Podcasts about royalties

Independent musicians leave significant money on the table—not from lack of talent, but from unclaimed royalties and overlooked revenue streams. Amani Roberts, music business educator and author of the USA Today bestseller "The Quiet Storm," reveals the specific registration gaps costing artists thousands of dollars annually.   In this conversation, Amani breaks down the four major royalty collection systems most artists fail to use properly: PRO registration for public performance royalties, SoundExchange for digital performance royalties, publishing royalties through services like Songtrust, and the Mechanical Licensing Collective. He explains how unclaimed royalties eventually get redistributed to major labels based on market share—money that independent artists could be collecting themselves.   Beyond royalty recovery, Amani shares his framework for building a private and corporate event business that can generate 5-10x more revenue than traditional bar gigs. He details the specific industry associations to join (MPI, PCMA, SITE), how to price yourself for corporate events, and the contract elements that differ from venue bookings.   Our conversation also covers email list-building strategies that convert social media followers into owned audience assets, how book publishing creates revenue opportunities beyond book sales, and why direct fan-to-artist platforms should be every musician's first 90-day priority.   Key Insights from This Episode   The Four Unclaimed Royalty Streams: Independent artists commonly miss public performance royalties (PROs), digital performance royalties (SoundExchange), publishing royalties (Songtrust), and mechanical royalties (Mechanical Licensing Collective). Unclaimed royalties eventually get redistributed to major labels—money independent artists should be collecting.   Royalty Recovery: Artists can recover unclaimed royalties going back up to four years. Proper metadata management and identical information across all platforms are critical for successful collection.   The Streaming Misconception: The biggest misconception is believing streaming is where most royalties come from. Mechanical, public performance, and publishing royalties represent more significant opportunities that are frequently overlooked.   Private and Corporate Event Revenue: Private and corporate events can generate 5-10x more revenue than bar gigs. Break in by joining event planning associations like Meeting Professionals International (MPI), Professional Conference Management Association (PCMA), and Society for Incentive Travel Executives (SITE). Volunteer at local chapters to build relationships with planners.   Corporate Event Pricing: Ask about the budget upfront, research past hires, and price based on your worth with flexibility. Always require deposits and negotiate hotel stays, parking, meals, and written/video testimonials in contracts.   Email List Monetization: Email lists are owned media (social is rented space). Revenue generation can begin with 50 subscribers. Use lead magnets like acoustic song versions and tools like MiniChat to automate conversions.   Book Publishing Strategy: Books rarely generate significant income from sales, but can increase speaking fees, create performance opportunities at events, and enhance rates for services. View publishing as paid marketing for your broader business.   90-Day Priority: Launch a direct fan-to-artist platform like Patreon with a compelling lead magnet for fast revenue impact.   Sustainable Revenue Model: Target 30% from performance, 30-35% from direct-to-fan, 20% from merchandise, 15% from private events. Support the Unstarving Musician The Unstarving Musician exists solely through the generosity of its listeners, readers, and viewers. Learn how you can offer your support at UnstarvingMusician.com/CrowdSponsor This episode was brought to you by Podcast Startup. Ready to launch your podcast or take it to the next level? Podcast Startup gives you the frameworks, systems, and insider knowledge to build a show that actually grows your audience and serves your goals. Whether you're just getting started or looking to improve your existing podcast, you'll get actionable strategies on equipment selection, content planning, audience building, and sustainable production workflows—without the overwhelm. Learn more at UnstarvingMusician.com/PodcastStartup. Join podcasters who are building shows that last. Resources The Unstarving Musician's Guide to Getting Paid Gigs, by Robonzo Dreamhost – See the latest deals from Dreamhost, save money and support the UM in the process. More Resources for musicians 

Paul Jones, VP of Corporate Development at Versamet Royalties (TSX.V: VMET), joins us to review the key metrics from the record Q3 financials, the recent news where Tether and the Lundin family have become strategic shareholders, and a look ahead to future mid-sized royalty and streaming transactions to grow. Additionally, we discuss the benefits of the coming big board US exchange listing.   Third Quarter 2025 Highlights    Record revenue of $8.1 million, an increase of 155% over Q3 2024.  Record attributable gold equivalent ounces (“GEOs”) of 2,699, an increase of 110% over Q3 2024.  Record operating cash flow before working capital changes of $6.1 million, an increase of 206% over Q3 2024.  Acquisition of a significant silver stream on the operating Rosh Pinah Zinc mine in Namibia and a polymetallic royalty on the operating Santa Rita mine in Brazil, both operated by Appian Capital Advisory Limited (“Appian”).  Inaugural royalty revenues from the Kiaka and Santa Rita mines.     Paul reviews the record Q3 revenues, GEOs and cash flow, and highlighted the immediate benefits of company's recent largest transaction to date with the acquisition of a significant silver stream on Rosh Pinah Zinc, a high-quality mine in Namibia that is currently undergoing an expansion, and a royalty on Santa Rita in Brazil, a top tier nickel-sulphide mine. The addition of these expanding cash-flowing assets have had a significant impact to Versamet's combined gold equivalent ounces, with ~10,000 GEOs projected in 2025, and up to ~20,000 GEOs by 2026.  This translates over to ~$70M in annual revenue targeted for next year, using consensus gold prices, and even higher than that at current spot prices.   We go on to discuss with Paul the Company's current valuation, their plans for growth through accretive acquisitions, and the advantage of the mid-size deal flow they can pursue as one of only a few mid-tier precious metals royalty and streaming companies.   Wrapping up Paul highlights the strong endorsement of the quality of their assets from the recent news of Tether Investments S.A. de C.V. and the Lundin Family Trusts both coming in as new 12.7% cornerstone shareholders of the Company respectively.  We also review the liquidity benefits, broader investor base, and potential for more ETF inclusion through the coming U.S. big board exchange listing.     If you have any questions for Paul regarding Versamet Royalties, then please email those in to us at Fleck@kereport.com or Shad@kereport.com.   Click here to follow the latest news from Versamet Royalties   For more market commentary & interview summaries, subscribe to our Substacks:   The KE Report: https://kereport.substack.com/   Shad's resource market commentary: https://excelsiorprosperity.substack.com/     Investment disclaimer: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or a solicitation to buy or sell any security. Investing in equities and commodities involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Guests and hosts may own shares in companies mentioned.  

Send us a textIn conversation with Anushka 'Nush' Lewis, contemporary harpist, music education innovator, and academic facilitator at Abbey Road Institute Mumbai.Nush's journey defies conventional paths in Indian music. From accidentally discovering the harp at KM Music Conservatory to releasing three critically acclaimed EPs and opening for The Cinematic Orchestra, she's carved out a unique space as one of India's rare contemporary harpists. But her impact extends far beyond performance: recognizing fundamental gaps in India's music education ecosystem, she founded OffSet Education in 2017, launched India's first music education podcast, and built a 300+ member community of educators nationwide. Today, as Academic Facilitator at Abbey Road Institute Mumbai, India's first campus of the prestigious UK institution, she's bridging the gap between traditional music pedagogy and global industry standards, mentoring the next generation of producers and sound engineers at a fraction of international costs.In this episode, we explore Nush's evolution from performing at festivals like Ziro and Adelaide Fringe to pioneering structured music education in India, unpack how OffSet Education is addressing systemic challenges through community-driven solutions, gender politics in the music industry and discover why Abbey Road Institute's arrival in Mumbai represents a pivotal moment for India's music industry.Join us for a delightful conversation about artistry, education, and the transformation of India's music landscape - from grassroots communities to global institutions.For more on OffSet Education, visit www.offsetlive.in. Got questions or feedback? Drop us a line at hello@lextalkmusic.com.This podcast is purely for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Kindly consult a legal practitioner for specific advice on legal issues/ disputes. © Sandhya Surendran, 2025. All rights reserved.

Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Kathleen Moore discuss key studies in the evolving controversy over radical upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Linda Duska: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your guest host, Dr. Linda Duska. I am a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.  On today's episode, we will explore the management of advanced ovarian cancer, specifically with respect to a question that has really stirred some controversy over time, going all the way back more than 20 years: Should we be doing radical upfront surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, or should we be doing neoadjuvant chemotherapy? So, there was a lot of hype about the TRUST study, also called ENGOT ov33/AGO-OVAR OP7, a Phase 3 randomized study that compares upfront surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval surgery. So, I want to talk about that study today. And joining me for the discussion is Dr. Kathleen Moore, a professor also of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Oklahoma and the deputy director of the Stephenson Cancer Center, also at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences.  Dr. Moore, it is so great to be speaking with you today. Thanks for doing this. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, it's fun to be here. This is going to be fun. Dr. Linda Duska: FYI for our listeners, both of our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  So let's just jump right in. We already alluded to the fact that the TRUST study addresses a question we have been grappling with in our field. Here's the thing, we have four prior randomized trials on this exact same topic. So, share with me why we needed another one and what maybe was different about this one? Dr. Kathleen Moore: That is, I think, the key question. So we have to level-set kind of our history. Let's start with, why is this even a question? Like, why are we even talking about this today? When we are taking care of a patient with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, the aim of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer ideally is to prolong a patient's likelihood of disease-free survival, or if you want to use the term "remission," you can use the term "remission." And I think we can all agree that our objective is to improve overall survival in a way that also does not compromise her quality of life through surgical complications, which can have a big effect. The standard for many decades, certainly my entire career, which is now over 20 years, has been to pursue what we call primary cytoreductive surgery, meaning you get a diagnosis and we go right to the operating room with a goal of achieving what we call "no gross residual." That is very different – in the olden days, you would say "optimal" and get down to some predefined small amount of tumor. Now, the goal is you remove everything you can see.  The alternative strategy to that is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, and that has been the, quote-unquote, "safer" route because you chemically cytoreduce the cancer, and so, the resulting surgery, I will tell you, is not necessarily easy at all. It can still be very radical surgeries, but they tend to be less radical, less need for bowel resections, splenectomy, radical procedures, and in a short-term look, would be considered safer from a postoperative consideration. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, and also maybe more likely to be successful, right? Because there's less disease, maybe, theoretically. Dr. Kathleen Moore: More likely to be successful in getting to no gross residual. Dr. Linda Duska: Right. Yeah, exactly. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I agree with that. And so, so if the end game, regardless of timing, is you get to no gross residual and you help a patient and there's no difference in overall survival, then it's a no-brainer. We would not be having this conversation. But there remains a question around, while it may be more likely to get to no gross residual, it may be, and I think we can all agree, a less radical, safer surgery, do you lose survival in the long term by this approach? This has become an increasing concern because of the increase in rates of use of neoadjuvant, not only in this country, but abroad. And so, you mentioned the four prior studies. We will not be able to go through them completely. Dr. Linda Duska: Let's talk about the two modern ones, the two from 2020 because neither one of them showed a difference in overall survival, which I think we can agree is, at the end of the day, yes, PFS would be great, but OS is what we're looking for. Dr. Kathleen Moore: OS is definitely what we're looking for. I do think a marked improvement in PFS, like a real prolongation in disease-free survival, for me would be also enough. A modest improvement does not really cut it, but if you are really, really prolonging PFS, you should see that-  Dr. Linda Duska: -manifest in OS. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, yeah. Okay. So let's talk about the two modern ones. The older ones are EORTC and CHORUS, which I think we've talked about. The two more modern ones are SCORPION and JCOG0602. So, SCORPION was interesting. SCORPION was a very small study, though. So one could say it's underpowered. 170 patients. And they looked at only patients that were incredibly high risk. So, they had to have a Fagotti score, I believe, of over 9, but they were not looking at just low volume disease. Like, those patients were not enrolled in SCORPION. It was patients where you really were questioning, "Should I go to the OR or should I do neoadjuvant? Like, what's the better thing?" It is easy when it's low volume. You're like, "We're going." These were the patients who were like, "Hm, you know, what should I do?" High volume. Patients were young, about 55. The criticism of the older studies, there are many criticisms, but one of them is that, the criticism that is lobbied is that they did not really try. Whatever surgery you got, they did not really try with median operative times of 180 minutes for primary cytoreduction, 120 for neoadjuvant. Like, you and I both know, if you're in a big primary debulking, you're there all day. It's 6 hours. Dr. Linda Duska: Right, and there was no quality control for those studies, either. Dr. Kathleen Moore: No quality control. So, SCORPION, they went 451-minute median for surgery. Like, they really went for it versus four hours and then 253 for the interval, 4 hours. They really went for it on both arms. Complete gross resection was achieved in 50% of the primary cytoreduced. So even though they went for it with these very long surgeries, they only got to the goal half the time. It was almost 80% in the interval group. So they were more successful there. And there was absolutely no difference in PFS or OS. They were right about 15 months PFS, right about 40 months OS.  JCOG0602, of course, done in Japan, a big study, 300 patients, a little bit older population. Surprisingly more stage IV disease in this study than were in SCORPION. SCORPION did not have a lot of stage IV, despite being very bulky tumors. So a third of patients were stage IV. They also had relatively shorter operative times, I would say, 240 minutes for primary, 302 for interval. So still kind of short. Complete gross resection was not achieved very often. 30% of primary cytoreduction. That is not acceptable. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, so let's talk about TRUST. What was different about TRUST? Why was this an important study for us to see? Dr. Kathleen Moore: So the criticism of all of these, and I am not trying to throw shade at anyone, but the criticism of all of these is if you are putting surgery to the test, you are putting the surgeon to the test. And you are assuming that all surgeons are trained equally and are willing to do what it takes to get someone to no gross residual. Dr. Linda Duska: And are in a center that can support the post-op care for those patients. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Which can be ICU care, prolonged time. Absolutely. So when you just open these broadly, you're assuming everyone has the surgical skills and is comfortable doing that and has backup. Everybody has an ICU. Everyone has a blood bank, and you are willing to do that. And that assumption could be wrong. And so what TRUST said is, "Okay, we are only going to open this at centers that have shown they can achieve a certain level of primary cytoreduction to no gross residual disease." And so there was quality criteria. It was based on – it was mostly a European study – so ESGO criteria were used to only allow certified centers to participate. They had to have a surgical volume of over 36 cytoreductive surgeries per year. So you could not be a low volume surgeon. Your complete resection rates that were reported had to be greater than 50% in the upfront setting. I told you on the JCOG, it was 30%. Dr. Linda Duska: Right. So these were the best of the best. This was the best possible surgical situation you could put these patients in, right? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Absolutely. And you support all the things so you could mitigate postoperative complications as well. Dr. Linda Duska: So we are asking the question now again in the ideal situation, right? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Right. Dr. Linda Duska: Which, we can talk about, may or may not be generalizable to real life, but that's a separate issue because we certainly don't have those conditions everywhere where people get cared for with ovarian cancer. But how would you interpret the results of this study? Did it show us anything different? Dr. Kathleen Moore: I am going to say how we should interpret it and then what I am thinking about. It is a negative study. It was designed to show improvement in overall survival in these ideal settings in patients with FIGO stage IIIB and C, they excluded A, these low volume tumors that should absolutely be getting surgery. So FIGO stage IIIB and C and IVA and B that were fit enough to undergo radical surgery randomized to primary cytoreduction or neoadjuvant with interval, and were all given the correct chemo. Dr. Linda Duska: And they were allowed bevacizumab and PARP, also. They could have bevacizumab and PARP. Dr. Kathleen Moore: They were allowed bevacizumab and PARP. Not many of them got PARP, but it was distributed equally, so that would not be a confounder. And so that was important. Overall survival is the endpoint. It was a big study. You know, it was almost 600 patients. So appropriately powered. So let's look at what they reported. When they looked at the patients who were enrolled, this is a large study, almost 600 patients, 345 in the primary cytoreductive arm and 343 in the neoadjuvant arm. Complete resection in these patients was 70% in the primary cytoreductive arm and 85% in the neoadjuvant arm. So in both arms, it was very high. So your selection of site and surgeon worked. You got people to their optimal outcome. So that is very different than any other study that has been reported to date. But what we saw when we looked at overall survival was no statistical difference. The median was, and I know we do not like to talk about medians, but the median in the primary cytoreductive arm was 54 months versus 48 months in the neoadjuvant arm with a hazard ratio of 0.89 and, of course, the confidence interval crossed one. So this is not statistically significant. And that was the primary endpoint. Dr. Linda Duska: I know you are getting to this. They did look at PFS, and that was statistically significant, but to your point about what are we looking for for a reasonable PFS difference? It was about two months difference. When I think about this study, and I know you are coming to this, what I thought was most interesting about this trial, besides the fact that the OS, the primary endpoint was negative, was the subgroup analyses that they did. And, of course, these are hypothesis-generating only. But if you look at, for example, specifically only the stage III group, that group did seem to potentially, again, hypothesis generating, but they did seem to benefit from upfront surgery.  And then one other thing that I want to touch on before we run out of time is, do we think it matters if the patient is BRCA germline positive? Do we think it matters if there is something in particular about that patient from a biomarker standpoint that is different? I am hopeful that more data will be coming out of this study that will help inform this. Of course, unpowered, hypothesis-generating only, but it's just really interesting. What do you think of their subset analysis? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, I think the subsets are what we are going to be talking about, but we have to emphasize that this was a negative trial as designed. Dr. Linda Duska: Absolutely. Yes. Dr. Kathleen Moore: So we cannot be apologists and be like, "But this or that." It was a negative trial as designed. Now, I am a human and a clinician, and I want what is best for my patients. So I am going to, like, go down the path of subset analyses. So if you look at the stage III tumors that got complete cytoreduction, which was 70% of the cases, your PFS was almost 28 months versus 21.8 months. Dr. Linda Duska: Yes, it becomes more significant. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, that hazard ratio is 0.69. Again, it is a subset. So even though the P value here is statistically significant, it actually should not have a P value because it is an exploratory analysis. So we have to be very careful. But the hazard ratio is 0.69. So the hypothesis is in this setting, if you're stage III and you go for it and you get someone to no gross residual versus an interval cytoreduction, you could potentially have a 31% reduction in the rate of progression for that patient who got primary cytoreduction. And you see a similar trend in the stage III patients, if you look at overall survival, although the post-progression survival is so long, it's a little bit narrow of a margin.  But I do think there are some nuggets here that, one of our colleagues who is really one of the experts in surgical studies, Dr. Mario Leitao, posted this on X, and I think it really resonated after this because we were all saying, "But what about the subsets?" He is like, "It's a negative study." But at the end of the day, you are going to sit with your patient. The patient should be seen by a GYN oncologist or surgical oncologist with specialty in cytoreduction and a medical oncologist, you know, if that person does not give chemo, and the decision should be made about what to do for that individual patient in that setting. Dr. Linda Duska: Agreed. And along those lines, if you look carefully at their data, the patients who had an upfront cytoreduction had almost twice the risk of having a stoma than the patients who had an interval cytoreduction. And they also had a higher risk of needing to have a bowel resection. The numbers were small, but still, when you look at the surgical complications, as you've already said, they're higher in the upfront group than they are in the interval group. That needs to be taken into account as well when counseling a patient, right? When you have a patient in front of you who says to you, "Dr. Moore, you can take out whatever you want, but whatever you do, don't make me a bag." As long as the patient understands what that means and what they're asking us to do, I think that we need to think about that. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I think that is a great point. And I have definitely seen in our practice, patients who say, "I absolutely would not want an ostomy. It's a nonstarter for me." And we do make different decisions. And you have to just say, "That's the decision we've made," and you kind of move on, and you can't look back and say, "Well, I wish I would have, could have, should have done something else." That is what the patient wants. Ultimately, that patient, her family, autonomous beings, they need to be fully counseled, and you need to counsel that patient as to the site that you are in, her volume of disease, and what you think you can achieve. In my opinion, a patient with stage III cancer who you have the site and the capabilities to get to no gross residual should go to the OR first. That is what I believe. I do not anymore think that for stage IV. I think that this is pretty convincing to me that that is probably a harmful thing. However, I want you to react to this. I think I am going to be a little unpopular in saying this, but for me, one of the biggest take-homes from TRUST was that whether or not, and we can talk about the subsets and the stage III looked better, and I think it did, but both groups did really well. Like, really well. And these were patients with large volume disease. This was not cherry-picked small volume stage IIIs that you could have done an optimal just by doing a hysterectomy. You know, these were patients that needed radical surgery. And both did well. And so what it speaks to me is that anytime you are going to operate on someone with ovary, whether it be frontline, whether it be a primary or interval, you need a high-volume surgeon. That is what I think this means to me. Like, I would want high volume surgeon at a center that could do these surgeries, getting that patient, my family member, me, to no gross residual. That is important. And you and I are both in training centers. I think we ought to take a really strong look at, are we preparing people to do the surgeries that are necessary to get someone to no gross residual 70% and 85% of the time? Dr. Linda Duska: We are going to run out of time, but I want to address that and ask you a provocative question. So, I completely agree with what you said, that surgery is important. But I also think one of the reasons these patients in this study did so well is because all of the incredible new therapies that we have for patients. Because OS is not just about surgery. It is about surgery, but it is also about all of the amazing new therapies we have that you and others have helped us to get through clinical research. And so, how much of that do you think, like, for example, if you look at the PFS and OS rates from CHORUS and EORTC, I get it that they're, that they're not the same. It's different patients, different populations, can't do cross-trial comparisons. But the OS, as you said, in this study was 54 months and 48 months, which is, compared to 2010, we're doing much, much better. It is not just the surgery, it is also all the amazing treatment options we have for these patients, including PARP, including MIRV, including lots of other new therapies. How do you fit that into thinking about all of this? Dr. Kathleen Moore: I do think we are seeing, and we know this just from epidemiologic data that the prevalence of ovarian cancer in many of the countries where the study was done is increasing, despite a decrease in incidence. And why is that? Because people are living longer. Dr. Linda Duska: People are living longer, yeah. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Which is phenomenal. That is what we want. And we do have, I think, better supportive care now. PARP inhibitors in the frontline, which not many of these patients had. Now some of them, this is mainly in Europe, will have gotten them in the first maintenance setting, and I do think that impacts outcome. We do not have that data yet, you know, to kind of see what, I would be really interested to see. We do not do this well because in ovarian cancer, post-progression survival can be so long, we do not do well of tracking what people get when they come off a clinical trial to see how that could impact – you know, how many of them got another surgery? How many of them got a PARP? I think this group probably missed the ADC wave for the most part, because this, mirvetuximab is just very recently available in Europe. Dr. Linda Duska: Unless they were on trial. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Unless they were on trial. But I mean, I think we will have to see. 600 patients, I would bet a lot of them missed the ADC wave. So, I do not know that we can say we know what drove these phenomenal – these are some of the best curves we've seen outside of BRCA. And then coming back to your point about the BRCA population here, that is a really critical question that I do not know that we're ever going to answer. There have been hypotheses around a tumor that is driven by BRCA, if you surgically cytoreduced it, and then chemically cytoreduced it with chemo, and so you're starting PARP with nothing visible and likely still homogeneous clones. Is that the group we cured? And then if you give chemo first before surgery, it allows more rapid development of heterogeneity and more clonal evolution that those are patients who are less likely to be cured, even if they do get cytoreduced to nothing at interval with use of PARP inhibitor in the front line. That is a question that many have brought up as something we would like to understand better. Like, if you are BRCA, should you always just go for it or not? I do not know that we're ever going to really get to that. We are trying to look at some of the other studies and just see if you got neoadjuvant and you had BRCA, was anyone cured? I think that is a question on SOLO1 I would like to know the answer to, and I don't yet, that may help us get to that. But that's sort of something we do think about. You should have a fair number of them in TRUST. It wasn't a stratification factor, as I remember. Dr. Linda Duska: No, it wasn't. They stratified by center, age, and ECOG status Dr. Kathleen Moore: So you would hope with randomization that you would have an equal number in each arm. And they may be able to pull that out and do a very exploratory look. But I would be interested to see just completely hypothesis-generating what this looks like for the patients with BRCA, and I hope that they will present that. I know they're busy at work. They have translational work. They have a lot pending with TRUST. It's an incredibly rich resource that I think is going to teach us a lot, and I am excited to see what they do next. Dr. Linda Duska: So, outside of TRUST, we are out of time. I just want to give you a moment if there were any other messages that you want to share with our listeners before we wrap up. Dr. Kathleen Moore: It's an exciting time to be in GYN oncology. For so long, it was just chemo, and then the PARP inhibitors nudged us along quite a bit. We did move more patients, I believe, to the cure fraction. When we ultimately see OS, I think we'll be able to say that definitively, and that is exciting. But, you know, that is the minority of our patients. And while HRD positive benefits tremendously from PARP, I am not as sure we've moved as many to the cure fraction. Time will tell. But 50% of our patients have these tumors that are less HRD. They have a worse prognosis. I think we can say that and recur more quickly. And so the advent of these antibody-drug conjugates, and we could name 20 of them in development in GYN right now, targeting tumor-associated antigens because we're not really driven by mutations other than BRCA. We do not have a lot of things to come after. We're not lung cancer. We are not breast cancer. But we do have a lot of proteins on the surface of our cancers, and we are finally able to leverage that with some very active regimens. And we're in the early phases, I would say, of really understanding how best to use those, how best to position them, and which one to select for whom in a setting where there is going to be obvious overlap of the targets. So we're going to be really working this problem. It is a good problem. A lot of drugs that work pretty well. How do you individualize for a patient, the patient in front of you with three different markers? How do you optimize it? Where do you put them to really prolong survival? And then we finally have cell surface. We saw at ASCO, CDK2 come into play here for the first time, we've got a cell cycle inhibitor. We've been working on WEE1 and ATR for a long time. CDK2s may hit. Response rates were respectable in a resistant population that was cyclin E overexpressing. We've been working on that biomarker for a long time with a toxicity profile that was surprisingly clean, which I like to see for our patients. So that is a different platform. I think we have got bispecifics on the rise. So there is a pipeline of things behind the ADCs, which is important because we need more than one thing, that makes me feel like in the future, I am probably not going to be using doxil ever for platinum-resistant disease. So, I am going to be excited to retire some of those things. We will say, "Remember when we used to use doxil for platinum-resistant disease?" Dr. Linda Duska: I will be retired by then, but thanks for that thought. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I will remind you. Dr. Linda Duska: You are right. It is such an incredibly exciting time to be taking care of ovarian cancer patients with all the opportunities.  And I want to thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us on this podcast today and for your great work to advance care for patients with GYN cancers. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Likewise. Thanks for having me. Dr. Linda Duska: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the TRUST study and other studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers:   Dr. Linda Duska  @Lduska Dr. Kathleen Moore Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest:    Dr. Linda Duska:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Ellipses Pharma  Research Funding (Inst.): GlaxoSmithKline, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, Tesaro, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UptToDate, Editor, British Journal of Ob/Gyn  Dr. Kathleen Moore: Leadership: GOG Partners, NRG Ovarian Committee Chair Honoraria: Astellas Medivation, Clearity Foundation, IDEOlogy Health, Medscape, Great Debates and Updates, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, MD Outlook, Curio Science, Plexus, University of Florida, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Congress Chanel, BIOPHARM, CEA/CCO, Physician Education Resource (PER), Research to Practice, Med Learning Group, Peerview, Peerview, PeerVoice, CME Outfitters, Virtual Incision Consulting/Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Verastem/Pharmacyclics, AADi, Caris Life Sciences, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Regeneron, zentalis, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, BioNTech SE, Immunocore, Seagen, Takeda Science Foundation, Zymeworks, Profound Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Third Arc, Loxo/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Tango Therapeutics, Abbvie, T Knife, F Hoffman La Roche, Tubulis GmbH, Clovis Oncology, Kivu, Genmab/Seagen, Kivu, Genmab/Seagen, Whitehawk, OnCusp Therapeutics, Natera, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Day One Biopharmaceuticals, Debiopharm Group, Foundation Medicine, Novocure Research Funding (Inst.): Mersana, GSK/Tesaro, Duality Biologics, Mersana, GSK/Tesaro, Duality Biologics, Merck, Regeneron, Verasatem, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Immunocore, Torl Biotherapeutics, Allarity Therapeutics, IDEAYA Biosciences, Zymeworks, Schrodinger Other Relationship (Inst.): GOG Partners

National Inventor Club – Fireside Chat with Steve GreensponThe National Inventor Club sits down with entrepreneur and inventor Steve Greenspon, former CEO of Honey-Can-Do International. Steve built a consumer goods company from the ground up, scaling it to over $110 million before successfully exiting.With 35 patents and decades of experience in product development, licensing, manufacturing, and retail distribution, Steve offers a rare, full-picture perspective—both as an inventor and as a business leader.In this episode, Steve shares insights on:What licensees look for when inventors pitch productsHow licensing deals actually work (royalties, terms, structure)Building manufacturing partnerships and working with factoriesDistribution strategies: buyers, reps, catalogs, and major retailersScaling a consumer goods brand to 9 figuresWhat the exit process really looks like and key lessons learnedWhether you're an inventor developing your first idea, a startup founder growing your product line, or an entrepreneur preparing for a future exit, this conversation is packed with real-world, actionable advice from someone who has done it all.Watch the episode here: https://www.youtube.com/live/Zi3K76lvgGI-----------------------Become a member today @ https://nationalinventorclub.com.Unlock Your Invention's Potential with Inventor Smart! Inventor Smart Community - The Ultimate APP for Inventors to connect, collaborate, network, and drive invention ideas forward! Join social networking, participate in group chats, events, visit the library, and find the support you need! Download the Inventor Smart Community app on Google Play or Apple App Store or here http://inventorsmart.app Join us today!Have a great invention idea?Do you want to know if your idea will make you money?If you're just getting started, need help with product development, engineering, prototyping, finding a product licensing agent, or with bringing your invention idea to reality manufacturing, schedule a call with Brian Fried, The Inventor Coach @ https://brianfried.com

In this week's episode, we discuss the advantages of digital content ownership for both readers and writers. This coupon code will get you 50% off the audiobook of Cloak of Ashes, Book #3 in the Cloak Mage series, (as excellently narrated by Hollis McCarthy) at my Payhip store: CLOAK2025 The coupon code is valid through November 24, 2025. So if you need a new audiobook this fall, we've got you covered! TRANSCRIPT 00:00:00 Introduction and Writing Updates Hello, everyone. Welcome to Episode 277 of The Pulp Writer Show. My name is Jonathan Moeller. Today is November 14th, 2025, and today we are discussing the benefits of owning your own content for both readers and writers. Before we get to our main topic, we will start off with Coupon of the Week and then a progress update on my current writing, publishing, and audiobook projects. First up is Coupon of the Week. This week's coupon code will get you 50% off the audiobook of Cloak of Ashes, Book #3 in the Cloak Mage series (as excellently narrated by Hollis McCarthy), at my Payhip store. That coupon code is CLOAK2025. And as always, the coupon code and the links to my Payhip store will be available in the show notes. This coupon code is valid through November 24th, 2025, so if you need a new audiobook for your Thanksgiving travels this month, we have got you covered. Now for an update on my current writing, publishing, and audiobook projects. I'm pleased to report the rough draft of Blade of Shadows is done. This will be the second book in my Blades of Ruin epic fantasy series. Right now, it is just about exactly as long as Blade of Flames. It may be a little longer or a little shorter depending on how editing goes since there's some stuff I'm going to cut out, but there's also some scenes I'm going to add. I also wrote a short story called Elven Arrow. Newsletter subscribers will get a free ebook copy of Elven Arrow when Blade of Shadows comes out, which will hopefully be before American Thanksgiving at the end of the month. I'm about 23% of the way through the first editing pass, so making good progress there and hope to keep up with the good progress. I am 11,000 words into Wizard-Assassin. That will be my next main project once the Blade of Shadows is published and probably the final book I publish in 2025, because I think the first book I do in 2026 will be Blades of Ruin #3, if all goes well. In audiobook news, the recording for Blade of Flames is done and it's gradually making its way out into the world (as excellently narrated by Brad Wills). I think as of the time of this recording, the only place where it's actually live is Google Play, but hopefully more stores will come online soon, and it would be cool if the Blade of Flames audiobook was available everywhere before Blade of Shadows came out. Hollis McCarthy is still working on Cloak of Embers and we hope to have that to you before the end of the year, if all goes well. So that's where I'm at with current writing, publishing and audiobook projects. 00:02:25 Main Topic: Digital Content Ownership as a Reader and Writer Now let's move on to our own topic, the ownership of digital content as both a reader and a writer. As the digital revolution has gone on and on and put more decades behind it, people are increasingly building very large digital content libraries and it's an increasingly tangled point of law what happens to those digital libraries when for example, their account gets suspended, or for example, someone else dies and wants to leave their Steam library of games to their heirs. We're today going to be focusing on digital content ownership for readers and writers, and we'll start with readers. Although the price of an ebook and print book of many traditionally published books are roughly the same at this point (and sometimes bafflingly, the ebook versions cost more), the rights you have as the owner of the ebook copy are substantially less powerful. In fact, technically speaking, you aren't actually the owner of an ebook purchased from Amazon or other retailers. It's more accurate to say that you purchased a long-term conditional lease. As a side note, I'm talking about this from the perspective of United States Copyright law and ebook/audiobook stores there. The laws and standards in your own country may be different. Also, I am not a lawyer and nothing in this episode should be taken as legal advice. You obtain legal advice by hiring a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. But now back to the main argument. In America, there is something known as the First Sale Doctrine. This section of the US Copyright Act allows physical media to be lent out and resold, among other things. For example, someone who purchases a physical book is considered its owner and the publisher can't take it back from them. The physical version of books can be used in libraries or as classroom materials until they literally fall apart, unlike their electronic equivalents, which face complicated licensing agreements that generally offer far less favorable terms of use for a much larger cost (especially for libraries and academic institutions). In the US, electronic content ownership is covered by contract law instead of the First Sale Doctrine. Although each seller has their own licenses and standards, a few things tend to remain consistent across those licenses: the inability to lend or resell the content, the inability to remove DRM from the content, and the right of the seller to alter or even remove the content. Ownership is not a right guaranteed for digital content. There is an American lawsuit currently challenging Amazon Prime Video and its use of words like "purchase" and "buy" for its video content. The lawsuit accuses Amazon of misrepresenting a heavily conditional license as a purchase, giving the average customer the impression that they own the content in perpetuity. Amazon lawyers argue that the average customer understands the difference, but frequent outrages over content being removed from users' libraries suggests otherwise. Here are four reasons owning your ebook content is important. #1: Keeping access to the content if the company closes or gets bought out. One of the early leaders in the US ebook store market way back at the start of the indie revolution was Sony. When their Sony Reader store closed, they gave readers the option to migrate their libraries to Kobo. Books that were not available through Kobo were not able to be transferred, so some purchased content was lost for readers. A more egregious example comes from, as you might expect, Microsoft with the closing of the Microsoft ebook store in 2019. When the store closed, they offered refunds instead of giving readers an opportunity to self-archive or transfer their purchases. Any margin notes taken by readers were lost, and they were given a $25 credit for the inconvenience. Although refunding customers was a good gesture, it's not a guarantee that readers are able to repurchase the ebooks elsewhere or even that the price would be the same when they did. As an aside, I spent a good chunk of time in 2018 trying to figure out how to get into the Microsoft ebook store and then finally gave up because it was too complicated, which in hindsight turned out to be a good decision. Owning your ebooks outright gives them independence from the store that you bought them from. #2: Keeping content from being altered. Ebooks can be altered anytime. Most of the time these changes are harmless, such as updating a cover, fixing a typo, or adding a preview chapter. I do that myself all the time. Every time I get typo corrections, I upload a new version. Yet there is a potential for books to be edited or censored from the original copy that you purchased. Chapters could be removed, scenes altered, or in extreme cases, the entire book could be removed. Owning a hard copy means that you have a version that cannot be changed without your knowledge. #3: The ability to self-archive. Most ebook stores use a form of digital rights management (DRM) that makes it difficult to transfer or permanently store your collection outside of their collection or library. Trying to do so is a violation of the license you purchased from the store, so I won't discuss how to do that. Amazon recently made self-archiving more difficult by discontinuing the feature to download and transfer Kindle books via USB. Finding DRM-free ebook stores is important if you want to organize and store your ebook collection as you see fit. Two examples of stores with DRM-free ebooks are Smashwords and direct [sales] sites like My Payhip store. Other stores like Kobo have a dedicated section devoted to DRM-free ebooks. #4: Keeping your reading habits private. Companies like Amazon track reading data, mostly out of a desire to sell you similar books or ad space. They track what you're reading, the amount of time you spend reading, your reading speed, and the highlights that you make in a book. Now, most of the time this is generally pretty harmless. It's mostly used for…you look on Amazon, you see that the section "customers who enjoyed this book also enjoyed this". Then if you use the Kindle app on your phone a lot, it has a lot of badges and achievements and it tends to be used for that kind of thing. However, there could be sinister undertones to this, especially if you're reading things you would prefer other people not know about. So if this concerns you, if there are some settings that you can adjust, but if you want complete privacy, outright ownership of your ebooks is the way to go. So what is the easiest way to own your own ebooks as a reader? The easiest way and perhaps the safest way to own your content outright is to buy print copies of books. That said, buying direct from authors or finding ebooks that have more favorable license terms is easiest way to own your ebook purchases. One of the reasons that opening a Payhip store was important to me was I gave my readers a chance to outright own purchased copies of my work and self-archive them in the way that they saw fit, if that was important to them. The price is the same on my Payhip store as other ebook or audiobook stores (and sometimes even cheaper if you're using Coupon of the Week). The ebooks and audiobooks there are DRM-free and untethered from specific stores and companies. You have the option to download files in a variety of file formats and store them in a way that makes the most sense to you. Buying direct also gives a greater share of the sale price to the authors, especially in the case of audiobooks. In conclusion, ebooks lag behind print books in terms of ownership rights for purchasers here in the United States (at the time of this recording). That said, you can be an informed consumer by reading terms of use carefully and educating yourself to make sure that you have the most possible access to your purchased content. Now, we've covered that from the reader side, and let's look at it from the side of the content creators, specifically writers. This can also apply to other content creators such as musicians, and we're going to use a very famous example for that, Taylor Swift. The general public learned about the importance of fully owning your content as a creator during the long and very public battle between musician Taylor Swift and the record company that sold her work to a private equity firm associated with someone she personally disliked. She owned the copyrights to the works (along with her various collaborators), but not the masters, the specific recordings of each song. As long as she didn't own her masters, she didn't have control over song choices for her public performances, the label releasing older content against her wishes, or how her music would be licensed out for commercial use. Swift reasserted control by rerecording old albums (a strategy previously used by the musician Prince), which gave her ownership of these new masters and devalued the original masters to the point where she could later afford to buy them outright. Many artists, including Olivia Rodrigo, credit Swift for helping them to negotiate adding the ownership of their masters into their contracts. As predatory as the publishing industry can be, the music industry tends to make them look like rank amateurs in terms of sheer evil. So it is a testament to her popularity and business success that she was able to convince them to do this. The world's most famous pop star taught millions of fans that owning your work is the ultimate goal of a creative. Why is ownership of your work important for writers specifically and not just American pop stars? We'll discuss six reasons why it's important for content creators and specifically writers in this episode. And as a reminder yet again, I'm talking about this from the perspective of United States law. Laws and standards in your own country may be different. Also, I am not a lawyer and nothing in this episode should be taken as legal advice. You obtain proper legal advice by contacting a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. So with that in mind, let's get into the topic. What is ownership as a writer? Writers generally keep the copyrights to works they sell to publishers. Writers are essentially selling the right or a license to produce and distribute their book in a certain format, language, and geographic area. Most of the time, geographic area rights are sold separately. For example, rights for the Harry Potter books are owned by Scholastic in the United States and Bloomsbury in the United Kingdom. Sometimes writers will keep the rights in a specific format, like when I signed with Tantor to give them the audio rights to the first five Frostborn books while keeping the rights to my print and ebook formats. What writers lose in the process of selling to publishers is the ability to control how their work is marketed, packaged, and sold. They do not have the freedom to make major decisions such as when a book is released or where it is marketed. Today I am going to share six reasons that retaining ownership is important for writers and what things you generally sacrifice when you sign with a traditional publisher instead of self-publishing or indie publishing. #1: Creative control. It is not standard to have complete control over your book's cover design. Often an artist is able to submit suggestions to the designer, but the publisher has ultimate authority over the book's cover. Sometimes covers end up being wildly inappropriate for the book, but the author has no recourse. The same is usually true with the ability to pick an audiobook narrator or change anything about the narration. At times, writers (especially new ones) are pressured into changes they do not want by editors. The surest way to completely lose all creative control is signed with a book packager like Alloy Entertainment. If you want to hear the story of how L.J. Smith was fired from her own series due to a plot dispute with that publisher, YouTuber Jenny Nicholson covers it in her epic length summary of The Vampire Diaries show. Although a certain paycheck from a book packager is tempting, you'd be wisest not to create any fictional characters or worlds for this type of publisher for that reason. #2: Dead Series Syndrome. If the first book in a series does not sell well, the publisher tends to abandon the series. The next book in the series might be ready for publication, but they're not obligated to publish it if they suspect it will not be profitable. Unfinished series are extremely common in traditional publishing, unfortunately. Writers who are locked into a contract for a series are generally out of luck putting out the books on their own. Even if they put out later books on their own, not having the rights to the first book in the series makes it difficult for a writer to sell and market subsequent books. I had a series (Demonsouled) that I wanted to continue even though the first book was released by my publisher. I was able to get the rights back for it and then was able to self-publish this rest of the series. This was much easier to do 14 years ago than it is now. Modern contracts, especially from larger publishers, are not so generous in letting authors do this. It would be much easier to start as a self-published author and have full control over the trajectory of your series and make sure readers are able to finish it instead of waiting for a contract to elapse or fighting a difficult, hard to win battle to get the rights back. #3: The ability to change. One of the perks of owning your book is the ability to make quick changes that react to data. For example, I was able to retitle the Stealth and Spells series fairly quickly when it became immediately clear upon release that some found the original title confusing. A traditional publisher would likely not have bothered to make the effort unless there was a legal reason for doing so. The ability to change covers, repackaging books in different ways (like omnibus editions), and to make quick changes to the book on the fly (such as fixing typos or continuity errors), is the unique privilege that comes with owning your own work. Publishers are slow to make these types of changes, if they do it at all. #4: Profit. Writers typically only receive an advance (an initial lump sum) when working with a traditional publisher. The complexities of publisher accounting usually ensure that only great successes receive royalties, and often even those that do can take a while to reach that benchmark. Royalties are typically doled out quarterly or semi-annually, for those who make enough to receive them. The earning statements are fairly byzantine. It's hard for the average person to understand them fully to make sure they're being paid exactly what is owed to them. Owning your own work and publishing yourself means that you keep all of the profit after the cut taken by the ebook store and whatever you pay cover designers, editors, and so on. You can see all of the sales as they come in and don't have to wait for those two to four royalty checks each year in order to get paid. It's much easier to make a living as a writer and to feel confident that you can pay others when you have more accurate data on the money coming in. Indie publishing sacrifices the certainty of an advance for a far, far greater share of the profits in the long run. Additionally, agents typically take a 15 to 20% commission on author earnings, and they are an essential part of the process in traditional publishing. It's just about impossible to get foot in the door with traditional publishing without one. Most self-published writers don't bother with an agent, which means they're able to keep that cut of the money and don't have to shape their work around the preferences and whims of an agent. They also spared the stress and hassle of working with an unethical or bad agent (of which they're unfortunately far too many). #5: Professional freedom. The publisher decides when the books are released or if they're released at all. Are you ready to publish a book two months after the first one is released? Too bad. A publisher is not going to put out the next one that quickly. The traditional wisdom of publishing schedules seems wildly out of date in the content-heavy modern world, where algorithms reward recent titles and frequent publishing. Publishing more often also helps fans stay connected to your work, and frankly, it's much easier to make a living as a writer putting out several books a year instead of just one. Additionally, traditionally published writers do not control how a book is marketed. Are you upset that your book is being marketed as a romance when you think it's complex literary fiction? Too bad. It's not your call. In fact, writers may be contractually obligated to post content to their social media pages written or approved in advance by the marketing department at the publisher. You might have to put your name publicly to marketing copy you dislike or disagree with in order to not violate your contract. In a related vein, you might find that if you post heavily on your social media pages about political or controversial topics, you may be reprimanded by the publisher or in some cases, have your contract canceled entirely. Although indie authors aren't immune from social consequences of what they post, no publisher is holding them back from posting what they want just because they're writers and the publisher is scared of what the shareholders might think. #6: The publisher being sold. One of the biggest problems for traditionally published writers is when their publisher is sold to another one. This may mean restructuring that takes away staff they worked with a long time (like a favorite editor being replaced by an inexperienced one). As smaller publishers are eaten up by the larger ones, you might find that your books become an afterthought and you don't have any power to fix that. You might even have to fight to get paid what you're owed in your own contracts, which writers of Star Wars books found out when Disney acquired Lucasfilm. Apparently when Disney bought Lucasfilm, it decided it no longer owed royalties to several writers of Star Wars tie-in novels that Lucasfilm had published and weren't going to pay them until it went public and caused a bit of controversy. Finally, a settlement was reached. This is sort of the shifty behavior that Disney is well known for in certain circles, and it is something you have to watch out for with large publishers and media conglomerates. The easiest way to keep this from happening is, once again, to publish yourself and keep ownership of your work. In conclusion, when traditional publishing was the only way to become a writer, their restrictions and control were something you had to live with because you had no other option. Now that self-publishing is extremely accessible and traditional publishing is shrinking, it's no longer worth making the trade-offs that authors once had to in order to gain readers of their work. Although I never actually listened to a Taylor Swift song all the way through, her career and business ventures are proof that owning your work as a creative is the best way forward. Ownership should be the starting point, not the end goal of anyone who values creative control and fair, transparent payment for their creative work. So that is it for this week. I hope that illuminated the importance of owning your own work, especially if you are a writer or other creative. Thanks for listening to The Pulp Writer Show. I hope you found the show useful. A reminder that you can listen to all the back episodes at https://thepulpwritershow.com. If you enjoyed the podcast, please leave your review on your podcasting platform of choice. Stay safe and stay healthy and see you all next week.

Self-published authors Anne Ditmeyer and Martin Lake share what it really takes to go indie, from choosing platforms and budgeting for editing, design, and ISBNs to redefining success, avoiding scams, and playing the long game of finding readers and building a sustainable writing life.  You'll learn:Why Anne and Martin chose self-publishing over traditional routes and how they framed readers as their gatekeepers.How both authors define success beyond bestseller lists, from “book as business card” to improving the craft across 25 books.The real timelines of an indie career, including slow early sales, backlist effects, and why self-publishing is a marathon, not a sprint.What a realistic budget looks like for editing, design, typesetting, audiobooks, and print on demand, plus where they chose to DIY or outsource.How they use platforms such as Kindle Direct Publishing, Lulu, IngramSpark, Draft2Digital, and Shopify, and why most sales still come through Amazon.Practical approaches to marketing that do not require a huge following, including series, mailing lists, events, workshops, and using your existing communities.The role of ISBNs, imprints, metadata, and print on demand for getting into libraries and bookstores, and why in-store placement is harder than it looks.Red flags to watch for with third-party “publishing services” and why due diligence can save you thousands in fees and frustration.   Resources and Links:

Já está no ar o novo episódio do podcast STJ No Seu Dia, que fala sobre a complexa e estratégica temática da distribuição dos royalties do petróleo, recursos de extrema relevância para estados e municípios afetados pela exploração de óleo e gás.Em conversa com o jornalista Thiago Gomide, o advogado especialista em direito tributário Asafe Gonçalves explica como o Superior Tribunal de Justiça tem interpretado a Lei 12.734/2012 e firmado jurisprudência sobre questões centrais, como quem tem direito aos royalties quando não há exploração direta, a legitimidade da acumulação em casos excepcionais, o impacto das liminares concedidas e, posteriormente, suspensas para municípios com refinarias, e a exclusão de compensações quando a origem dos hidrocarbonetos é estrangeira.STJ No Seu Dia       Com entrevistas em linguagem acessível sobre questões institucionais ou jurisprudenciais do Tribunal da Cidadania, o podcast é veiculado às sextas-feiras, às 21h30, na Rádio Justiça (104,7 FM – Brasília), e também está disponível no canal do STJ no Spotify e em outras plataformas de áudio.

It's karaoke night for Bridget and Ryan, but something stops them from belting their favorite tunes on their podcast: the law. It's the perfect setup to answer a question from Garrett, who wants to know about copyright, trademarks, and royalties. We all know people deserve to be paid for their creative ideas. But how does it actually work? Together, we'll find out how creators protect their ideas and make money from them. Plus, will Ryan be able to turn what he's learned into a lucrative musical career?If your family is interested in learning even more about today's question, check out our website. We've got conversation starters and a tip sheet!This episode is sponsored by Greenlight. Sign up for Greenlight today at greenlight.com/million.

It's karaoke night for Bridget and Ryan, but something stops them from belting their favorite tunes on their podcast: the law. It's the perfect setup to answer a question from Garrett, who wants to know about copyright, trademarks, and royalties. We all know people deserve to be paid for their creative ideas. But how does it actually work? Together, we'll find out how creators protect their ideas and make money from them. Plus, will Ryan be able to turn what he's learned into a lucrative musical career?If your family is interested in learning even more about today's question, check out our website. We've got conversation starters and a tip sheet!This episode is sponsored by Greenlight. Sign up for Greenlight today at greenlight.com/million.

Let's talk about Trump and Obamacare royalties....

Welcome to the Precious Metals Summit in Zurich! We kick off our coverage with major news as Summit Royalties begins trading publicly.In this exclusive interview, we sit down with Drew Clark, CEO of Summit Royalty Corp., on the eve of the company's debut on the TSX Venture under the symbol SUM as a Tier 1 issuer. Drew Clark discusses the journey of building the company, which involved a takeover transaction with Eagle Royalties and transitioning from "an idea on May 29th" to a cash-flow-positive, publicly traded entity

7th shiur - R' David Reboh Likutei Moharan Torah 7 Tinyana.Subscribe to our WhatsApp status for exclusive updates, short clips and more. We are also available on Youtube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts. Download our english and hebrew pamphlets here

Interview by Spitty   / spittywill   We recently sat back down with Gorilla Zoe for a brand new “Off The Porch” interview! During our conversation he introduced producer Chris Flame, recalls making “Hood Figga”, creating a new sound, not being in a rush to receive his flowers, upcoming projects, what to expect from ‘Welcome To The Zoo 2', explains how he is able to to make different vibes with his music, explains why he took a step away from music, importance of taking care of your mental health, learning about himself during his spiritual journey, what he is teaching his daughter, vivid dreams, peace, patience & growth, difficulties receiving his royalties, wanting to work with Ye, dropping a mixtape everyday in February 2010, giving Sonny Digital an opportunity to rap, his artwork, OJ Da Juiceman, working with Big Block, Chris producing the intro to Jay-Z's “American Gangster”, sampling old songs, wanting someone to bring disco back, shares advice, and much more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bryan Kohberger can't leave his cell — but his story can. In the state of Idaho, there's no Son of Sam law, meaning that a convicted murderer can legally make money from the story of his crimes. Books. Documentaries. Interviews. Royalties. In this episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis expose how one of the most horrifying modern murder cases has collided with one of America's oldest constitutional blind spots: the First Amendment's protection of speech — even when that speech turns into profit from murder. Tony opens with the question every viewer needs to hear: How can a convicted killer make money from killing? The answer lies in a 1991 Supreme Court ruling, Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, which struck down New York's original Son of Sam law after the “Son of Sam” killer, David Berkowitz, tried to sell his story. The Court ruled that laws restricting “crime-based storytelling” discriminated against speech by content. States rewrote their laws to pass constitutional review — some succeeded, others failed — but Idaho never passed anything. The result: a legal vacuum where infamy becomes an industry. This episode breaks down the moral, legal, and economic consequences of that loophole. What does it mean for victims' families when killers can cash checks? Could Kohberger assign rights to a third party to hide profits? And why are lawmakers too afraid to fix it? Tony and Eric dissect how “freedom” became a shield for greed, how fear of being called unconstitutional paralyzed reform, and why the justice system now doubles as a business model. Justice shouldn't have a payout plan. This episode asks why America keeps writing one. #BryanKohberger #SonOfSam #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #CrimePodcast #VictimsRights #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #KohbergerTrial #FreeSpeech #MurderProfit #TrueCrimeAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Bryan Kohberger can't leave his cell — but his story can. In the state of Idaho, there's no Son of Sam law, meaning that a convicted murderer can legally make money from the story of his crimes. Books. Documentaries. Interviews. Royalties. In this episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis expose how one of the most horrifying modern murder cases has collided with one of America's oldest constitutional blind spots: the First Amendment's protection of speech — even when that speech turns into profit from murder. Tony opens with the question every viewer needs to hear: How can a convicted killer make money from killing? The answer lies in a 1991 Supreme Court ruling, Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, which struck down New York's original Son of Sam law after the “Son of Sam” killer, David Berkowitz, tried to sell his story. The Court ruled that laws restricting “crime-based storytelling” discriminated against speech by content. States rewrote their laws to pass constitutional review — some succeeded, others failed — but Idaho never passed anything. The result: a legal vacuum where infamy becomes an industry. This episode breaks down the moral, legal, and economic consequences of that loophole. What does it mean for victims' families when killers can cash checks? Could Kohberger assign rights to a third party to hide profits? And why are lawmakers too afraid to fix it? Tony and Eric dissect how “freedom” became a shield for greed, how fear of being called unconstitutional paralyzed reform, and why the justice system now doubles as a business model. Justice shouldn't have a payout plan. This episode asks why America keeps writing one. #BryanKohberger #SonOfSam #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #CrimePodcast #VictimsRights #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #KohbergerTrial #FreeSpeech #MurderProfit #TrueCrimeAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Bryan Kohberger can't leave his cell — but his story can. In the state of Idaho, there's no Son of Sam law, meaning that a convicted murderer can legally make money from the story of his crimes. Books. Documentaries. Interviews. Royalties. In this episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis expose how one of the most horrifying modern murder cases has collided with one of America's oldest constitutional blind spots: the First Amendment's protection of speech — even when that speech turns into profit from murder. Tony opens with the question every viewer needs to hear: How can a convicted killer make money from killing? The answer lies in a 1991 Supreme Court ruling, Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, which struck down New York's original Son of Sam law after the “Son of Sam” killer, David Berkowitz, tried to sell his story. The Court ruled that laws restricting “crime-based storytelling” discriminated against speech by content. States rewrote their laws to pass constitutional review — some succeeded, others failed — but Idaho never passed anything. The result: a legal vacuum where infamy becomes an industry. This episode breaks down the moral, legal, and economic consequences of that loophole. What does it mean for victims' families when killers can cash checks? Could Kohberger assign rights to a third party to hide profits? And why are lawmakers too afraid to fix it? Tony and Eric dissect how “freedom” became a shield for greed, how fear of being called unconstitutional paralyzed reform, and why the justice system now doubles as a business model. Justice shouldn't have a payout plan. This episode asks why America keeps writing one. #BryanKohberger #SonOfSam #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #CrimePodcast #VictimsRights #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #KohbergerTrial #FreeSpeech #MurderProfit #TrueCrimeAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Bryan Kohberger can't leave his cell — but his story can. In the state of Idaho, there's no Son of Sam law, meaning that a convicted murderer can legally make money from the story of his crimes. Books. Documentaries. Interviews. Royalties. In this episode, Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Eric Faddis expose how one of the most horrifying modern murder cases has collided with one of America's oldest constitutional blind spots: the First Amendment's protection of speech — even when that speech turns into profit from murder. Tony opens with the question every viewer needs to hear: How can a convicted killer make money from killing? The answer lies in a 1991 Supreme Court ruling, Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, which struck down New York's original Son of Sam law after the “Son of Sam” killer, David Berkowitz, tried to sell his story. The Court ruled that laws restricting “crime-based storytelling” discriminated against speech by content. States rewrote their laws to pass constitutional review — some succeeded, others failed — but Idaho never passed anything. The result: a legal vacuum where infamy becomes an industry. This episode breaks down the moral, legal, and economic consequences of that loophole. What does it mean for victims' families when killers can cash checks? Could Kohberger assign rights to a third party to hide profits? And why are lawmakers too afraid to fix it? Tony and Eric dissect how “freedom” became a shield for greed, how fear of being called unconstitutional paralyzed reform, and why the justice system now doubles as a business model. Justice shouldn't have a payout plan. This episode asks why America keeps writing one. #BryanKohberger #SonOfSam #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #CrimePodcast #VictimsRights #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #KohbergerTrial #FreeSpeech #MurderProfit #TrueCrimeAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

No podcast ‘Notícia No Seu Tempo’, confira em áudio as principais notícias da edição impressa do jornal ‘O Estado de S.Paulo’ desta sexta-feira (31/10/2025): Projetos relacionados à segurança pública estacionados há meses no Congresso estão sendo retomados e uma CPI do Crime Organizado será instalada. A PEC da Segurança Pública volta a ser discutida pelos parlamentares. Governadores de oposição, reunidos no Rio, anunciaram a criação de um “Consórcio da Paz” para que Estados se ajudem no enfrentamento à criminalidade. O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva sancionou a lei que endurece o combate ao crime e amplia a proteção de autoridades envolvidas nessa área. Governo e oposição tentam calibrar a narrativa na semana em que operação policial contra o Comando Vermelho, no Rio, deixou 121 mortos. O episódio acentuou a polarização política no País e antecipa um tema que deve ser central na campanha de 2026. E mais: Economia: Congresso aprova MP que muda regras do setor elétrico Metrópole: Desmatamento cai 11% na Amazônia e no Cerrado Internacional: Rússia e China rebatem ameaça de Trump de retomar testes nucleares Cultura: Filme sobre Springsteen traz a juventude e os dramas do ídoloSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NESTA EDIÇÃO. As discussões em torno das mudanças no preço de referência para cálculo de royalties incluídas na MP do setor elétrico. No segundo dia da OTC Brasil 2025, diretora de E&P da Petrobras, Sylvia Anjos, diz que companhia reduziu incertezas sobre Sergipe Águas Profundas e que pode antecipar primeiro óleo. MME começar a estudar viabilidade de aumento das misturas para 25% de biodiesel no diesel e 35% de etanol na gasolina.

No podcast ‘Notícia No Seu Tempo’, confira em áudio as principais notícias da edição impressa do jornal ‘O Estado de S.Paulo’ desta quinta-feira (30/10/2025): O Complexo da Penha, na zona norte do Rio, amanheceu com mais de 60 cadáveres expostos na rua. Os corpos foram recolhidos numa mata por moradores e enfileirados horas após operação policial que deixou pelo menos 121 mortos – quatro deles policiais. A Defensoria fala em 132 mortes. De acordo com o secretário estadual da PM, Marcelo de Menezes, agentes do Bope (Batalhão de Operações Policiais Especiais) se posicionaram na área mais alta da Serra da Misericórdia, que divide os complexos da Penha e do Alemão, formando um “muro” que empurrou os criminosos para o topo da montanha. “A opção pelo confronto se deu pelos marginais, pelos narcoterroristas. Aqueles que quiseram ser presos foram presos.”Alguns dos corpos estavam amarrados e com marcas de facadas. O Estadão viu um corpo decapitado. O governo do Rio diz que a estratégia foi necessária para avançar sobre um território dominado pelo Comando Vermelho (CV) e considerou a operação um “sucesso”. E mais: Economia: Mexida em royalties afeta Petrobras e ajuda refinaria no AM, terra do relator Política: Revisão criminal na 2ª Turma pode dar a Bolsonaro a chance de anular sentença Metrópole: Câmara aprova reajuste do IPTU com limite anual de 10% para todo imóvel Internacional: Ataques israelenses em Gaza matam 104, segundo autoridades palestinas Esportes: João Fonseca sucumbe diante de russo e se despede de ParisSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NESTA EDIÇÃO. Relatório da MP da reforma do setor elétrico ganha mecanismos que impactam mercado de óleo e gás, incluindo alteração na base de cálculo de royalties e mecanismo para expansão de gasodutos. Os destaques do primeiro dia da OTC Brasil 2025, com a Margem Equatorial no centro dos debates. Governo recorre ao STJ contra a liberação de atividades da Refinaria de Manguinhos. Brasil negocia prioridade na compra de semicondutores chineses em meio à crise geopolítica.

Brendan Yurik joins the KE Report to discuss Electric Royalties (TSX.V:ELEC - OTC:ELECF) expanding portfolio and path to sustainable cash flow. The company now holds 43 royalties focused on key electrification metals across top-tier jurisdictions. Discussion Highlights First Cash-Flowing Asset: Copper-gold royalty at the Punitaqui Copper Mine (Chile) ramping up - expected to cover annual G&A. Next in Line: Four royalties could begin paying within 12 months. Advancing Projects: Feasibility and PFS updates coming from multiple assets. Diversified Exposure: Balanced across copper, lithium, graphite, manganese, nickel, zinc, tin, and vanadium; no single asset >15% of NAV. Growth Outlook: Targeting one or two near-term, revenue-generating royalties backed by private equity to boost cash flow with minimal dilution. Click here to visit the Electric Royalties website to learn more about the Company   -------------- For more market commentary & interview summaries, subscribe to our Substacks: The KE Report: https://kereport.substack.com/ Shad's resource market commentary: https://excelsiorprosperity.substack.com/ Investment disclaimer: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or a solicitation to buy or sell any security. Investing in equities and commodities involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Guests and hosts may own shares in companies mentioned.

Sister Nancy Tells Her Story: No Royalties, 9–5 Job, The Return Of A Legend With 'Armageddon' +MoreSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've been a full-time creator for 8 years now and have earned $2,192,000 since 2022. I've spent a LOT of time and money experimenting with different ways to make money on the internet, so I'm going to rank them. The best and the worst. I show you 15 different revenue streams and rate them from S to F based on their potential versus the effort required. By the very end of the video, you'll know which ones are right for you. And at any point, if you agree or disagree, let me know in the comments. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Full transcript and show notes⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ *** TIMESTAMPS (00:32) AdSense (01:36) Sponsorship & Brand Deals (03:30) Content Memberships (04:30) Done-For-You Services (05:27) Royalties (06:28) 1-to-1 Coaching & Consulting (07:38) Affiliates (09:36) User Generated Content (UGC) (10:17) Group Programs (11:25) Digital Products (12:56) Speaking (14:27) Live Events (15:53) Community Memberships *** RECOMMENDED NEXT EPISODE → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠#267: When to use low-ticket offers, refund policies, how much I earned in the last 12 months, and my 5-year vision [Ask CS Pt. 1] *** ASK CREATOR SCIENCE → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Submit your question here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ *** WHEN YOU'RE READY

I sit down with Conni Francini, CEO of Soro Publishing, to explore how she's building a more author-friendly path to publishing. Conni traces her unconventional route—from journalism/PR into education, then a 15-year run in educational publishing where she rose to editor-in-chief and developed award-winning products with partners like the Smithsonian and TIME for Kids.After dozens of candid chats with writers—frustrated by low royalties, limited marketing, slow timelines, and losing creative control—Conni launched Soro Publishing. The model blends the best of traditional and self-publishing: professional editorial and design, months-not-years timelines, authors keeping their rights, creative control, and most royalties, plus a true partnership to grow their platforms.We dig into Soro's three focus lanes—education, business/leadership, and children's books—and what's surprised Conni most about entrepreneurship: the sheer build-from-scratch workload, the importance of loving sales/BD as much as “making the book,” and staying adaptable when the market pulls you into new genres. Conni also shares hard-won lessons for leading creatives (define outcomes, not pixel-perfect solutions) and encouragement for first-time founders and execs: ask for help early and often—you'll be surprised how many people say yes.What You Will LearnWhy many authors feel stuck between traditional and self-publishing—and how a hybrid model can be a win-win.The specific ways Soro helps authors retain rights, voice, and royalties while leveling up quality and speed.How to lead multidisciplinary creative teams: set audience outcomes, invite expertise, and critique by problem, not by prescription.The underestimated realities of starting a company (and how to balance making the product with marketing/business development).How to stay adaptable when real-world feedback nudges your strategy into new lanes.Practical networking advice for new execs/founders: how (and why) to ask for guidance from leaders you don't even know yet.Resources MentionedConni Francini on LinkedInSoro PublishingInstagram — @soropublishingPast partnerships referenced: Smithsonian, TIME for Kids

Chaque année, près d'un tiers des droits musicaux disparaissent sans jamais parvenir à leurs créateurs. Ce sont environ 15 milliards d'euros de redevances qui se perdent dans la complexité des métadonnées, les erreurs de correspondance et la fragmentation des systèmes nationaux de gestion collective. C'est ce déséquilibre que la jeune pousse française Claimy s'emploie à corriger, en combinant intelligence artificielle et expertise du secteur musical.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/frenchweb-business--3299227/support.

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Dr. Ece Cal interviews Dr. Martin Wermke, author of the JCO article, "Phase I Dose-Escalation Results for the Delta-Like Ligand 3/CD3 IgG-Like T-Cell Engager Obrixtamig (BI 764532) in Patients With Delta-Like Ligand 3+ Small Cell Lung Cancer or Neuroendocrine Carcinomas." TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the transcript. Dr. Ece Cali: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. This is Dr. Ece Cali, JCO editorial fellow, and today I am joined by Dr. Martin Wermke, Professor for Experimental Cancer Therapy at Dresden University of Technology, to discuss the manuscript “Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Results for the Delta-Like Ligand 3/CD3 IgG-like T-Cell Engager Obrixtamig in Patients with DLL3+ Small Cell Lung Cancer or Neuroendocrine Carcinomas.” Obrixtamig is a bispecific T-cell engager that binds to DLL3 on tumor cells and CD3 on T-cells. This manuscript presents the phase 1A dose escalation results of Obrixtamig in patients with DLL3+ small cell lung cancer and neuroendocrine carcinomas. In this study, 168 patients were treated with Obrixtamig across four different dosing regimens. 49% of the patients had small cell lung cancer, 42% had extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma, and 8% had large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung. Patients received a median of two prior lines of therapy. 33% of the patients had brain metastases at baseline. Of note, this trial did not mandate baseline brain imaging. Maximum tolerated dose was not reached. 88% of the patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event, however, only 3.6% of the patients had to discontinue treatment due to treatment-related AEs, and dose reduction due to treatment-related AEs was documented in 2.4% of the patient population. Similar to the other DLL3-targeted bi-therapies, the most common adverse events included CRS in 57%, dysgeusia in 23%, and pyrexia in 21% of the patients. CRS events were mostly mild. They occurred more frequently in the first two to three doses. 9% of the patients experienced ICANS, of which 3% were graded as Grade 3 or higher. And let's review the efficacy results. Responses were only seen in patients who received 90 microgram per kg or more once weekly or once every three weeks dosing. The objective response rate in patients who received an effective dose was 28%. If we review by tumor type, 21% of the small cell lung cancer patients, 27% of the extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma patients, and 70% of the large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma patients had objective response. Median duration of response was 8.5 months, though this data is immature due to short follow-up. Dr. Wermke, DLL3-targeted bispecific T-cell engagers are reshaping the treatment landscape of small cell lung cancer. This trial investigates Obrixtamig in other high-grade neuroendocrine tumors as well. Can you put this trial into context for us and explain why it may represent an important step forward? Dr. Martin Wermke: Yeah, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to discuss our data today. I think the data with Obrixtamig in small cell lung cancer are largely similar to what has been observed with other bispecific T-cell engagers such as tarlatamab with respect to the response rate and duration. It has, however, been to be mentioned that BI 1438001 had a bit more liberal inclusion criteria than other trials around. You already mentioned the fact that we allowed the inclusion of patients without mandatory brain imaging, which led to some patients having their brain mets been diagnosed during the treatment with obrixtamig and then adding to the progressive disease patients. That is something which was not the case with the tarlatamab trials where you really had to have a brain imaging before, and in the Phase 1 trial you were even required to treat the brain mets before you included the patient. So it is a bit different, more poorest patient population. I think the trial adds on existing data by being the first trial to also include non-SCLC neuroendocrine carcinoma of other origin, for example from the gastrointestinal tract, and also by including large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung, which is a really hard to treat pulmonary neoplasm which currently lacks any standardized treatment. So that is really a step forward which we will build on in the future. Dr. Ece Cali: And one thing I would note in this trial, only patients with tumor expressing DLL3 were enrolled. Can you tell us a little bit more about this target, DLL3 in the context of neuroendocrine tumors, and does DLL3 expression predict clinical outcomes after treatment with DLL3 BiTEs, or do we actually need other predictive biomarkers for these novel agents? Dr. Martin Wermke: Yeah, thank you. That's a pretty interesting question. First of all, DLL3 is an atypical notch ligand, which is expressed by the majority of neuroendocrine carcinomas, virtually absent on healthy adult tissues. Therefore, turning it really into a bona fide target for T-cell engaging therapies, pretty low risk for on-target off-tumor side effects. We found that in all the patients we screened, we had an expression rate of about 94% in small cell lung cancer, 80% of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung were positive, and also about 80% of the extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma. So it's really a high prevalence. So the fact that we only included DLL3+ tumors still means we included most of the patients that presented with these diseases. I think at the moment there are no data suggesting a clear-cut association between DLL3 expression levels and outcome on DLL3 CD3 T-cell engagers. There's also not a lot published. If you want to find this out for tarlatamab, you have to look into their patent to really see the data, but it's not clear-cut and I'm sure we need other markers to complement that. And I think what probably plays a major role is intrinsic T-cell fitness. So the question how really diseased your T-cells are, how old you are, because age also correlates with the fitness of the immune system, and other patient characteristics such as tumor burden, we've seen all across the board that the higher the tumor burden, the lower the rate of prolonged response is in such trials. And I also think we need to focus on other components of the tumor microenvironment. So see how high the T-cell infiltration with obrixtamig is and how abundant suppressive elements like regulatory T-cells or myeloid-derived suppressive cells are. That is work which is currently being done. Data are emerging, but I don't think that at the moment we have any clear biomarker helping us to select who should not receive DLL3 T-cell engagers. Dr. Ece Cali: Those are great points and there is a lot we need to learn about how to use these novel agents in the future. I'd like to highlight the results in large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung. The response rate in this group was remarkably high at 70%. Though we should note the small sample size of only 14 patients in this trial. After first line chemoimmunotherapy, current approved options for this population have very modest clinical activity. Given these trial results, how do you envision the field moving forward for patients with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma? Dr. Martin Wermke: Yeah, I think LCNEC is really an area which urgently needs further improvement of therapeutic standards. At the moment, as I said, there is no real standard. We are usually extrapolating from results we have in small cell lung cancer or non-small cell lung cancer, but I don't think we have too many prospective trials really informing this. Of course, 14 patients is a small sample size, but I think it's still fair to say that we can claim that DLL3 T-cell engagers are not doing worse in LCNEC than they do in SCLC. And that's why I think we really need to move forward clinical trials that are specifically targeting this population. Although I fear a bit that, given the rareness of this disease and the aggressiveness of its phenotype, that this is probably not the main focus of the pharmaceutical industry. So I think it's up to us academic investigators to really come up with investigator-initiated trials trying to fill the knowledge gaps we have here. Dr. Ece Cali: And one more thing that I want to talk about is the accessibility for these drugs. These novel agents are showing real promise in improving outcomes for patients with high-grade neuroendocrine tumors, an area where progress has been limited until very recently. However, as DLL3 BiTEs become more widely used, issues of logistics and access come into sharper focus. With unique toxicities and the specialized monitoring, their use is restricted to certain centers. Looking ahead, what kinds of strategies could help mitigate some of these adverse events or make these treatments more broadly available? Dr. Martin Wermke: Yeah, I think if you look at countries like the United States where tarlatamab has already been approved, we can see how the management strategies are evolving. I've heard about a colleague equipping their patients with thermometers and a pill of Dexamethasone, alongside with a temperature control protocol and clearly instructing them, "If you measure a temperature above a certain level then start taking the Dexamethasone and come back to our office and we're going to take care of you." I think that's one way to move forward. I think we are lucky in a way that CRS usually manifests within the first 24 hours. This was the same in our study, like in the tarlatamab studies. So we really know when the time of trouble is for our patients. And in this time, I think we need to instruct the patients to stay close to the hospital. I don't think we need to hospitalize all of them, but we probably need them to stay in a nearby hotel to be able to reach the emergency room if needed in a short period of time. And I think we can also learn in this strategy how to manage bispecific antibodies from the experience our colleagues in hematology had because they have been using bispecific T-cell engagers for quite some years right now and they developed strategies and networks that were able to successfully treat these patients also on an outpatient basis. And I think that is clearly an experience we need to follow, acknowledging that we are talking about diseases which are much more frequent than the standard hematology indications. Dr. Ece Cali: Thank you so much, Dr. Wermke, for this informative discussion and for sharing your perspective on this evolving field. Dr. Martin Wermke: Yeah, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to talk about data. It was really great being able to share that, and I really think that we are just at the beginning of a new exciting area for the treatment of neuroendocrine carcinomas, and I think much improvement is yet to come for our patients. Dr. Ece Cali: Yes, that's really exciting. And thank you everyone for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on this podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Dr. Martin Wermke's Disclosures Honoraria: Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, SYNLAB, Janssen, Merck Serono, GWT, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer,  BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Regeneron, MJH/PER, Takeda Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squib, Novartis, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, immatics, Bayer, ImCheck therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Tacalyx, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Zymeworks, PharmaMar, Iovance Biotherapeutics, T-Knife, Genentech Research Funding: Roche Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca,  Amgen,  GEMoaB, Sanofi/Aventis, immatics,  Merck Serono, Janssen Oncology, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH"

Dan O'Flaherty, CEO of Versamet Royalties (TSX.V: VMET), joins me to provide an update on the recent acquisition of both a silver stream and net smelter royalty on cash-flowing producing assets from Appian Capital.  We also take a deeper dive into the value proposition embedded in their portfolio of streams and royalties, and the triple-pronged approach to growth for this newer royalty company, that just listed publicly back in May of this year. Dan previously led Maverix Metals, which sold to Triple Flag in 2023, and now he's building Versamet to fill the gap between junior royalty players and the multi‑billion‑dollar majors.   Key Highlights from Our Discussion:   Closed an agreement on September 24th for the acquisition of two long-life, high-quality, producing assets from Appian Capital Advisory; with immediate cash flow for an up-front cash consideration of $125 million. Rosh Pinah Zinc - a 90% silver stream an operating underground mine in Namibia with over 55 years of mining history and a long history of resource additions and significant exploration potential Santa Rita - a 2.75% net smelter return royalty (NSR) on a top tier nickel sulphide mine located in Bahia state, Brazil, currently producing from an open pit. The Stream and NSR Royalty are expected to contribute approximately 5,000 gold equivalent ounces ("GEOs") in 2026 using analyst consensus metal prices. Cash‑flow focus: From ~10,000 GEOs in 2025 to ~20,000 GEOs by 2026, translating to over $70M in annual revenue targeted for next year, using consensus gold prices, and even higher than that at current spot prices. Balance sheet strength: Paid off initial debt out of robust revenues, before adding this recent debt on the back of these 2 acquisitions; with a roadmap to paying that back down in an accelerated fashion from quarterly cashflows. Rapid portfolio growth: Over US$400M in acquisitions since 2022, growing Versamet's market cap to over CAD$800 million. We review how several key strategic stakeholders got into partnership with Versamet including: B2Gold (33%), Sandstorm (25%), and Equinox Gold (13%) as cornerstone shareholders, providing technical strength and deal flow. Investors today can get an early mover advantage before more institutional investors and passive fund investments have entered the story. Triple-pronged approach to growth: (1) Near‑term organic growth from within their existing portfolio of royalties and streams, (2) future accretive acquisitions, and (3) the coming U.S. listing for more liquidity, a broader investor base, and the potential inclusion in funds and ETFs.     If you have any questions for Dan regarding Versamet Royalties, then please email those in to me at Shad@kereport.com.   Click here to follow the latest news from Versamet Royalties

Fred Bell, CEO of Elemental Altus Royalties (TSX.V:ELE) (OTCQX:ELEMF), and Dave Cole, CEO of EMX Royalty Corp (NYSE American: EMX) (TSXV: EMX), both join me to unpack the key transaction details, synergies, and growth profile emerging from the business combination of both companies into the emerging Elemental Royalty Corp.  In the new combined entity, Dave will be the CEO, and Fred will be the President and COO, with the balance of the management team and board being a solid blend of the 2 companies current teams.   Dave starts us off with the big-picture rationale for this merger, creating a larger royalty company of scale, graduating up to the mid-tier category, with more analyst coverage and liquidity, a better cost of capital, the financial strength from the backing of the key strategic shareholder Tether Investments, and the potential to rerate in the future to a better price to net asset value multiple more in alignment with larger royalty peers.   Fred then takes us through the transaction specifics of the merger, including the recent financing, share roll back, and US big board exchange listing that were all announced earlier this month, in concert with this business combination. Fred also outlines the importance of having Tether Investments as their key strategic shareholder, and they financially backstop the kinds of accretive acquisitions that they can now go after. He also explains why they made the choice to establish an institutional account to gain exposure to Tether Gold (XAUt), a tokenized asset backed 1:1 by physical gold, to diversify the Company's treasury and increase exposure to rising gold prices with enhanced liquidity and efficiency.   We also dive into updates on their key cornerstone royalty partner projects: Timok, Laverton, Karlawinda, and Caserones. the organic development growth still on tap in their portfolio of royalties, the future upside of the continued royalty generation strategy, and a look ahead to future larger acquisitions than were possible for both companies up until the creation of this new combined vehicle.   If you have any follow up questions for Dave or Fred regarding the merger of Elemental Altus Royalties with EMX Royalty, into the new Elemental Royalty Corp, then please email them to me at Shad@kereport.com.   In full disclosure, Shad is a shareholder of both Elemental Altus Royalties and EMX Royalty Corp at the time of this recording, and may choose to buy or sell shares at any time.   Click here to learn more about the Elemental Altus and EMX Royalty merger   Click here to view recent news on Elemental Altus Royalties   Click here to view recent news on EMX Royalty

Every masterpiece you've ever consumed likely passed through a licensing agreement first. That catchy song in your favorite commercial? Licensed. The superhero logo on your coffee mug? Licensed. The technology powering your smartphone? Licensed hundreds of times over. Licensing represents the hidden architecture behind innovation empires, allowing creators to extend their reach without surrendering control. Unlike selling your intellectual property outright, licensing lets you maintain ownership while granting permission for others to use it under specific conditions – essentially renting out a room while remaining the landlord.The potential of licensing spans virtually every form of intellectual property. Patents enable inventors to collect royalties from global manufacturers without running factories. Trademarks allow fashion brands and sports teams to appear on merchandise worldwide. Copyrights drive music, publishing, and streaming industries. Even carefully protected trade secrets can be licensed as valuable know-how.But successful licensing requires methodical preparation. You must clearly establish ownership, precisely define scope, protect confidentiality during negotiations, package assets for seamless transition, establish defensible royalty models, and determine governance structures. Finding the right licensees demands strategic targeting – from identifying companies in similar patent classes to exploring industry standards programs and attending specialized trade shows.The negotiation process benefits from structured frameworks: separating positions from interests, understanding your alternatives, presenting multiple equivalent offers, and stress-testing deals through financial modeling. Equally important is recognizing red flags: licensees who overpromise, resist transparency, fight performance standards, demand excessive exclusivity, or operate in challenging regulatory environments.Remember that licenses exist in dynamic markets with changing conditions. Know when to renegotiate (when fundamental assumptions shift), when to walk away (when partners consistently underperform), and when litigation becomes necessary (when your rights are genuinely threatened).Want to develop your own IP protection strategy? Check out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats.Get the book!Send us a textSupport the show

In this episode, we unpack the insights from the recent IPSeries webinar exploring the evolving landscape of Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) across Africa and the globe. From the challenges of royalty collection and distribution to the legal frameworks shaping copyright enforcement, we dive into a comparative review of global versus local approaches to rights management.Experts from across the creative and legal sectors weigh in on:The role of CMOs in empowering artists and creatorsStructural and policy differences between African CMOs and their global counterpartsThe impact of digital platforms and cross-border licensingStrategies for improving transparency, accountability, and efficiencyWhether you're a creator, legal professional, or policy enthusiast, this episode offers a compelling look at how collective rights management is transforming and what it means for the future of intellectual property in Africa and beyond.So grab your headphones, settle in, and let’s explore how collective rights management is reshaping the future of intellectual property on the continent and beyond.Please leave your thoughts and opinions by commenting via email at ipseriesinfo@gmail.com or by tweeting us at @ipseries1. And don't forget to subscribe to my podcast for more intellectual property (IP) insights and analysis.Thank you for listening, and see you next time on the IP Series podcast!IPSERIES PODCAST- Facebook: https://web.facebook.com/groups/836484013662125/- Instagram: ⁠Instagram⁠- Email: ipseriesinfo@gmail.com=================================SOCIAL MEDIA BY: Rita Anwiri Chindah=================================LOGO DESIGN BY: Rita Anwiri Chindah ⁠ipseries_with_reedah | Twitter, Instagram, Facebook | https://linktr.ee/ipseries_with_reedah?subscribe

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Mina Sedrak discuss the science behind cancer treatment-induced accelerated aging and the development of drug therapies and technologies aimed at helping older patients and cancer survivors. TRANSCRIPT Transcript: Cancer and Aging: Researching the Path to Longer, More Vibrant Lives Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist and professor and vice chair of medical oncology here at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center. I am also host of this podcast. Today, we are going to be talking to somebody that I consider to be my little brother, if you will, in oncology, Mina Sedrak. Mina is an expert in the area of cancer and aging, which really includes the development of drug therapies and technologies that help enable older adults and survivors to live longer, healthier, and more vibrant lives. I am really excited to chat with him. He is an expert not just in cancer and aging but also breast cancer. He was my former colleague here at City of Hope before he moved over to the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, where he is an associate professor and director there of the Cancer and Aging Program. Dr. Sedrak's research involves mechanisms behind cancer treatment-induced accelerated aging and really aims to take this science into more of a therapeutic direction, which I am super, super excited about.  Mina, thanks so much for joining us today, and just FYI for our listeners, we have all of our disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Mina Sedrak: Thank you, Monty. Thank you, Dr. Pal, for having me. I am really excited to be here. Dr. Monty Pal: I feel like we have to go on a first-name basis here with how well we know each other. So Mina, you and I together have witnessed this evolution in cancer and aging. I mean, both of us worked together here with just a legendary figure in the field of geriatric oncology, I will call it, Dr. Arti Hurria, mentor to me, mentor to you, mentor to so many. Can you give us a sense of where cancer and aging has gone since the time that you and I started here together at City of Hope? Dr. Mina Sedrak: Dr. Hurria and her collaborators, Dr. [Willliam] Dale and Dr. [Supriya] Mohile, they were like huge pioneers in the field. They were one of the very first people to highlight the importance of looking at older adults beyond just their chronological age and their comorbidities and moving us beyond just seeing patients and making decisions using what we call the eyeball test. "Oh, this person looks fit or not fit, frail or robust," to really using objective measures to assess our patient's health status and incorporate that assessment into our evaluation of the treatment, prognostication, and discussions with our patients throughout the cancer continuum. And so that is what geriatric oncology has and continues to be, and it is a huge, important part. And their work has laid the foundation to show that when we look at our patients beyond just their chronological age and we look at their functional age, and we do these objective assessments, we can gain much more deeper information to tailor the treatment for our patient that is sitting in front of us, rather than do a prescriptive treatment or over- or undertreatment in that population. So that is sort of where the field is growing, and a lot of the work now is, how do we implement that? How do we put that into clinical practice? Dr. Monty Pal: Well, let me kind of spearhead that discussion, right? I have these moments when I go to the ASCO Annual Meeting – I remember this happened to me a while ago when Dr. Jennifer Temel presented that terrific work around early palliative care interventions, right? Or it even happened to me this year, right, when Dr. Christopher Booth presented the CHALLENGE trial around exercise and colon cancer. You know, these amazing, I am going to say simple, they are not simple, but they are simple interventions relative to, you know, some of the complex drugs and mechanisms that we are using nowadays that really help outcomes for our cancer patients. The big question becomes, how do you implement, right? But my understanding is that there are easy ways for us to take tools in cancer and aging and sort of plug them into our daily practice. Am I right about that? Dr. Mina Sedrak: Yes, and that is something that they are – the Cancer and Aging Research Group, which was founded by Dr. Hurria and now is co-led by Dr. Dale, Dr. Mohile, and Dr. [Heidi] Klepin, they have been incredible at really trying to develop practical tools, like the Practical Geriatric Assessment, which is now endorsed by the ASCO and other NCCN guidelines. And so, there are tools that are becoming more and more practical to help incorporate that into clinic.  Now, what might be practical in a resource-intensive setting may not be practical in some of the limited resources, whether it is rural and/or other countries where the resources may be more limited. So that is why Cristiane Bergerot, Enrique Soto, and others have been really working hard. There was actually a really beautiful paper that was just published in the Journal of Global Oncology, where they have shown that there are guidelines [ASCO Geriatric Assessment Global Guideline] about how to implement these tests, these tools, these assessments in clinical practice, even in different resource settings. So I think we are going to get to the future where this is much more – it is definitely important, but it is much more easily ‘incorporatable' into our practice. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, you know how close I am to Cris, and I was so proud when I saw that paper come out. That was really exciting. You know, I skimmed it. I have to tell you, I did not get into the weeds, but it was apparent to me that, you know, some of these geriatric oncology tools are things that, you know, I could probably plug and play into my practice where I am double- and triple-booked over, you know, most slots, right? I mean, I could still probably afford a little bit of time or maybe have, like, a nurse or an extender kind of help participate in the evaluation process. I thought that was, yeah, really, really interesting. Dr. Mina Sedrak: I will just say that at UCLA, we are working with Dr. Arash Naeim, who is a geriatric oncologist, and he has developed an AI platform where the assessments can be done by an AI computer. So it is like talking to your ChatGPT. They can talk to you, and for a few minutes, they will ask you the questions. So you do not even have to fill it out on a piece of paper. You could give the patient a little iPad, put them in a private room while they are waiting for their doctor, and get the results, and it is right there for you. And so, we have been trying to think about how can technology help with the completion of the assessment, at least doing that? And I think it is actually, it has been very cool. We did a pilot study. He is writing that up, and we are going to continue to do some of this exciting work. How do we think about AI in the context of this? And, you know, older adults, they are not like what they used to be. A lot of older adults are very familiar with and comfortable with phones and computers and iPads, much more so today than they were even at the time when Dr. Hurria was alive. Dr. Monty Pal: That is so interesting. You mentioned this, the AI approach is something I have been thinking about in this context because what if, for instance, you know, we have got video monitors all over our hospital, right? What if you are actually just taking a look at that patient as they make their way towards your clinic? Capture that video, use an AI algorithm to say, "Hey, you know, the timed get-up-and-go test in this patient is not particularly good based on what I am seeing here," right? There are so many ways that you could, you know, stir the pot and come up with creative ways to get these tests done. Dr. Mina Sedrak: That's right. And Arash is looking at also sensors. So he has some studies where he is putting sensors inside people's homes, where they would put them, like, on top of an Alexa app or the equivalent. A lot of people have these apps, and basically, they can sense how you are moving around and what you are doing, just movement-wise. And then they can collect that information to gain information about your life beyond just what we are seeing in the 20-minute visit in the clinic. Even when I do a walk test where I get gait speed or physical performance, short physical performance battery, the chair sit-up, those are oftentimes a single, cross-sectional, static measure. But what about the dynamic ability of capturing what has been happening for the last 7 days? What has been happening for the last 25 days between the visits, between the cycles of chemotherapy? And could that inform how I make decisions when I see patients and who do I need to target and identify? And so, we are very excited because really at UCLA, Arash is leading the technology efforts and thinking about implementation of these important measures and these important tools but leveraging new technology. And we do not want to be behind; we want to be ahead of the game. Dr. Monty Pal: I love that idea because there is a Hawthorne effect, isn't there, where you observe a process, and it naturally gets better. I mean, when you ask that patient to get up in the clinic and move, they are probably functioning to the best of their abilities, but we could probably learn a lot from just watching how fast that patient picks up a remote control at home. Some simple movement like that that is volitional would probably help out a ton. And I got to tell you, it is so funny when you mention Arash Naeim's name. I distinctly remember him serving as an attending on the wards when he was brand new at UCLA on faculty when I was a resident there. And his dad is a legendary hematopathologist, right? Dr. Mina Sedrak: I did not know that. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, yeah. Faramarz Naeim wrote the book on a lot of heme-path malignancies. Incredible guy. Very, very storied hematopathologist at UCLA.  I could probably go on this topic forever, but in the interest of time, I am going to shift to something that again, I could probably talk about forever, which is this area of senescence that you are involved in. You know, you had mentioned this to me, I am going to say during your outro from City of Hope and towards your transition to UCLA, it is such an exciting area. I mean, understanding the actual biologic process of aging and using those underpinnings to really sort of tailor therapy. So tell us where the state of the science is there with this body of work that you are doing. Dr. Mina Sedrak: As I said before, we have tools now to assess patients and to then do something about the deficits. So if a patient is falling, what we do is we refer them to physical therapy where they can do fall precautions and strength training to give them the information. But all of these supportive care interventions are very important. They are great. But they oftentimes are not targeting the root cause of why they are happening. And so that is really where I have been very interested in, how can we understand why is it that something like chemotherapy or immunotherapy is causing a decline in cognitive function or a decline in physical function? And so that has really led us to think about geriatric oncology rather than a discipline of older adults, but to think about aging as a physiologic process. We are all aging. As every day goes by, we are aging. And what that means is that our bodies are accumulating damage, the cells are being exposed to various stressors, and the repair mechanisms are declining. And as we get older, it is really more damage and less repair mechanism at the cellular molecular level. And it turns out that these processes of how our cells repair and respond to damage are fundamental processes of biological aging. And there has been a large amount of preclinical and now really exciting clinical work to show that there are hallmarks that could be used to assess the rate of which we age by looking at these processes. And that includes things like epigenetics, telomeres, inflammation, and something called ‘cellular senescence.' And we have been interested in my lab in senescence because it is a unique process that has an important role in aging, but it also has a really important role in cancer. Senescence is a cell state. Cells, when they are stressed, they respond to entering this state of senescence. The stress could come from anything. It could come from an oncogene activation. It could come from a reactive oxygen species. It could come from a direct damage to the cell. But it is a cell state, just like apoptosis, necrosis. Senescence is a state in which the cell, in response to that stressor, undergoes an arrest from the G to the S phase. And that arrest is oftentimes associated with a resistance to apoptosis. So then the cell does not die, but it is alive, and it remains metabolically active. And in fact, downstream pathways of these cell cycle inhibition of this G-to-S phase lead to the increase of these transcription factors in the chromatin and lead to the development of these pro-inflammatory factors. So these cells, which can occur in various tissues in the body, can continue to live despite having developed these changes, and then they secrete these proinflammatory molecules like cytokines, chemokines, metalloproteinases, all of these, which are called the senescence-associated secretory phenotype, or SASP. And as we age, we accumulate more and more of these cells, and our bodies are no longer able – our immune system, like macrophages and T cells – are no longer able to remove them effectively. And as we accumulate them in various organs, these organs release a lot of inflammatory cytokines, and the chronic inflammation in that tissue leads to the tissue being damaged, and it does not work as well, and then it starts to decline in function. And that is believed to be how senescence plays a role in aging. It is the accumulation of senescent cells that occurs with increased damage and then the repair mechanism of clearing these cells effectively, which then leads to build up of inflammation and chronic inflammation leads up to damage in multiple tissues. Dr. Monty Pal: This concept to me is fascinating. And I guess the big question is – senescence is bad, right – is it not reasonable to think that this body of research, I mean, if you are able to sort of have a meaningful impact on senescence, it could have implications well beyond oncology. Is that fair? You really could extend lifespan all around. Is that reasonable to think, all-cause mortality? Dr. Mina Sedrak: One hundred percent. And that is what they have been shown in animal models. And the reason senescence is exciting is because it turns out that you can target these cells and you can induce apoptosis of these cells, but it requires active targeting of various pathways, but it can occur. And when it does, and it is done either genetically or pharmacologically in mice, we see that the mice can reverse damage. So if you take an old mouse and you genetically engineer it to remove senescent cells, that mouse will go from being frail to fit. And if you take a young mouse and you induce senescent cells at a high rate and you accumulate them in that mouse, that mouse, even though it is young, will become frail.  So that has really led to this exciting opportunity of, can we translate this finding that we are seeing in animals and in in vivo cells, cell cultures, into humans? And could that have a benefit beyond just one disease? Could it have a benefit in multiple diseases? And not just really longevity, which I think it would be great, but what people are really looking for is, how do we live healthy as we get older? How do we move the curve so that people are not developing chronic diseases in their 60s, but they are developing them in their 80s towards shortening the period of their life with disability rather than what we have currently, which is people are living to 70s, the average life expectancy is in the mid-70s, but they are spending 10 or 11 years in disability of that life. And so, how could we reduce that time frame? Dr. Monty Pal: This is brilliant, Mina. And for our audience, this compelling dialogue that we have had here thankfully is translating to funding for Mina's work. He just scored in the second percentile for his NIH R01 based on this topic. We are so, so proud of you. I mean, it is just remarkable work. It is not easy in the current climate to get funding, and a second percentile score is just absolutely wonderful. You know, Mina, I could probably go on with you for a couple more hours here talking about your work in cancer and aging. I think I am going to have to have you back on the podcast here. But a million thanks for sharing your thoughts here today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast.  And thanks to our listeners too. If you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please do not forget to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks, Mina. Dr. Mina Sedrak: Thank you so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:     Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal   @montypal  Dr. Mina Sedrak @minasedrakmd   Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter     ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Monty Pal:    Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical   Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis   Dr. Mina Sedrak: Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Up-to-Date

Elemental Altus Royalties and current CEO, Frederick Bell, sits down with MSD to chat about the announced merger with EMX Royalties. The deal is being back by new board members from Tether and will create a new mid-tier royalty company in the mining space. Fred discusses the merging of business strategies and cultures in the new company.

Top musicians are taking their music off Spotify and leaving the platform behind – but why? Kiwi musicians like Tiki Taane and The Bats have joined overseas acts like Deerhoof and King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard in boycotting the platform, accusing it of exploitation, poor royalties, and subsidising big international acts. As it stands, each stream earns an artist around one-twentieth of a New Zealand cent. Tech commentator Paul Spain told Mike Hosking artists are making a fair point, as Spotify has been increasing their prices, but not artist payouts. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wyoming made billions from coal mining over the last 50 years, funding the government, schools, roads, parks. But President Trump's major spending bill, passed in July, gives mining companies a break on royalty fees — leaving state budgets lean. In this episode, easing coal fees comes at a price. Plus: Non-store retail spending saw double-digit year-over-year growth, small businesses suffer as they wait for tariff clarity, and stock investors basically ignore all the bad economic headlines.Every story has an economic angle. Want some in your inbox? Subscribe to our daily or weekly newsletter.Marketplace is more than a radio show. Check out our original reporting and financial literacy content at marketplace.org — and consider making an investment in our future.

Wyoming made billions from coal mining over the last 50 years, funding the government, schools, roads, parks. But President Trump's major spending bill, passed in July, gives mining companies a break on royalty fees — leaving state budgets lean. In this episode, easing coal fees comes at a price. Plus: Non-store retail spending saw double-digit year-over-year growth, small businesses suffer as they wait for tariff clarity, and stock investors basically ignore all the bad economic headlines.Every story has an economic angle. Want some in your inbox? Subscribe to our daily or weekly newsletter.Marketplace is more than a radio show. Check out our original reporting and financial literacy content at marketplace.org — and consider making an investment in our future.

It's a gritty reboot for Remember ShuffleJoin the patreon to listen to the 2nd part of this episode on Die Another Day (coming later this week) ⁠https://www.patreon.com/c/RememberShuffleGive Remember Shuffle a follow on Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ And on Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠@RememberShufflePod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to interact with the show between episodes. It also makes it easier to book guests. 

Your weekly guide to the music biz and how it all works. In this week's The Price of Music: an urgent-ish delve into the news that Morrissey has announced he wants to sell his ownership of The Smiths' songs… including a suggestion from Steve and Stu about how Johnny Marr might buy the songs off Morrissey via a gmail address that Morrissey put online.And then Steve and Stu take a deep dive into a fantastic question from listener Simon who asked: artists often say that they are not making enough money from music streaming but are artists REALLY worse off today in the music streaming age?To answer this, Steve and Stu wander down some... interesting pathways. They:talk to their Top Secret Sources in the artist and label world, and found out the answer… (which may surprise you);hypothesise about both Mazzy Star AND Bonnie Tyler's record contracts;chat to Spotify, which reveals to our dynamic duo about how much they paid Mazzy Star and Bonnie Tyler(!);wonder how being a ‘radio artist' pays compared to a ‘streaming artist';dig into artist deals: because the money paid from streaming doesn't go to the artist first;ask why the artists who ARE doing well from streaming platforms aren't talking about it?…and tangentially… is TPOM better to listen to on a treadmill than Hi-NRG house music? A brief discussion.And in the special post-show lock-in section just for our Patreon Superfans, Steve and Stuart prop themselves at the bar to chat about:The time Steve worked in a record shop for a day; and he immediately faced a quandary: which letter should he file PJ Harvey under?Steve gently chides Stu over his love of a Songs Of The Summer Stats List from TikTok, which includes a load of old nostalgia songsRadiohead are back – and how do you sell tickets to shows that will be massively-oversubscribed and make sure those tickets get to real fans?After Covid's impact, money spent on live music is up - and more popular than ever.  But what were Steve and Stu's first gigs after Covid?A call for your suggestions of hard-to-file records!As ever, we welcome your feedback, emails and – in particular – any questions you might have about how the music biz works!Email us: ⁠thepriceofmusicpodcast@gmail.com⁠See you next week!Steve and Stuart======Support The Price of Music on Patreon:⁠https://www.patreon.com/ThePriceofMusic⁠Follow Steve on X - @steve_lamacqFollow Stuart on X - @stuartdredgeFollow The Price of Music on X - @PriceofMusicpodFor sponsorship, email - ⁠joe@musically.com

Sting is being sued by his ex-bandmates for millions in unpaid royalties, Radiohead surprise fans by announcing their first official tour in over 7 years, the Sex Pistols are forced to cancel their upcoming North & South American tour dates due to an unexpected injury in the band, the Ronnie James Dio Stand Up and Shout for Cancer fund announces their annual Bowl for Ronnie charity event featuring Eddie Trunk and tons of musical celebrities & more!  PLUS ‘This Week in Rock & Roll History Trivia', Rock Birthdays, ‘The Best & Worst Rock Album Artwork of the Week' & so much more!Everything is up at www.rocknewsweekly.com / All socials & TikTok @rocknewsweekly Watch us LIVE, chat with us & more…Every Sunday around 2pm PST @ https://www.twitch.tv/rocknewsweeklyWatch all of our videos, interviews & subscribe at Youtube.com/@rocknewsweeklyFollow us online:Instagram.com/rocknewsweeklyFacebook.com/rocknewsweeklyTwitter.com/rocknewsweeklyTikTok.com/@rocknewsweeklyAll of our links are up at www.rocknewsweekly.com every Monday, where you canCheck it out on 8 different platforms (including Amazon Audible & Apple/Google Podcasts) #Rock #News #RockNews #RockNewsWeekly #RockNewsWeeklyPodcast #Podcast #Podcasts #Metal #HeavyMetal #Alt #Alternative #ClassicRock #70s #80s #90s #Indie #Trivia #RockTrivia #RockBirthdays #NewMusic #NewMusicReleases #Sting #ThePolice #StewartCopeland #AndySummers #SexPistols #SteveJones #RonnieJamesDio #BowlForRonnie #Radiohead #Radiohead2025Tour #Deftones #AlabamaShakes #Mudvayne #TheSmiths #MikeJoyce

In this episode I mean to talk about this summers festival season but get sidetracked by the much more interesting/boring discussion depending on your like/dislike of someone grappling with first grade math for 35 minutes as I attempt to get into what the hell live performance royalties are, does anyone ever make any and if you are a covers band....do you need permission and who gets the live mechanicals.....warning, dumb maths incomingsupport the show over at :https://patreon.com/AlanAverillPrimordial on Spotifyhttps://open.spotify.com/artist/0BZr6WHaejNA63uhZZZZek?si=yFFV8ypSSDOESUX62_0TzQsponsored by Metal Blade recordshttps://metalblade.indiemerch.com/promo code AA 2024 for 10% off your orderships worldwideFor info on my work as a booking agent go to:https://www.facebook.com/DragonProductionsOfficialor email alan@dragon-productions.comPrimordial cds/lps available fromhttps://www.metalblade.com/primordial/death metalVERMINOUS SERPENThttps://open.spotify.com/artist/54Wpl9JD0Zn4rhpBvrN2Oa?si=zOjIulHXS5y9lW1YHMhgTAdoomDREAD SOVEREIGN https://open.spotify.com/artist/60HY4pl0nbOrZA6u2QnqDN?si=sxQ5_1htR6G3WIvy1I_wXAgothAPRILMENhttps://open.spotify.com/artist/7GzLO1YJClmN5TvV4A37MJ?si=cRXSk24lQKWSqJG-B8KbWQSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/agitators-anonymous-the-alan-averill-podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Amazon Merch announced the roll out of three new products! I've got the royalties and the colors for the new polos, comfort colors, & quarter-zips... as well as some new colors for standard shirts!

On this episode of the Self-Publishing News Podcast, Dan Holloway looks at a new study on US reading habits that shows a 40 percent drop in reading for pleasure between 2003 and 2023, with possible shifts toward digital formats and functional reading. He also covers surprising findings about reading with children, the limited impact of COVID on reading trends, and the growing controversy over Audible's new royalty model. Plus, he highlights Spotify's latest audiobook experiment, a “Follow Along” feature that adds visuals to listening. Sponsors Self-Publishing News is proudly sponsored by Bookvault. Sell high-quality, print-on-demand books directly to readers worldwide and earn maximum royalties selling directly. Automate fulfillment and create stunning special editions with BookvaultBespoke. Visit Bookvault.app today for an instant quote. Self-Publishing News is also sponsored by book cover design company Miblart. They offer unlimited revisions, take no deposit to start work and you pay only when you love the final result. Get a book cover that will become your number-one marketing tool. Find more author advice, tips, and tools at our Self-publishing Author Advice Center, with a huge archive of nearly 2,000 blog posts and a handy search box to find key info on the topic you need. And, if you haven't already, we invite you to join our organization and become a self-publishing ally. About the Host Dan Holloway is a novelist, poet, and spoken word artist. He is the MC of the performance arts show The New Libertines, He competed at the National Poetry Slam final at the Royal Albert Hall. His latest collection, The Transparency of Sutures, is available on Kindle.

In this episode, we delve into Elemental Altus Royalties' impressive Q2 financial performance, spotlighting their robust cash generation strategies. David Baker, CFO of the company, walks listeners through the key highlights of the quarter and also shares on insights on year-end guidance at these elevated gold prices.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Caleb Shreve, founder and CEO of Killphonic Rights, is a pioneering advocate for artist empowerment and transparency in the music industry. With a career spanning music production, publishing, and rights management, Caleb has worked with Grammy-winning talent while building a company dedicated to helping independent artists collect the royalties they're owed. His expertise bridges the gap between creative artistry and the often opaque business side of music, making him a leading voice in modernizing rights management and creating fairer revenue models for musicians worldwide.In this episode, we explore how Caleb is challenging the status quo and creating new pathways for indie artists to thrive.Key Takeaways:How “black box” royalties work—and why so much indie artist income goes unclaimed.The role NFTs and user-centric streaming models could play in reshaping music monetization.Practical steps every artist can take to protect their rights and maximize royalty collection.---→ Learn more about Caleb Shreve and Killphonic Rights at killphonicrights.com.Book an Artist Breakthrough Session with the Modern Musician team: https://apply.modernmusician.me/podcast

Mineral and royalty owners face unique cybersecurity risks that most people never consider. From fraudulent emails requesting banking changes to sophisticated scams targeting royalty payments, cybercriminals increasingly view mineral owners as attractive targets due to their regular income streams and valuable assets. In this essential episode, we break down the most common digital threats facing mineral owners and provide straightforward, non-technical strategies to protect your personal information, financial accounts, and royalty payments. Whether you're tech-savvy or prefer to keep things simple, you'll discover practical steps you can implement immediately to safeguard your mineral income and personal data from online criminals.  As always, links to the resources mentioned in this episode can be found in the show notes at mineralrightspodcast.com.