Boy Scouts Jamboree: No Chubby Scouts Allowed" ?

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

 

 

 A decision by the Boy Scouts of America has angered some scouts and their parents for excluding overweight scouts from the organization’s annual Jamboree, being held this week.
The Jamboree, a sort of Super Bowl of scouting, brings together scouts from across the country for fellowship, adventure and – presumably – a lot of talk about popcorn sales.
This year, Jamboree officials have banned scouts with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of more than 40 from attending the 10-day camp due to the supposed rigorous physical demands of participation, USA Today reports.

“Teaching Scouts and Scouters how to live a sustainable life, which includes a healthy lifestyle, and the health of our participants are important goals of the jamboree. We published our height-weight requirements years in advance and many individuals began a health regimen to lose weight and attend the jamboree. But, for those who couldn’t, most self-selected and chose not to apply,” Scout spokesman Deron Smithtold ABC News.

Relatively speaking, the BMI benchmark precludes an average 13-year-old with a height of 5’1″ from attending if he weighed more than 211 pounds. Scouts with a BMI between 32-39.9 (about 170-210 pounds) would have to submit satisfactory medical records before being allowed to participate.
All F0rmer Boy Scouts: Check out this partial lit of history's most famous actors, athletes, politicians and other celebrities who were once Boy Scouts. (Getty Images)

Source...  http://blog.chron.com/healthzone/2013/07/boy-scouts-jamboree-no-chubby-scouts-allowed/

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/
Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600    
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

BMI Correction

BMI is not "entitled" to $150,000 in fees when a song within the BMI repertoire is played publicly without a license.BMI did not request $150,000 for an infringed work in any of these cases. The $150,000 penalty referred to by TMZ is actually the maximum statutory amount that the copyright owner can recover per infringement as permitted within the U.S. Copyright Act. The article misrepresents what BMI stands for along with the collaboration between performers and songwriters. Not all performers are songwriters and many songwriters that BMI represents make their living from their BMI royalties.

Furthermore, this article falsely represents the collaboration between performers and songwriters. Not all artists and performers are songwriters. This article inaccurately lists more than 20 artists and misrepresents them, assuming that they are all creators of musical works.  The piece inaccurately suggests that these artists may be involved in litigation involving BMI. For more information please feel free to visit our licensing page at http://www.bmi.com/licensing/.

BMI Along with19 Stars Sue 12 Bars and Restaurants Around the Country

BMI -- the famous music licensing company -- has filed lawsuits against 12 bars and restaurants around the country, claiming the establishments have been playing their songs without paying a licensing fee. 

And it gets a lot worse.  For every BMI song that gets played on a bar jukebox or by a DJ without the proper fee being paid, BMI is entitled to $150,000 in damages.  So "Love Child" could literally put a bar out of biz.

As for how BMI picked the places to sue -- it appears to have been pretty random.

Some are as follows....

 The Fox Hole in West Jordan,
Utah, Mojo Main in Newark, Delaware,
Whiskey River Ranch, (we think it's in Springfield, Oregon),
Whiskey Bones Roadhouse in Rochester, Minnesota,
Kildare's Irish Pub in Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
Pig 'N' Whistle in NYC.

BMI is obviously sending a message to hundreds of thousands of bars and restaurants across the US of A -- playing "Free Bird" ain't so free after all.

Read More.... http://www.tmz.com/2013/06/05/bmi-lawsuit-michael-jackson-lil-wayne-lady-gaga-rolling-stones-small-bars/#ixzz2VND8feJb

Court Ruling for Sly Stone's Financial Downfall

The psychedelic funk superstar alleged that in 1989, he was induced into giving up much of his song royalties by a manager and attorney fueling his drug addictions. Sony Music and Warner Music won't have to pay for that.

The subject of the ruling is Sly Stone, born as Sylvester Stewart, who as the front man for Sly and the Family Stone, blazed a path for a progressive mixture of funk, soul and psychedelic music and whose songs like "Everyday People" and "Hot Fun in the Summertime" remain well-played on radio.

Stone's troubles with drugs and the Internal Revenue Service are well known, but in a lawsuit over "tens of millions" of dollars in allegedly misappropriated royalties against nearly three dozen individuals and entities, including an ex-manager, a lawyer and Sony, Warner and Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI), he detailed the full extent of his financial troubles and poor deal-making. Unfortunately, for Stone, an appeals court isn't giving him much relief.

We'll pick up Stone's story in the mid-70's when already a successful musician, he began to run into some personal problems that required Ken Roberts, Stone's friend and one-time manager, to advance some money and pay off some debts. In return, Stone irrevocably assigned Roberts his BMI-administered performance-right royalties.

Then, in 1980, the IRS levied a multi-million dollar tax lien upon Stone's income. For about the next 15 years, much of the money that was derived from Stone's hit songs was routed to government tax collectors.

In 1985, Stone sold his publishing interest in most of his existing musical compositions to Michael Jackson's MiJac Music company, but retained the songwriter's share of the royalties. But that too ended up with the IRS.

Full Ruling Here... http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B236286.PDF

The California Appeals Court ruling on Thursday only addresses the liability of the big music companies -- Sony, BMI and Warner -- that allegedly allowed royalties to be diverted without doing the necessary due diligence.

In short, Stone may have made bad deals in lifetime, but for the purposes of holding these companies accountable, the appeals court affirms that he has no standing to sue. He can't allege breach of contract against BMI because he assigned his royalty payments to Roberts. He can't make various claims against Sony because the record label "properly relied on" those 1989 agreements presented when figuring out where to direct royalties. Similarly, he can't sue Warner. Quoting the trial judge, the appeals court notes "the royalty companies were simply doing what they were instructed to do for years upon years.”

In the ruling, an appeals court overturns the trial judge's ruling that Roberts lacked standing to sue BMI. It also waives away BMI's contention that his claim of breach of contract is barred by statute of limitations, although the appeals judge says he can only possibly collect for four years prior to the launch of the lawsuit for allegedly bad actions. Yes, BMI paid out to Majoken, but the appeals court says "that is neither the beginning nor the end of the story" as "BMI had a contractual duty to insist on written instructions from Roberts" when in 1996, it changed where the money was going.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/sly-stones-financial-downfall-detailed-561175