Learn financial skills any entrepreneur should know.
Should
CNN Actually Defends Maxine Waters For ‘Inciting’ Anti-Police Violence
Here is yet another reason why no one should take CNN seriously.
The same network that has accused the GOP of “genocide” and ending the country” for violence from Trump supporters on January 6, spent this morning defending a Democrat for what many would call, openly encouraging violence from left-wing protesters (while intimidating a jury!)
California Democrat Maxine Waters went to Minneapolis this weekend to encourage Black Lives Matter protesters to ignore curfews and get more “confrontational” if the jury does not find Derek Chauvin, guilty of murder. She added, “We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business” and that they would “not go away” if he was acquitted. Waters made these comments after several days of violent riots and just hours before the Minnesota National Guard and police were shot at in a drive-by shooting in Minneapolis.
After several Republicans called out the Democrat for “inciting violence”, CNN’s New Day spent two segments attacking the GOP instead.
During the 7 am hour, Berman went on a tirade ripping Senator Ted Cruz [R-TX] for calling out Waters.
“That’s Ted Cruz of the not accepting the election results before or after the insurrection, Cruzes, which might lead one to wonder if this is a case of the pot calling the kettle, violent,” he mocked. After playing a montage which included President Trump and Cruz encouraging protesters to “fight for the country,”
Berman added, “Also, it’s not like this guy is some peaceful prophet of gentility. This is a man who wants to do unspeakable things to books that say mean things about him!” he whined, quoting Cruz mockingly encouraging supporters to burn or take a chainsaw to John Boehner’s book, after the retired congressman repeatedly bashed Cruz to promote his book. Berman ended his rant with this snarky zinger, “Ted Cruz needs to look in the mirror, which can be tough, especially for him because you know what they say. When the going gets tough, the pot goes to Cancun.”
Attacking Republicans with false equivalencies while ignoring Waters continued into the 8 am hour.
Co-host Brianna Keilar was reluctant to criticize Waters but was more disgusted by the Democrat’s critics:
Certainly Waters should answer for her words when everyone is on edge. But the irony here is just the stench of it. Republicans like Kevin McCarthy, who has repeatedly given cover to other Republican who have called in such explicit terms for violence. I’m thinking Marjorie Taylor Greene. I’m thinking Donald Trump. The irony here is thick.
Guest Matthew Dowd, formerly an ABC News political analyst, went so far as to argue nothing Waters said deserved criticism. He also likened anti-police protesters to the Civil Rights movement:
MATTHEW DOWD: It’s incredibly thick and so is the hypocrisy on this, not the least to mention January 6th and what happened on January 6th and the number of Republicans that their words incited that. I actually just listened to Maxine Waters. We all have to be cognizant of what we say. I don’t think what she said in anyway should, we should criticize her for. Of course, we should be more confrontational. That doesn’t mean we should be more violent. But I was thinking about this as I was listening, is Emmett Till was killed in 1955, an all-white jury found the people that did it innocent. Then Medgar Evers, Jimmie Lee Jackson, so many of these folks that were guilty of killings and civil rights were then let off. And the only thing that led to the civil rights legislation to finally pass in 1965 was you know non-violent protests and so I think that’s where we’re going to end up today. The Republicans seem to me on the complete wrong side of history on this.
CNN’s double standards were paid for by CarShield and Liberty Mutual. Contact them at the Conservatives Fight Back page here.
Read the transcript from the 8am hour below:
CNN
New Day
4/19/2021
BRIANNA KEILAR: House minority leader Kevin McCarthy is calling for action against Democrat Maxine Waters. He’s accusing her of inciting violence for remarks she made on Saturday night when asked what protesters should do if Derek Chauvin is not convicted for murdering George Floyd.
REP. MAXINE WATERS [D-CA]: We got to stay on the street. We got to get more active, we got to get more confrontational, we’ve got to get more — we’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.
KEILAR: Joining us now chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign and the founder of Country Over Party Mathew Dowd is with us. Mathew, thank you so much for lending your perspective here. Certainly Waters should answer for her words when everyone is on edge. But the irony here is just so the stench of it. Republicans like Kevin McCarthy, who has repeatedly given cover to other Republican who have called in such explicit terms for violence. I’m thinking Marjorie Taylor Greene. I’m thinking Donald Trump. The irony here is thick.
MATTHEW DOWD: It’s incredibly thick and so is the hypocrisy on this, not the least to mention January 6th and what happened on January 6th and the number of Republicans that their words incited that. I actually just listened to Maxine Waters. We all have to be cognizant of what we say. I don’t think what she said in anyway should, we should criticize her for. Of course, we should be more confrontational. That doesn’t mean we should be more violent. But I was thinking about this as I was listening, is Emmett Till was killed in 1955, an all-white jury found the people that did it innocent. Then Medgar Evers, Jimmie Lee Jackson, so many of these folks that were guilty of killings and civil rights were then let off. And the only thing that led to the civil rights legislation to finally pass in 1965 was you know non-violent protests and so I think that’s where we’re going to end up today. The Republicans seem to me on the complete wrong side of history on this.
Pinkerton: If Red States Don’t Hang Together Against Woke Corporatism, They Will All Hang Separately
Red states should band together to seek federalist legal protection from the woke corporate power flowing out of the elite blue state bastions.
How Many Homes Could You Power With Free Doughnuts?
Should you get a COVID vaccine? Yes, it will protect you AND protect others to help us move past this pandemic so we can get back to a more normal life. But wait! If you get vaccinated, you can also get a doughnut! At least that’s the deal that Krispy Kreme Doughnuts is offering. Once you get your vaccine, you get a doughnut. Oh, it’s not just one doughnut—it’s one doughnut every day. That’s a lot of doughnuts.
OK, so how about some physics estimations to go along with your tasty doughnut?
Let’s say that all the Americans that have a COVID vaccine get (and eat) one doughnut a day. Of course eating food gives you energy to do stuff—that’s how food works. So, suppose that all these humans eat their doughnut and then use the extra energy to peddle a stationary bike. All of these bikes are then connected to generators so that they feed into the power grid. What kind of power output would this produce?
The first thing we need is the number of doughnuts a day. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) 63 million Americans have been fully vaccinated so far (as of April 7 2021). Oh, don’t worry too much about the numbers—I’m going to do all my calculations in python so that you can change the values if that makes you happy. I’m also going to assume that all these people get their doughnut—every day.
Next, I need to know the amount of energy per doughnut. According to Krispy Kreme’s site, a plain glazed doughnut is 190 Calories. But what the heck is a Calorie? Well, [the original calorie was created to describe changes in thermal energy for different substance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calories. Then, later people used it to measure the amount of chemical energy your body can get from eating food. However, there is a problem. For some reason, all food labels list stuff in Calories—but these are really kilocalories. So, that doughnut has 190,000 calories. I guess it just sounds like it’s too big of a number for people to consider eating.
There is another unit of energy—the joule. Since this is the preferred unit of energy for physicists, I’m going to use it. To convert between units, 1 calorie is equal to 4.184 joules. But what does this have to do with your everyday life? Let’s consider something you might do without too much effort. Suppose you have a textbook on the floor and you pick it up to put it on a table. Since you are exerting a force on the book over some distance, you have to change the gravitational potential energy of that book. The change in gravitational potential energy is equal to the mass of the book (about 1 kilogram) multiplied by the local gravitational field (g = 9.8 N/kg) and then multiplied by the change in height (about 1 meter). This will give a change in energy of about 10 joules. So that gives you a rough feeling for the amount of energy in a joule.
But what about power? Power is the rate of energy change. It tells you how fast you use energy. As an equation, it looks like this:
defpower
In this expression, if ΔE is the change in energy in units of joules and Δt is the time interval in seconds then the power will be in units of watts.
We are almost ready to calculate the vaccine doughnut power. We just need one more estimation—the efficiency. When a human eats a doughnut, only some of the chemical energy goes all the way into useful energy. Also, with a stationary bike generator some of the energy the human uses to push the pedals also goes into heating up some of the moving parts. In the end, only a percentage of the energy goes into electrical energy. This percentage is the efficiency. I’m just going to make a rough guess that the process of doughnut eating to electrical energy is 25 percent efficient.
That’s it. I just need to take the number of doughnuts per day and convert that energy to joules and then divide by the length of a day (in seconds). Oh, and multiply by the efficiency. Here’s what I get. Note: this is actual python code. You can see my calculations and even change them if you like.
pythonpower
You can see that for each human, it’s just a measly 2 watts of power. That’s around the power output for a smart phone (power values vary based on use). However, once you include all the vaccinated people we get up to 144 Megawatts. In 2019, the average household power was about 1200 watts. That means that you could use all these doughnuts to run 120 thousand homes. Oh, AND you get vaccinated—that’s a win.
More Great WIRED Stories
📩 The latest on tech, science, and more: Get our newsletters!
When the boss of all dating apps met the pandemic
Get moving with our favorite fitness apps and services
Why covering canals with solar panels is a power move
How to keep nearby strangers from sending you files
Help! Should I tell my colleagues I’m on the spectrum?
👁️ Explore AI like never before with our new database
🎮 WIRED Games: Get the latest tips, reviews, and more
🏃🏽♀️ Want the best tools to get healthy? Check out our Gear team’s picks for the best fitness trackers, running gear (including shoes and socks), and best headphones
Judicial Watch to Supreme Court: Hold Harvard Accountable!
The Supreme Court Should Hear Challenge to Harvard’s Race-Based Admissions Policies
Maryland Opens ‘Special Clinic’ to Give Latinos COVID-19 Vaccines
Crime Surges as Progressive Policies Gain Ground
The Supreme Court Should Hear Challenge to Harvard’s Race-Based Admissions Policies
The latest Leftist uproar — this over the alleged treatment of Asian Americans — points up their utter hypocrisy on race: accuse Americans broadly of racism while promoting racist policies. For example, it’s a poorly kept secret that academic bastions of leftist ideology have long been discriminating against Asians. Harvard leads the pack.
With our friends at the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF), we filed an amici curiae brief in support of Students for Fair Admission’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the U.S. District Court for the First Circuit that upholds Harvard College’s race-based affirmative action admissions program. (Students for Fair Admission v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (No. 20-1199)).
Students for Fair Admission argues that Harvard’s admissions program intentionally discriminates against Asian Americans on the basis of race and violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bans unconstitutional race-based admissions by public universities. Students for Fair Admission also argues that the Supreme Court should overrule the decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which held that institutions of higher education could use race as a factor in admissions. The petitioners allege that this discriminatory admission’s policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In our brief, we note that the Equal Protection Clause was designed to stop discrimination:
[O]ne of the core purposes of the Equal Protection Clause is to guarantee that individuals will be free from discrimination based upon race. It should come as no surprise to anyone that legalizing the use of race in deciding who is admitted to schools of higher learning has caused enormous conflict, including among members of this Court.
Our brief rejects the notion discriminating by race in admissions can be justified by “diversity” goals:
College and university administrators might promote greater cross-racial understanding and tolerance in their students, not by racially discriminating against applicants for admission to their schools, but by working to make their schools more tolerant of the expression of different points of view. Admissions programs that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race may themselves be negatively affecting the level of racial understanding and tolerance on today’s college campuses.
We argue that past Supreme Court rulings which failed to enforce the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition against racial classifications have not stood the test of time. Citing Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, and Hirabayashi v. United States they state:
Rulings by this Court which held that under the Equal Protection Clause individuals may be treated differently based on race have been wrongfully decided …
In each of these three cases, the Court ruled that treating individuals differently based on a racial classification did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. In each of these cases, the Court found that the government had justified its disparate treatment under the strict scrutiny test. These infamous cases demonstrate how misguided it is for this Court to sanction discriminatory racial classifications.
Additionally, we argue that this case should be heard because the Supreme Court, for decades, has failed to set a clear precedent on the issue of race-based admissions programs for lower courts:
The Bakke line of cases has failed to provide guidance to lower courts and university administrators about what constitutes a permissible race-based admission program. Bakke has led to five rulings over 43 years, in which there are 26 separate opinions. In each, the Court attempts to explain the constitutional rationale for allowing race-based preferences – even though these plainly conflict with the original meaning and text of the Equal Protection Clause.
Court-sanctioned racial discrimination in college admissions is contrary to federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court should stop abusing its powers to protect racial discrimination and uphold the rights of Asian students and other innocents punished for being of the wrong race by Harvard and other universities.
The Allied Educational Foundation is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in a number of projects, which include educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. AEF has partnered frequently with us to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a return to ethics and morality in the nation’s public life.
Maryland Opens ‘Special Clinic’ to Give Latinos COVID-19 Vaccines
Too many public health officials put race politics first when it comes to directing the distribution of limited vaccine doses to groups they favor. Our Corruption Chronicles blog has the latest from Maryland.
While many Maryland residents wait patiently to receive their government-funded COVID-19 vaccine, the state’s two biggest counties—both illegal immigrant sanctuaries—have launched a special clinic to inoculate 600 Latinos a week. The exclusive operation will be stationed at the Adventist HealthCare facility in Takoma Park, which is situated in Montgomery County, Maryland’s most populous. The shots will also be offered to Latinos who live in nearby Prince George’s County. Recipients will be “preselected” by an area open borders group, Casa de Maryland, and a Latino Health Initiative launched by Montgomery County two decades ago. In a statement announcing the venture public officials claim that it will help overcome inequities in the vaccine rollout as well as general health disparities that plague poor minority communities.
Judicial Watch is investigating the special Latino clinic, including how the vaccine candidates are chosen and the criteria used by public officials and Casa de Maryland to screen who qualifies. Is it based on a person’s looks, name, or proof of lineage? Judicial Watch has repeatedly tried to contact public officials involved in the project and media representatives for both counties as well as the Adventist HealthCare public relations person listed in the announcement, but calls have gone unanswered. In the name of transparency, Judicial Watch launched Maryland Public Information Act requests for both counties seeking, among other things, the eligibility criteria for individuals who want vaccinations in the special clinic and records identifying the reasons for limiting it to Latinos and excluding other races, ethnicities, or groups. The public records requests also ask both counties for any analyses of whether limiting the vaccination program to Latinos is consistent with state and federal law, including but not limited to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Taxpaying Americans have the right to know the details surrounding this exclusionary venture involving a government-funded vaccine intended for all the nation’s residents. The shots were created as part of a Trump administration initiative called Operation Warp Speed to accelerate the development, production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and deliver 300 million doses. The U.S. reportedly invested $18 billion on the project which involves several key government agencies—such as the Department of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—and private companies.
Elected officials in the two Maryland counties offering Latinos priority say it is essential to promoting equitable vaccine distribution. The Vice-Chair of the Prince George’s County Council, Deni Taveras, claims special clinics like the one catering to Latinos are “crucial for helping close the disparity gap.” Montgomery County Council President Tom Hucker asserts that the new inoculation site will help address and overcome “the inequities in our state’s vaccine rollout.” Council Vice President Gabe Albornoz said the Latino project will “help bridge the health inequities imposed by this lethal virus.” The director of the county’s Latino Health Initiative, Sonia Mora, says the public-private vaccination partnership is a bridge for local governments to “overcome inequities and gaps facing the most vulnerable among us.”
Montgomery County launched the Latino Health Initiative, which receives hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars annually, to develop and implement a culturally and linguistically competent health wellness system that values and respects Latino families and communities. The initiative promotes a comprehensive and holistic approach to health and wellness by working with stakeholders throughout the county to enhance programs and services targeting Latinos, develop models and services for Latinos and advocate for policies and practices that effectively reach the county’s Latino communities. Among the county health program’s “partners and collaborators” is Casa de Maryland, a nonprofit that operates day laborer centers for illegal immigrants which are partially funded with public money.
This is hardly the first case involving the discriminatory practice of a local government when it comes to COVID-19 vaccine distribution. In late February Judicial Watch reported that Virginia shifted its vaccine distribution to prioritize black and Latino residents as white 85-year-olds struggled to get the shot. At the time the state was vaccinating the population in phases, with healthcare personnel and residents of long-term care facilities receiving utmost priority. With that population completed, according to the Virginia Department of Health, the second group included a peculiar combination of frontline workers, people 65 and over, those with medical conditions, incarcerated criminals and those living in homeless shelters or migrant labor camps. Then the state shifted to give preference to black and Latino residents 65 and over while much older white seniors, many in their 80s, failed to secure an appointment.
Crime Surges as Progressive Policies Gain Ground
Radical left prosecutors and allied politicians are contributing to dangerous surges in crime in many of our nation’s big cities. In his Investigative Bulletin, Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, exposes how politics is triumphing over public safety and the rule of law:
The early 2021 crime statistics are in and the news is not good. In almost every category, violent crime in urban America is rising.
On Tuesday, New York City’s comprehensive CompStat crime-monitoring system reported a 36 percent jump in March murders from the previous year. Shootings? A 77 percent increase over the previous year.
And it’s not “just” murders and shootings. In late March, drawing on CompStat data, the New York Post raised alarms about “a startling crime surge.” The paper noted a shocking weekly surge in crime data from March 22 to March 28. When compared to the same period last year, in addition to a rise in murders and shootings, rapes were up 125 percent, felony assault up 23 percent, auto theft up 42 percent, robberies up 9 percent.
That looks like the signal of a crime wave.
It’s not just New York. Drawing on local data, CNN recently reported that in Chicago, murders are up 33 percent for 2021, compared to the same period in 2020.
In Los Angeles, according to news reports, 64 people were murdered in the first two months of 2021, an increase of 39 percent over the same period in 2020. Gun violence was up sharply, with 570 reports of shots fired, an 88 percent jump from the previous year.
The troubling news comes as no surprise to Judicial Watch followers. We have repeatedly warned about rising crime in urban America. We’ve also pinpointed a major source of the problem: progressive policy changes.
A “radical criminal-justice reform movement” has succeeded in elections in cities around the country, notes the Manhattan Institute’s Rafael Mangual in the new issue of City Journal. The changes are sweeping: “everything from bail and pretrial discovery to pedestrian stops and ‘restorative’ diversion programs.”
The progressive prosecutor movement—electoral bids “often helped along by funding from left-wing billionaire George Soros,” Mangual notes—has been notching significant successes. “Cities with progressive prosecutors include Chicago (Kim Foxx), San Francisco (Chesa Boudin), Boston (Rachel Rollins), Philadelphia (Larry Krasner), and many others—including New York.”
New York often is a bell weather for change in urban America. That’s the case these days with issues of crime and punishment. And with the retirement of Cyrus Vance Jr., the influential post of Manhattan District Attorney—the second most powerful prosecuting office in the U.S. after the Justice Department—is up for grabs in June.
Manhattan is a Democratic Party stronghold, and the June party primary will essentially decide the Manhattan DA election. The eight Democratic contenders range from center-left moderates to far-left apparatchiks with no prosecutorial experience. There is no front runner.
“In an era of unrest and cries for social justice,” noted Daniel Alonso, a former senior Vance prosecutor writing in the Daily News, the eight candidates all embrace various forms of “progressive prosecutorial agendas — aiming to reduce the focus on incarceration in favor of more lenient alternatives, social services, and greater scrutiny of police officers.”
That’s a big gamble in an era of rising crime. New York—along with much of the rest of urban America—will soon see if the progressive prosecutor movement is a winning bet.
Until next week …
The post Judicial Watch to Supreme Court: Hold Harvard Accountable! appeared first on Judicial Watch.
Why My Employees and Their Partners Created Our Company’s Values
True or False: You Can Be Denied Life Insurance if You Haven’t Gotten a COVID-19 Vaccine
How should you shop for life insurance in an America that’s rapidly becoming immunized against COVID-19? Sensibly — by getting vaccinated as, or even before, you apply for a policy. That’s despite advice to the contrary from some internet trolls.
Roughly a third of American adults have now received at least one vaccine dose, and President Biden has announced that all adults should be eligible for the vaccine by April 19. But that progress has spurred the spread of online misinformation suggesting that vaccination may hamper you in getting life insurance. There are also concerns of the opposite — that not getting shots might be reason to be denied coverage.
Not every question about insurance and immunization can yet be answered definitively, since the industry is still processing what vaccination may mean for life insurance premiums and stipulations. But here’s what you need to know and do if you’re looking for a policy now or soon.
Online falsehoods about vaccination and life insurance
Given the prevalence of anti-vaccination messages, it’s hardly surprising that some who oppose COVID-19 immunization are disseminating myths about the effect of the shots on life insurance. Unsourced assertions floating around conspiracy-theory-laden corners of the Internet, and amplified by (largely anonymous) social media reposts, claim that people who get vaccinated against COVID-19 could be banned, now or in the future, from purchasing life insurance. Alternatively, the theory goes, death benefits might be taken away from those who have been vaccinated.
The theories are, of course, flat-out false. The industry’s trade group, the American Council of Life Insurers, issued a press release rebutting the untrue claims.
“Life insurers do not consider whether or not a policyholder has received a COVID vaccine when deciding whether to pay a claim,” the ACLI says in its statement.
“Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit. A vaccine for COVID-19 is not one of them… Nothing has changed in the claims-paying process as a result of COVID-19 vaccinations.”
Steve Parrish, co-director of the Center for Retirement Income at the American College of Financial Services, suggests that the COVID-19 vaccine is currently likely to be a nonevent for most life insurance applicants.
“That’s not typically the kind of question a life insurance application would ask. Those kinds of things really don’t come up,” he says. Although life insurance underwriting does include a physical (either in-person or, since the pandemic, virtual) health exam, insurers generally don’t ask if people get vaccinated for, say, the flu or pneumonia.
Your vaccination in perspective
It’s not that insurers can’t ask about your vaccination status. “The question is certainly fair game,” he says — it’s just that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is a relatively small data point when it comes to evaluating a person’s overall health and mortality risk. “It’s just too fine a detail for them to base pricing on,” Parrish says. “They’ll be looking at it as a macro issue, not per applicant.”
The one instance where vaccination might come into play is if a person applying for a life insurance policy has comorbidities that put them at a greater risk of dying from COVID-19 if they were to contract it, Parrish says. The combination of those other health issues plus the risk of COVID-19 could prompt insurers to look more favorably on an applicant who had been vaccinated.
“If it’s close, if they’re underwriting a case and they’re looking at medical history and if they’re trying to decide, they would probably look favorably if a person has had a vaccination,” he says.
Cathy Seifert, an insurance analyst at CFRA Research, says pandemic-related claims questions are far more likely to crop up in other sectors of the insurance industry. “The bigger driver is in health insurance and disability pricing models,” she says.
Get vaccinated before you apply
Last year, some big life insurance companies pulled back on writing new policies for older Americans in response to myriad uncertainties about long-term effects of the pandemic combined with a punishing low-interest-rate environment that squeezed life insurers’ margins, Seifert says.
Like Parrish, she says there’s little chance that an otherwise-healthy person would be turned down for a policy just because they hadn’t received the COVID-19 vaccine, although she also predicts that insurers might have a positive view of COVID-19 vaccination on the margin. “If you’re thinking of getting life insurance, get yourself vaccinated first and then shop for it,” she recommends.
Life insurance became harder to price in the context of a novel coronavirus because there was no crystal ball, no long-term information available, Seifert says. Unlike, say, car insurance, life insurance policies aren’t repriced from year to year in response to fluctuations in risk factors. Insurers have to rely on long-range actuarial models — models that COVID-19 threw for a loop.
The jury is also still out on a related question: How carriers will handle underwriting for people who have had, and recovered from COVID-19. “I anticipate it will probably be a factor in life insurance underwriting,” Seifert says, but she adds that state insurance commissioners will likely be quick to crack down on anything that resembles the price-gouging of COVID-19 survivors.
“My sense is regulators are going to be highly sensitive to onerous pricing methodologies,” she says.
More from MONEY:
The Ins-and-Outs of Music Catalog Sales and the Behind-the-Scenes Players Advising Songwriters Who Cash Out
“We should send a thank you note to the Bob Dylan folks,” says Charles “Jeff” Biederman, partner at law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, which has a thriving music practice. “The day Dylan happened, I must have gotten four calls that morning,” he adds, referring to Universal Music Publishing Group’s December announcement of a deal […]