Space Cadet: Katy Perry's residency at Resorts World lost millions, and now she's not invited back

[DGenBen]

Speaking of Transsexuals, there is a viral video where a MTF was VERY sad that "Her," boyfriend dumped "her," at a Restaurant when "she" revealed that "she" was a biological male who chose to transition to a Woman.

Problem is that "She," didn't tell him that "she," was biologically born a man from the get go. They had been dating for a few MONTHS IIRC and then at the Restaurant date "She," told "Her," boyfriend,"By the way, I was actually born Alexander and not Alexandra. I transitioned as an Adult.

"Her," boyfriend dumped her right then and there. Interestingly enough, EVERYBODY was on the BOYFRIEND's side and noone was on "her," side in the comments. Even other Transsexuals roasted "Her," for not telling"Her," boyfriend from the get go that "She," was born a male and transitioned to a Woman as an Adult.
People pointed out that "she," was lucky that all that happened was that "She," got dumped and pointed out that other Transsexuals who didn't tell their Boyfriends right off the bat that they were born male and became female later in life ended up being MURDERED.

Probably always best to disclose it right upfront.

A little due diligence can discover it fairly quickly in most cases.

I remember about 18 years ago, a guy said something like,"One of my biggest fears is thinking I'm going to be finding a VAGINA and being shocked by a PENIS. Please, if you are a "Woman," with a PENIS tell me upfront and not when we're about to have sex.

This is where the due diligence part comes in.

If a guy was expecting a vagina, and was shocked with a penis at the last minute right before having sex then he probably did not preform as thorough of due diligence as he should have.

[Tasha]

Probably always best to disclose it right upfront.

A little due diligence can discover it fairly quickly in most cases.

I remember about 18 years ago, a guy said something like,"One of my biggest fears is thinking I'm going to be finding a VAGINA and being shocked by a PENIS. Please, if you are a "Woman," with a PENIS tell me upfront and not when we're about to have sex.

This is where the due diligence part comes in.

If a guy was expecting a vagina, and was shocked with a penis at the last minute right before having sex then he probably did not preform as thorough of due diligence as he should have.

To be fair, a LOT of people just see their Partner's genitals for the first time when they are about to have sex.

[MisterV]

To be fair, a LOT of people just see their Partner's genitals for the first time when they are about to have sex.

And you know this "how?"

You're asexual.

[Tasha]

To be fair, a LOT of people just see their Partner's genitals for the first time when they are about to have sex.

And you know this "how?"

You're asexual.

Yes, I'm Asexual, but that doesn't mean I don't know how sex works.

[MisterV]

To be fair, a LOT of people just see their Partner's genitals for the first time when they are about to have sex.

And you know this "how?"

You're asexual.

Yes, I'm Asexual, but that doesn't mean I don't know how sex works.

Harrumph.

An inexperienced asexual woman giving commentary on sex is about as valuable as a piece of shit on a plow handle.

[The Boz]

And you know this "how?"

You're asexual.

Yes, I'm Asexual, but that doesn't mean I don't know how sex works.

Harrumph.

An inexperienced asexual woman giving commentary on sex is about as valuable as a piece of shit on a plow handle.

Don’t give her ideas.

“Mammie whats beez a plow handle and hows mez gits mez one?”

[Tasha]

Sex is easy. It's a penis going into a vagina.

[MisterV]

Sex is easy. It's a penis going into a vagina.

Oh, really?

In your recent tales of gay romance...do any of your poorly written and conceived swains have a vagina?

No, they don't: they substitute their mouth or anus.

Please make a note of it.

But then again you do have a vagina, so why not put it to good use?

What is holding you back from experiencing connubial bliss?

As a great cripple once said:

[Tasha]

Sex is easy. It's a penis going into a vagina.

Oh, really?

In your recent tales of gay romance...do any of your poorly written and conceived swains have a vagina?

No, they don't: they substitute their mouth or anus.

Please make a note of it.

But then again you do have a vagina, so why not put it to good use?

What is holding you back from experiencing connubial bliss?

As a great cripple once said:

I should have said that sex is USUALLY a penis going into a vagina although sometimes a penis goes into an anus.

[MisterV]

[I should have said that sex is USUALLY a penis going into a vagina although sometimes a penis goes into an anus.

What you should have said is that sex usually involves a penis going into a vagina although sometimes a penis goes in an anus, a mouth, a hand, an armpit, and a warmed up pumpkin with a hole in it.

Not that I speak from personal experience....

[MDawg]

Whether a musician has lost or sold the rights to his music (the Beatles were in that situation for most of their career, although Paul McCartney has regained some publishing rights to some of his songs), someone or some entity has those rights and absent fair use (see below) no one is allowed to play the copyrighted music in a public setting without either permission or paying some kind of royalty.

Even when bands play covers or DJs play music, the venue itself is either paying royalties or has some kind of blanket arrangement whereby something is paid to the copyright holders.

When it comes to politicians playing music at their events, they too need to pay for use of the music and if the copyright holder such as the band doesn't object, nothing extraordinary happens, some kind of compensation is passed along if the holder requires it, but if the copyright holder objects, the politician is supposed to not play or stop playing the musician's music. For the most part this does not become an issue, but with someone like Grump who gets people fired up one way or another, there are some musicians who have asked him to stop playing their music and have gone as far as sending cease and desist letters and threatening legal action.

And some, have taken it all the way to lawsuits.

More and more artists want Trump to stop using their music. They face a costly fight

By the way, a Grump defense (that will probably fail) and over arching principle that defeats copyright infringement is called fair use, where someone who uses copyrighted material in a non-commercial manner, for example for educational use, and not for profit, doesn't need a license (doesn't need permission) doesn't need to pay for its use. But Grump is using the music to promote his campaign which is far from fair use.

Still, if you pay attorneys enough (and Grump has lined his pockets with quite a bit of his supporters funds, such that he just burns OTHER people's money not his for such things), they will come up with creative arguments that will make it very costly to beat them, even if the end result is inevitable.

Restaurants, bars consider turning off music as licensing fees skyrocket

Ever since operetta composer Victor Herbert sued Shanley’s restaurant in New York in 1917 to force it to pay for playing his song on a player-piano, songwriters and music publishers have depended on Performing Rights Organizations to make sure they get compensated.

For much of the last century, three organizations dominated the industry, a relatively staid and unglamorous corner of the music scene that remained largely unchanged throughout the eras of radio, records and CDs. But the rise of streaming has led to a surge in revenue and spawned a handful of new organizations looking to cash in.

Now there are at least half a dozen PROs in the United States, representing songwriters and publishers, each demanding that bars, restaurants, hotels and other venues pay a fee or risk being sued.

Businesses say the rising licensing costs have become overwhelming, and some question whether it’s even worth playing music at all.

[accountinquestion]

Whether a musician has lost or sold the rights to his music (the Beatles were in that situation for most of their career, although Paul McCartney has regained some publishing rights to some of his songs), someone or some entity has those rights and absent fair use (see below) no one is allowed to play the copyrighted music in a public setting without either permission or paying some kind of royalty.

Even when bands play covers or DJs play music, the venue itself is either paying royalties or has some kind of blanket arrangement whereby something is paid to the copyright holders.

When it comes to politicians playing music at their events, they too need to pay for use of the music and if the copyright holder such as the band doesn't object, nothing extraordinary happens, some kind of compensation is passed along if the holder requires it, but if the copyright holder objects, the politician is supposed to not play or stop playing the musician's music. For the most part this does not become an issue, but with someone like Grump who gets people fired up one way or another, there are some musicians who have asked him to stop playing their music and have gone as far as sending cease and desist letters and threatening legal action.

And some, have taken it all the way to lawsuits.

More and more artists want Trump to stop using their music. They face a costly fight

By the way, a Grump defense (that will probably fail) and over arching principle that defeats copyright infringement is called fair use, where someone who uses copyrighted material in a non-commercial manner, for example for educational use, and not for profit, doesn't need a license (doesn't need permission) doesn't need to pay for its use. But Grump is using the music to promote his campaign which is far from fair use.

Still, if you pay attorneys enough (and Grump has lined his pockets with quite a bit of his supporters funds, such that he just burns OTHER people's money not his for such things), they will come up with creative arguments that will make it very costly to beat them, even if the end result is inevitable.

Restaurants, bars consider turning off music as licensing fees skyrocket

Ever since operetta composer Victor Herbert sued Shanley’s restaurant in New York in 1917 to force it to pay for playing his song on a player-piano, songwriters and music publishers have depended on Performing Rights Organizations to make sure they get compensated.

For much of the last century, three organizations dominated the industry, a relatively staid and unglamorous corner of the music scene that remained largely unchanged throughout the eras of radio, records and CDs. But the rise of streaming has led to a surge in revenue and spawned a handful of new organizations looking to cash in.

Now there are at least half a dozen PROs in the United States, representing songwriters and publishers, each demanding that bars, restaurants, hotels and other venues pay a fee or risk being sued.

Businesses say the rising licensing costs have become overwhelming, and some question whether it’s even worth playing music at all.

Is there any reason you couldn't run a radio station at a bar outside of the fact that clientele have to hear ads? What about streaming? I know ppv but thats not a public thing like radio.

[MDawg]

That's an interesting concept, and as long as they didn't mind the ads, then perhaps the ads being played would satisfy the royalties requirement.

But - perhaps not - consider Streaming - paying just for the subscription alone - isn't enough. (Or not paying, and running a version with ads.) When I pay for Spotify or whatever I stipulate that I am paying for use of it for my own private enjoyment, not to play in a commercial context like in a bar or restaurant I own. Same would apply to running free Spotify (with ads) playing it in a commercial context even with the ads would not be allowed.

You also have to look at who is getting paid from the terrestrial (AM/FM) radio stations. Radio stations that play music do pay royalties to the songwriters and publishers, but not to the artists themselves. I believe internet radio like Spotify does also pay the artists, but still apparently that is not enough to allow its being played free in a commercial context.

The more you look into this, the more it becomes clear that everyone has his hand out when it comes to playing music, and unless everyone is getting paid, playing that music is disallowed in a commercial context.


Think about Disneyland or Disneyworld, as you walk through it, most of what you hear are instrumental Disney songs, which solves the royalty issue because they own the rights to all that music. Anything non-Disney being played, they have to license and pay for.