
Which is why I keep coming back to Dunn and Grandad.
Don't get me wrong, I think it simply must happen (In fact it already has) but that's a political imperitive due to the vote not any economic argument.
The Polestar 2 has a very good interior and hits a sweet spot in terms of price and power. I think it'll be a hit.
Noche y juventud, cóctel de rebrotes para la pandemia
(https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-chief-of-staff-i-expect-indictments-from-john-durham-investigation)
As for Harris, I never really understood why she was so short on the odds given she has baggage and then attacked Biden. The article in HuffPost also probably doesn't help given Big Tech is a focus for
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kamala-harris-facebook-relationship_n_5f1071b9c5b6d14c33647231?ri18n=true
I'll reiterate my tip from before which is Lujan Grisham of New Mexico - Biden is facing a enthusiasm gap with Hispanics and Lujan helps him with that plus in the surrounding states in the South West.
Going from the numbers here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
At government level, the cost of EU membership was about £9 billion in 2018, net of membership fee, rebate and EU grants to farmers and Cornwall. (No, we don't have control of the grants as such, but good luck not spending that sort of money in the future).
So a saving to the UK of £2-3 billion, right? Wrong.
That doesn't count grants from the EU to private sector businesses in the UK. They ran at about £2 billion in 2016. Or the other odds and ends.
There's a reason that the EU frugals aren't beating a path to the exit door that the UK has opened. There's a reason that Norway pays about £140 per head for EEA access. Once you get more detail than fits on the side of a bus, Boris-style leaving is not worth it- even in pure cash terms.
https://spectator.org/why-the-polls-predict-trump-will-win/
48 😥
In theory. But I wonder.
I think that the COVID19 crisis has accelerated (another one) the existing trend away from the High Street. Department stores are like an old version of internet shopping.
They have their uses - but someone need to work out how to monetise having physical things to look at. Which then get bought, as cheaply as possible, online.
John Lewis has the best brand of the big stores. And they will struggle.
I agree with you on the car though. My S90 is a beautiful thing to sit in, and the Polestar has got the same design language and I assume build quality. "But its made in China" say the wags. Yes, so is mine. And?
The Harry Enten piece linked notes that voters also thought Clinton would beat Trump, and that Republicans would hold the House in 2018. So it seems that recent elections have been exceptions to the theory proposed.