News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
khristopher said:
Yes, the performer does not need a license, but the venue needs licensing. This licensing is the same no matter which artist you plan on covering.
Click to expand...

Since I'm feeling picayune today, performers can be required to pay a fee to a rights. I believe it's usually done through the venues because, well, it's practicial.

From the Canadian Bar Association: "To publicly play or perform music that’s been created or recorded by another songwriter or musician, you, your label or the venue are legally obligated to pay a fee or royalty. So, if you perform cover songs with a group in public, you may be surprised to find a musicians’ collective asking to collect royalty payments from you or the venue. You also have to pay royalties if you record cover songs, whether you manufacture CD’s or simply sell the song over the Internet...."
 
FraudNation said:
This. I think it's tinfoil territory to give ANY benefit of the doubt to anyone associated with FoFam.
They are disgusting "humans" and the absolute worst light should shine on all of their actions and words.

They are repugnant, amoral criminals full stop. They have dozens of charges amongst them collectively and have a FAMILY CRIMINAL LAWYER. They are the worst kind of trash...pretending to give a fuck about the poor, minorities and the down trodden...while greedily lining their pockets and making money for their buddies.

SMH that anyone sees any chance of them doing anything (at all) "good".
Click to expand...

^^ This is the crux of the biscuit for me. They are a clan of malignant, manipulative, narcissistic, homophobic, wife beating lying racist bully nightmares who would stomp all over anybody to achieve their twisted individual goals. People who don't understand this are the ones who truly scare the shit out of me. It seriously occupies an unhealthy portion of my thoughts. Once this is all over & my timeline is free of all things Ford and they're all treated like ordinary civilians and charged accordingly, the better I'll sleep.
 
Cooper said:
Since I'm feeling picayune today, performers can be required to pay a fee to a rights. I believe it's usually done through the venues because, well, it's practicial.

From the Canadian Bar Association: "To publicly play or perform music that’s been created or recorded by another songwriter or musician, you, your label or the venue are legally obligated to pay a fee or royalty. So, if you perform cover songs with a group in public, you may be surprised to find a musicians’ collective asking to collect royalty payments from you or the venue. You also have to pay royalties if you record cover songs, whether you manufacture CD’s or simply sell the song over the Internet...."
Click to expand...

"picayune"....one more step to the Long's Louisiana North...just cross your fingers and trust it doesn't go further than what what we see at present...
 
Last edited:
r937 said:
thank you for saying this

more facts, please, and fewer memes, cartoon references, and outright batshit crazy speculations

sure, we hate the fords, but do we have to try to mimic ford nation with our zeal?
Click to expand...


I think the "useful" well has run dry. Maybe all that's left is the obsessive. The good news is that it's almost October.
 
Last edited:
Since we seem to be grinding our way toward the end of this thread's initial purpose, why not talk about some of the lessons learned and things that should be done in a post-Rob Ford Toronto? For example, as much as I don't like the idea of political parties in council, party discipline would have corralled Rob's rogue behaviour. IMO, he wouldn't have survived the original crack scandal if he had to answer to anyone but himself. He wouldn't even have been a mayoral candidate.

On a more practical level, I think it's clear we need to improve the rules/consequences around the code of conduct, conflict of interest and other issues. It's like council operates on an honour system — and the consequence is mostly so much pearl-clutching. I'd also like to see the rules changed on rebates for campaign contributions. They shouldn't be paid outside T.O. boundaries. And on transit — politicians can decide the budget, but that's all. The planning should be done by a non-political expert agency. It's like healthcare. Governments fund the systems, but they don't diagnose/treat the patients.

Anyway, that's what I've learned, so far.
 
Just have to pop in to give my two cents. I'm obsessed with reading this thread, and yes I admit there are some tinfoil theories that are completely ridiculous, but I just read past them, while other comments that initially sounded ridiculous ended up true. (I had a friend who heard from a friend about Rob loving his cocaine about a year before anyone heard about the crack. I rolled my eyes because there was no way I was going to believe a rumour from a friend of a friend. Turns out, dude smokes crack, so what did I know?)

As for everyone who is demanding, "more FACTUAL news and less speculation". Yes that would be great, so please provide us with the factual news that you have. Oh, you don't have any? Well, neither do I. So it looks like we're left with the speculation for now.
 
Cooper said:
Since we seem to be grinding our way toward the end of this thread's initial purpose, why not talk about some of the lessons learned and things that should be done in a post-Rob Ford Toronto? For example, as much as I don't like the idea of political parties in council, party discipline would have corralled Rob's rogue behaviour. IMO, he wouldn't have survived the original crack scandal if he had to answer to anyone but himself. He wouldn't even have been a mayoral candidate.

On a more practical level, I think it's clear we need to improve the rules/consequences around the code of conduct, conflict of interest and other issues. It's like council operates on an honour system — and the consequence is mostly so much pearl-clutching. I'd also like to see the rules changed on rebates for campaign contributions. They shouldn't be paid outside T.O. boundaries. And on transit — politicians can decide the budget, but that's all. The planning should be done by a non-political expert agency. It's like healthcare. Governments fund the systems, but they don't diagnose/treat the patients.

Anyway, that's what I've learned, so far.
Click to expand...

And on a similar note, it's been on my mind that a new 'let's move forward' thread needs to be created. But perhaps we should wait until after we flush the Fords down the toilet late on October 27th. There are things that this multi-faceted city can do to show the world that we are more - much more - than a weird, dissatisfied little suburban family that thinks it can become a political dynasty while not knowing anything about the city. And we are also much more than the politics of resentment. Maybe it's too soon for all of this. Maybe we have to defeat the fucking goofs before we get carried away with moving on.
 
ndawgg said:
As for everyone who is demanding, "more FACTUAL news and less speculation". Yes that would be great, so please provide us with the factual news that you have. Oh, you don't have any? Well, neither do I. So it looks like we're left with the speculation for now.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that speculation necessarily comes from putting together a series of facts. And, in Fords' case/s, whether or not that speculation is in tinfoil territory is proven only by time, not by probability. Everything is possible, nothing is impossible, with Fords.

In the one case among many that are floating here, as an example: Whether or not there was something unspeakable between Rob and Kathy (tinfoil), there are facts: Mikey changed his name shortly before the election. Rob called him "my kid." Mikey was around a lot to ferry UncleDrunkenStupor out of tight situations AND keep his mouth shut (apparently a complete personality trait). Kathy is clearly persona non grata at family functions. Kathy squealed. Kathy is considered too - what, unstable? - to have free access to Ford fortunes. So it is eminently clear that conclusions can be drawn from these facts, and those conclusions, absent more facts, are speculation, but not necessarily tinfoil: (a) Mikey is Rob's son; and/or (b) Rob is considering, or has already, officially adopted Mikey to simplify family money issues; or (c) Rob was clearheaded enough to give exactly the Tea Party speech his TeaFordPartyNation followers wanted and needed, and didn't make any other significant stumbles (that weren't deliberate lies) in that entire speech except to forget who his kids are.

Now, do I really think he boinked his sister? No - the ick factor is too much even for my aluminum. But do I think there is something else at play here? You betcha.
 
Sun_Lover said:
Seems to me that speculation necessarily comes from putting together a series of facts. And, in Fords' case/s, whether or not that speculation is in tinfoil territory is proven only by time, not by probability. Everything is possible, nothing is impossible, with Fords.

In the one case among many that are floating here, as an example: Whether or not there was something unspeakable between Rob and Kathy (tinfoil), there are facts: Mikey changed his name shortly before the election. Rob called him "my kid." Mikey was around a lot to ferry UncleDrunkenStupor out of tight situations AND keep his mouth shut (apparently a complete personality trait). Kathy is clearly persona non grata at family functions. Kathy squealed. Kathy is considered too - what, unstable? - to have free access to Ford fortunes. So it is eminently clear that conclusions can be drawn from these facts, and those conclusions, absent more facts, are speculation, but not necessarily tinfoil: (a) Mikey is Rob's son; and/or (b) Rob is considering, or has already, officially adopted Mikey to simplify family money issues; or (c) Rob was clearheaded enough to give exactly the Tea Party speech his TeaFordPartyNation followers wanted and needed, and didn't make any other significant stumbles (that weren't deliberate lies) in that entire speech except to forget who his kids are.

Now, do I really think he boinked his sister? No - the ick factor is too much even for my aluminum. But do I think there is something else at play here? You betcha.
Click to expand...

well, I'm pretty sure you can't formally adopt an adult, but wills can be rewritten to include other beneficiaries etc. Also pretty sure the Rob/Kathy mashup never would happen, no matter how effed up that family is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top