Agreed. I think if there is ANY chance of being able to communicate, it's a moral requirement to ask. And, while the poster states that so far, it is difficult for her to blink so far, perhaps that is something that will develop. Here is an excellent suggestion from a brilliant man who is also "locked in" but absolutely refuses to let it stop him.

Jason Becker Eye System

Ha! Well if we implement this system, I believe Motorhead will be the supreme champions. I saw them live back in 1989 and I swear I believe my ears are still ringing.

Yeah, um, NO. In this example, ASCAP is not taking royalties on songs that are not with registered members. They are also not denying funds to those who are. The fees that this particular artist is referring to are quite common, and it is one of the ways that various venues chooses to pay for the fees that they owe for allowing songs to be performed publicly at their venue. A different way to do it would be to simply generate an invoice for each artist who performs a song where a royalty is due and give it to that artist on the night of the performance, but that's not practical, so a lot of places will simply calculate a blanket fee and charge it as one of their terms and conditions in their contract. Notice, this is not ASCAP, this is each individual venue. This is not ASCAP's contract, nor is it their terms.

Also, the artist in the article is being very misleading. The claim is that money is collected from some, but given to others. That's not what's happening. The fact is, if you're a less well known artist, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that you may have to fill out a form to get your check if your song(s) were performed live somewhere. I don't think it's crazy that ASCAP, or BMI, or any of those bodies doesn't want to get into trying to track every single live performance of every single live song at every single venue, and scour their database in real time to find when/where a song in their catalog has been performed. This person writing the article is basically saying "WAAAHHH!! I wish I made as much money as A-list artists and had people to take care of all this annoying paperwork for me."


So, strike two, champ. You still don't understand how it works, and you remain clearly in the wrong.

Citation please.

I have never heard of ASCAP collecting royalties for non-members, with no written agreement in place documenting the commercial availability of their work, nor have I heard of ASCAP denying anyone any shares collected on their behalf.

As a composer and a musician, I totally, 100% agree with you. This really isn't a big deal. It's a non-exclusive agreement. If you don't like the terms, sign with someone else, or start your own thing. No one's being backed into any corners here. Plus, there's also the aspect of considering that even though it is alleged that YouTube is going to pay less than other services, the amount of traffic on YouTube compared to other sites could quite possibly generate significantly more "sales" to an artist, so really it becomes a question of price vs volume (sales volume, not sonic volume).

This is just patently false. I've been an ASCAP member for over 10 years. I have multiple licensing agreements with multiple firms. ASCAP only gets involved where appropriate, and does not in any way control what I choose to charge or not charge someone to use my music. I've allowed my stuff to be used for free many, many times for independent, small budget productions or student films, and ASCAP in no way prevents this.

*sigh*

Well then, it must be my imagination , huh?

Incorrect. most manual transmission cars in recent history have an interlock where the clutch must be depressed all the way to engage the ignition circuit. My last vehicle was a 2002 Nissan with a manual transmission, and the vehicle could not be started without the clutch fully depressed to the floor.

Seriously? Obscure?

You've had to hold down the clutch to start manual transmission cars for years. Also, many recent cars with automatic transmissions have required you to step on the brake before turning the key. I don't see the big deal, really.

FYI, you can still switch it to the position to run the accessories and not start he engine. Just don't step on the brake, then press the button once, and you'll get just the radio. Press it again (while again not stepping on the brake) and you'll get the rest of the accessories/instruments, and a third press (again, without the brake pedal depressed) and everything turns off. Simple.

Now, my car is an automatic, so I have not tried the roll/start on a manual transmission with a push button ignition, but it seems to me that with all of the accessories and instrumentation turned on, I don't see why it wouldn't work. And, as far as your point of needing to crank it for a while, if that's the case, there are issues that need repairing, so it's not as if you're being deprived of some designed, intended function of the vehicle.

Well, what about those folks who own their homes? The article says that they're subject to these restrictions as well. So, if you own a 5 bedroom house, and you choose to rent out a room on AirBnb or VRBO, you'll be cited as well.

To me, seems like the solution should be simple. Just handle it the way a lot of paid escorts do. Offer your room "for free" to people visiting, and then if anyone wants to "offer" you some money expressly NOT for lodging (nudge nudge, wink wink), well then they're free to do that. In the same way that you're paying escorts "for their companionship" and specifically NOT for anything else, you could make the same argument about folks staying the weekend in your spare room. They're not paying you for lodging, they're paying you for your services of guiding them around the city, or cooking for them, or allowing them to use your washer machine, or whatever.

And on a related note, this "study" says that 500 lux is the magic threshold, and goes on to suggest that this level of light is difficult to achieve indoors. From personal experience, this is not true.

I spent several years working in Commercial Real Estate Management, and one thing that was always a struggle was that we'd have folks in various office type environments arguing over whether or not it was too bright or not bright enough in the office (this was in addition to everyone fighting over whether or not it was too hot or too cold....another conversation entirely). Anyway, as a solution, I had my team buy light meters, and we used the OSHA thresholds for safety for egress lighting as well as the lighting designer's standards from the blueprints of the facility as a guideline, and I would instruct my team to ensure that the light levels were at LEAST 35 footcandles, and at MOST 90 footcandles (in most cases).

500 lux = 46.45 footcandles. I can tell you that the vast majority of the workspaces in conventional offices (from my experience) is usually in the 50 to 60 footcandle range. The point being, I disagree with the study claiming that it is difficult to achieve indoors, or that you specifically need to do something extraordinary to achieve this light level.

Couldn't agree more, and I thought the same thing in this thread. Love that song, miss that dude.

Ugh! I can only imagine. I'm inferring that you (or someone you know) does, and I was (and am) grateful that I didn't have that complicating the matter to drive up the cost even further. While I'm not sure exactly who to believe any more in this whole Health Care Reform debate, and I do not thing the existing legislation is a complete and thorough solution, I'm glad that at least the issue of pre-existing conditions is being addressed. While I'm fortunate enough to not have that be a factor for me yet, I don't think it's fair that those who are should be so boxed in with their choices as a result.

Not always. I worked for the largest commercial real estate company in the world a few years ago. When I put in my notice, there was going to be a lapse of about 30 days between when my insurance would expire with my present employer, and when my new benefits would kick in with my new employer. When I received the COBRA notification explaining the details of my coverage (if I were to have chosen to take it), I was shocked. My premiums more than tripled....not exaggerating. Coverage for me and my young daughter for a fairly standard health policy (which still had copays, co-insurance, and deductibles, mind you) was going to be well over $600 for 30 days.

Suffice to say, I was able to find a term based health insurance plan, and get us both covered for about $150-$175 for 30 days, with better co-pays and a much lower deductible.