11:24 There's two changes which have slipped in, or they're trying to slip in, for the first time and coordinated. ASCAP and BMI are both creating campaign and political entity licenses. So they are trying to change the burden of the performance from the venue, which would be what's the big arena that Trump was in in Tulsa? I can't remember. So whenever there's a concert there, you know, a band shows up, they play, there's 20,000 people or whatever fits in the arena, 800,000, a million who are going to come. They fit in that arena, the venue pays, the band doesn't. But now ASCAP and BMI both have said, no, we think that this is different.
12:15 And I'll tell you why in a moment. And so the venue might have to pay, but really you, the political entity, has to pay. Even though you're performing it just like a band who could be political. You too is a political band. They play political songs. Lots of political... Dixie Chicks. I'm sorry, the Chicks. They don't have to pay for it. But now ASCAP and BMI have come out with these licenses. And I'm going to read you the pertinent language from the ASCAP license. This license is issued to an individual's candidate's specific campaign and extends only until the candidate is sworn into office, not for the candidate's full term in office. I have no idea where they're putting that in there. Having such licenses in place would guarantee that, no matter where you have a campaign stop, the performances of music at the events would be in compliance with copyright law.
13:11 So, I think what they're trying to say, and this will go to court, is that if you have a campaign stop like a stump speech, that would be all of a sudden you are the venue. You're the performer and the venue, which has never been done before. I don't think it's even legal, but that's what they're trying to say. Even if, they say here under, can political campaigns rely on venue licenses? Because licenses for venues such as convention centers and hotels generally exclude rights to perform music at events organized by a third party, political campaigns need their own ASCAP license to use the works in its repertory. This is very tricky language, but they're trying to hoodwink you.
14:02 Convention centers and hotels generally will not license music because they don't want to pay for it. So they say, hey, are you going to play music at your event? No? Okay, then we'll just call ASCAP and say there's no license for this period. That's not because they pay licenses differently when they're in a hotel. They don't. They just say, we don't want any music so done, we won't pay for a license. That's very typical because it can get very expensive if you have hundreds of thousands of people attending an event and if it's hard to count, etc. Now it's set. Now, this is great.
14:40 Because licenses for venues such as conventions, centers and hotels generally exclude rights to perform music at events organized by a third party, political campaigns need their own ASCAP licenses to use the works in its repertory. This makes sense, it says, because the third party organizer is the main beneficiary of the performances, not the venue. and is in the best position to control the performances. For this reason, event organizers, in this case political campaigns, have traditionally assumed responsibility for obtaining the permission from rights holders. I know it's kind of smokey legalese, but that's the point. It's not true. It is not true. Who is the beneficiary of the Trump rally in Tulsa? I ask you, John.
15:34 Well, I kind of fell for their language. I think Trump should have been. So the Trump campaign does not pay the venue any money? Bullshit! They may pay top dollar for the venue. It's no different than Aerosmith or anyone else. You're right. The venue's not... Okay, you got me. You got me. That's what they're trying to do. The venue... I'm gonna explain. The venue is not giving the space away for free. No, of course not. And they never have and they never will. Furthermore... So it's the same as a rock concert. Why is it any different? It's not different at all. No, it's a scam. Moreover, in 17 U.S. Code 110, Section 4,
16:18 limitation on exclusive rights, exemption of certain performances and displays. So were it true that the venue did not get any money, did not benefit at all, and only the Trump campaign benefited because he's trying to become president? I guess that's a benefit. I'm not sure. Before you know it, every Republican will be taxed because they got a benefit for, you know, of some something. But specifically, If you have a performance in a venue of non-dramatic literary or musical work, otherwise than in transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, then no fee would have to be paid.
17:10 So their argument doesn't stand up. They're saying, well the venue doesn't benefit, okay, but then someone has to benefit. If no one benefits monetarily, commercially, commercially, then no performance fee has to be paid. So they're doubly full of shit. Here's the rub, and this could have happened. BMI, who have a very similar license, and these are all new, I've never seen these before, these are coming out of nowhere. The Rolling Stones, our legal team, is working with BMI. BMI has notified the Trump campaign on behalf of the Stones that the unauthorized use of their songs will constitute a breach of its licensing agreement. If Donald Trump disregards the exclusion and persists, he would face a lawsuit for breaking the embargo and playing music that had not been licensed. What BMI says in this article is that the Trump campaign has a political entity license from BMI.
18:07 If that's true, and it's very possible that some bonehead, some douche-knuckle dickhead went, oh, I should both, I got us a license just in case. Then I think they're in trouble. Because if you sign, it will supersede the blanket license if you sign an exclusive license agreement with BMI which states that you have a blanket license however However, any of their members of the performing rights organization, i.e. publishers, songwriters, composers, can refuse their works to be performed. And that would have to be with a written, you know, a seven-day advance written whatever, but then they could pull that. So if the Trump campaign signed a deal with BMI, as they state in this interview, then they're screwed with BMI. If they didn't, I think they can keep going for as long as they want.
19:05 But right, but I think these two new licenses are do not hold up to the code. This is all written in the law. It's all copyright law. They're just creating new shit out of thin air and everybody's on board with it. But Orange Man bad. Orange Man bad. Oh, there you go. So in this case, something may actually happen, but I'd have to see that the campaign actually had. I don't think they have one with ASCAP. Because ASCAP didn't say that, but ASCAP kind of lifted their skirt there by saying, well, you know, the venue doesn't, it's really the campaign that benefits, so they should be paying. Which would be the same as Taylor Swift. Well, Taylor Swift is really quite rich and she's really benefiting from this contest. She should pay instead of the arena. Let's, okay, well, I think it... You got it, right? I'm done. Yeah. Everyone's got it.