Podcasts about royalties

Seeing Machines Ltd (AIM:SEE, OTC:SEEMF) CEO Paul McGlone talked with Proactive's Stephen Gunnion about second-quarter KPIs, highlighting growth in automotive royalties, Guardian hardware sales, and increasing annual recurring revenue as regulatory tailwinds build toward the July 2026 General Safety Regulation (GSR) deadline. McGlone said he was “really pleased to see a positive growth number in this quarter,” noting confidence that regulatory drivers would translate into rising volumes. While the timing of step-change growth remains uncertain, he emphasised that OEM compliance preparations for GSR are well underway, with all required integration work already completed for the 2026 deadline. The discussion addressed RFQ delays across the automotive market, which McGlone attributed to broader industry uncertainty. However, he clarified that these delays have no impact on GSR-related production volumes, as current RFQs would not affect revenue until 2028 at the earliest. A key focus was Seeing Machines' guaranteed volume arrangements, which underpin cash flow. McGlone explained that these agreements set a revenue floor, ensuring minimum payments regardless of production variability. In Q2, actual volumes exceeded minimum guarantees for the first time under the arrangement, strengthening confidence for Q3 and Q4. He added that incumbency advantages in Europe position the company strongly ahead of GSR enforcement, and reaffirmed expectations of cash flow breakeven in Q3 and profitability in the second half. For more interviews like this, visit Proactive's YouTube channel, give this video a like, subscribe to the channel, and enable notifications so you never miss future updates. #SeeingMachines #PaulMcGlone #AutomotiveTech #GSR2026 #DriverMonitoring #AutomotiveRoyalties #VehicleSafety #OEM #GuardianSystem #RecurringRevenue #AutoIndustry #InvestorUpdate #RoadSafetyTech

If you've ever wondered how to get paid for the true value you bring to a company through campaigns they run year after year – and long after you write the initial copy → you need to hear from one of the GOATs, Kim Krause Schwalm. In this case-study-style episode, Kim lets us in on what went on behind the scenes as she grew from an in-house employee to a highly successful and sought-after copywriter in the industry, sitting in rooms with people like Eugene Schwartz and other greats. Not only that, but Kim walks us through her personal methodology for testing ‘controls' and trying to beat your own copy - ultimately increasing the value you bring to the table with every client who hires you.   If you're a copywriter curious about how to negotiate royalties into your contracts and get paid on a whole new level, this episode of the Freedom Found Copywriter Podcast is an absolute must-listen.   Tune in To Learn: What a ‘Control' is in Copywriting and why you should be testing yours asap How to negotiate royalties with big & small clients The best way for Copywriters to get hired, even in the face of AI How Kim Krause Schwalm mastered her craft, client relations, and career as a copywriter   **********   Like this show? Write a 5-star review — even just one sentence helps us bring you more content each week.    Resources & Follow: ***Get Kim's limited-time deal → Save 60% on Kim's Top 4 Trainings for Copywriters UNTIL MARCH 31, 2026 MIDNIGHT PT >>> Use code SAVE60 here: https://kimschwalm.com/training/  This includes 60% off: Million-Dollar Controls & The Get Dangerously Good Copywriting System and more! → Learn more about Kim's Trainings here: https://kimschwalm.com/training/    Connect with Krystle: → The KC Website: https://krystlechurch.com/  → Juno Membership for Copywriters: https://krystlechurch.com/Juno  → Get *Probably* The Best Copywriting Newsletter You'll Ever Read: https://krystlechurch.com/copy-classroom  → Follow on IG: https://www.instagram.com/krystle.church 

Ecora Royalties PLC (LSE:ECOR, TSX:ECOR, OTCQX:ECRAF, FRA:HGR) CEO Marc Bishop Lafleche talked with Proactive's Stephen Gunnion about a pivotal period for the company as it enters a new phase of growth driven by base metals and critical minerals. Lafleche explained that 2025 marked an inflection point for Ecora Royalties, with base metals and critical minerals representing the majority of portfolio revenue for the first time in at least 25 years. He described the year as a “landmark year,” highlighting that the performance was underpinned by a 150% increase in base metals revenue compared with 2024. The CEO outlined how this momentum was driven by a combination of higher production volumes and favourable commodity prices. Strong volume growth was recorded at the Voisey's Bay cobalt stream, as the mine continued to ramp up, with further increases expected. Additional growth came from the Mimbula copper stream, acquired in March last year, which is now operating at an annualised rate of around 20,000 tonnes of copper and is expected to expand further through 2026. Mantos Blancos also delivered a standout performance following debottlenecking initiatives completed in 2024. Discussing the balance sheet, Bishop Lafleche noted that despite acquiring a US$50 million producing copper stream, net debt had reduced from nearly US$130 million to approximately US$85 million by the end of Q4, supported by strong cash flow generation. He said, “that really strong deleveraging is in part a function of the strong cash flow generation of this portfolio.” Looking ahead, the CEO highlighted layered growth opportunities, including production increases at existing assets, brownfield expansions, near-term development projects such as Santo Domingo and West Musgrave, and longer-term catalysts across the portfolio. With supportive commodity prices for copper, cobalt and uranium, he said the outlook for Ecora Royalties remains very positive. For more interviews and insights like this, visit **Proactive's YouTube channel**, and don't forget to **like the video, subscribe to the channel, and enable notifications** so you never miss an update. #EcoraRoyalties #MarcBishopLafleche #MiningRoyalties #BaseMetals #Copper #Cobalt #CriticalMinerals #MiningStocks #ResourceInvesting #Commodities #MiningCEO #ProactiveInvestors

In this episode of Mission Matters, Adam Torres interviews Todd Rustman, Partner at Clarity Capital Partners and author of “Memory Royalties: The Missing Link in Your Wealth Management.” Todd shares how his Midwest work ethic shaped his career in finance and explains why modern wealth management should account for “memory royalties”—experiences and moments that compound in value over time. The conversation also explores evolving retirement realities, purposeful living, and how constant learning helps families build both financial confidence and a meaningful legacy. Follow Adam on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/askadamtorres/ for up to date information on book releases and tour schedule. Apply to be a guest on our podcast: https://missionmatters.lpages.co/podcastguest/ Visit our website: https://missionmatters.com/ More FREE content from Mission Matters here: https://linktr.ee/missionmattersmedia Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of Mission Matters, ⁠Adam Torres⁠ interviews ⁠Todd Rustman⁠, Partner at Clarity Capital Partners and author of “Memory Royalties: The Missing Link in Your Wealth Management.” Todd shares how his Midwest work ethic shaped his career in finance and explains why modern wealth management should account for “memory royalties”—experiences and moments that compound in value over time. The conversation also explores evolving retirement realities, purposeful living, and how constant learning helps families build both financial confidence and a meaningful legacy. Follow Adam on Instagram at ⁠https://www.instagram.com/askadamtorres/⁠ for up to date information on book releases and tour schedule. Apply to be a guest on our podcast: ⁠https://missionmatters.lpages.co/podcastguest/⁠ Visit our website: ⁠https://missionmatters.com/⁠ More FREE content from Mission Matters here: ⁠https://linktr.ee/missionmattersmedia⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ep. 176: In 2026, labels, artists, musicians and creators are all working differently: generating millions of micro-royalties every month across global campaigns that involve multiple of partners across dozens of countries. Getting your music out there is easier than ever, but processing that increased volume of payouts becomes more complex – and we all have an expectation to get paid fast, and see what's going on and what we're owed at any given time. So to find out what's happening at the point where all those payment pipes meet, in this latest episode of Music Ally Focus, we partnered with a fintech company that processes tens of billions of payments each year – Tipalti, which works closely with labels like Ninja Tune to pay their artists what they're owed. We chatted to Tipalti's Travis Hughson about what labels need in 2026, what artists want when it comes to payments, and how to maintain trust and transparency to keep all parties happy.Some more Tipalti resources for the music business:Automated Royalty Payouts to Nurture ArtistsNinja Tune Enhances Artist Satisfaction and Cuts Payouts Processing Time by 50% With Tipalti Mass PaymentsFast, Secure Global Payments AnywhereRoyalty Rate Explained: How to Determine Your Royalties========This is a Music Ally Co-Labs podcast: ⁠⁠⁠⁠musically.com/music-ally-co-labs. Co-Labs content is created by publishing partners in liaison with the Music Ally Editorial Team. We work closely with partners to ensure that it adheres to Music Ally's high expectations of quality, thoughtfulness, and usefulness.

Roxanne Shanté Speaks Out: Roxanne Roxanne 2, Tears, Rap Battles & Lost Royalties + More See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's our very first show of the year AND one of our biggestshows of the year. It's our annual Royal Rumble preview show! ALL OUR LINKS: https://linktr.ee/KOTR_PodcastMERCHANDISE STORE: https://wrestle-addict-radio-shop.fourthwall.com/collections/kings-of-the-rings-podcast TWITTER (X): https://twitter.com/KOTR_PodcastINSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/kotr_podcast/FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/KOTRPodcast/DISCORD: https://discord.gg/5ggSgjGeaR FOLLOW WRESTLE ADDICT RADIO: https://linktr.ee/wrestleaddictradioOFFICIAL WAR MERCHANDISE: https://wrestle-addict-radio-shop.fourthwall.com Beats by AO Baker of The Signature Move Show (00:00) Intro(05:35) TNA Updates(18:50) AEW Updates(24:25) WWE/NXT Updates(39:20) WWE 2K26(47:15) Royal Rumble Saudi Preview(48:20) Men's Royal Rumble(01:03:20) Women's Royal Rumble(01:19:50) Gunther vs AJ Styles(01:30:15) Drew McIntyre vs Sami Zayn(01:37:20) Crown It(01:44:20) Outro

It's our very first show of the year AND one of our biggestshows of the year. It's our annual Royal Rumble preview show! ALL OUR LINKS: ⁠https://linktr.ee/KOTR_Podcast⁠MERCHANDISE STORE: ⁠https://wrestle-addict-radio-shop.fourthwall.com/collections/kings-of-the-rings-podcast⁠ TWITTER (X): ⁠https://twitter.com/KOTR_Podcast⁠INSTAGRAM: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/kotr_podcast/⁠FACEBOOK: ⁠https://www.facebook.com/KOTRPodcast/⁠DISCORD: ⁠https://discord.gg/5ggSgjGeaR⁠ FOLLOW WRESTLE ADDICT RADIO: ⁠https://linktr.ee/wrestleaddictradio⁠OFFICIAL WAR MERCHANDISE: ⁠https://wrestle-addict-radio-shop.fourthwall.com⁠ Beats by AO Baker of The Signature Move Show (00:00) Intro(05:35) TNA Updates(18:50) AEW Updates(24:25) WWE/NXT Updates(39:20) WWE 2K26(47:15) Royal Rumble Saudi Preview(48:20) Men's Royal Rumble(01:03:20) Women's Royal Rumble(01:19:50) Gunther vs AJ Styles(01:30:15) Drew McIntyre vs Sami Zayn(01:37:20) Crown It(01:44:20) Outro

It's our very first show of the year AND one of our biggestshows of the year. It's our annual Royal Rumble preview show! ALL OUR LINKS: https://linktr.ee/KOTR_PodcastMERCHANDISE STORE: https://wrestle-addict-radio-shop.fourthwall.com/collections/kings-of-the-rings-podcast TWITTER (X): https://twitter.com/KOTR_PodcastINSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/kotr_podcast/FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/KOTRPodcast/DISCORD: https://discord.gg/5ggSgjGeaR FOLLOW WRESTLE ADDICT RADIO: https://linktr.ee/wrestleaddictradioOFFICIAL WAR MERCHANDISE: https://wrestle-addict-radio-shop.fourthwall.com Beats by AO Baker of The Signature Move Show (00:00) Intro(05:35) TNA Updates(18:50) AEW Updates(24:25) WWE/NXT Updates(39:20) WWE 2K26(47:15) Royal Rumble Saudi Preview(48:20) Men's Royal Rumble(01:03:20) Women's Royal Rumble(01:19:50) Gunther vs AJ Styles(01:30:15) Drew McIntyre vs Sami Zayn(01:37:20) Crown It(01:44:20) Outro

TNR Gold Corp (TSX-V:TNR, OTC:TRRXF) executive chairman Kirill Klip talked with Proactive's Stephen Gunnion about the company's strong start to 2026, highlighting the next key milestones after a 240% share price increase in 2025. Klip outlined how TNR Gold plans to minimize dilution, pursue share buybacks, and potentially introduce a dividend policy subject to regulatory approval. A major catalyst this year is the anticipated first royalty payment from Ganfeng Lithium tied to the Mariana Lithium project in Argentina. “Our general strategy will be to minimize dilution to absolute minimum... and to increase the returns for all our shareholders,” said Klip. He also noted a 60% increase in lithium resources at Mariana, with production scaling up and Ganfeng preparing an application for Argentina's large investment incentive program. On the copper front, Klip discussed the Los Azules project, now bolstered by copper prices surpassing $13,000 per tonne. He said royalties from this project could reach $8 million annually, while lithium royalties may climb to $1.6 million based on new estimates. Regarding gold, Klip discussed the Shotgun Gold project in Alaska, where TNR is seeking a strategic partner. He revealed plans for a potential spin-out named AmeriGold, in which existing shareholders would receive shares. Visit Proactive's YouTube channel for more interviews and updates. Don't forget to like this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future content.#TNRGold #KirillKlip #LithiumStocks #CopperMining #GoldExploration #MarianaLithium #LosAzules #ShotgunGold #GanfengLithium #MiningInvesting #ArgentinaMining #AlaskaGold #RoyaltyIncome #JuniorMining #StockMarketNews

You should download my free TOOLKIT for new record labels... http://otherrecordlabels.com/toolkit   Thanks to LANDR for sponsoring this episode. landr.com/otherrecordlabels   Contracts and royalties are where a lot of people get stuck—and for good reason. Record labels have a long history of bad deals, broken trust, and artists getting the short end of the stick. In Episode 7 of How to Start a Record Label This Year, Scott tackles this head-on and explains how modern independent labels can do things differently. This episode walks through the fundamentals of contracts and royalties from a practical, empathetic perspective—without legal jargon and without pretending there's a one-size-fits-all solution. In this episode, you'll learn: Why you do need contracts—and why they protect artists as much as labels When to involve a music attorney (and why templates and AI contracts fall short) Common contract terms artists actually care about (term length, exclusivity, territory) How licensing master recordings works for indie labels Why 50/50 profit sharing has become a modern standard How to structure fair splits while keeping the label sustainable The importance of having these conversations before any music is released Scott emphasizes that the most important part of any contract isn't the paperwork—it's the conversation. Clear expectations, honest communication, and transparency from day one are what turn contracts from something scary into something empowering.

Nations Royalty Corp Chief Investment Officer Derrick Pattenden joined Steve Darling from the Vancouver Resources Investment Conference to share news about the company's unique positioning as the first and largest majority Indigenous-owned publicly traded royalty company in Canada. Pattenden, who recently stepped into the CEO role after serving as Chief Investment Officer, explained the company's mission: pooling Indigenous-owned royalty assets to unlock greater value. “We believe the Indigenous peoples of Canada are very well served to create a mining royalty company of their own,” he said, highlighting how these groups can secure high-quality royalty interests in ways others cannot. The company's model is based on consolidating royalties that Indigenous groups currently hold in isolation. By pooling them, Nations Royalty believes these assets could trade at multiples of their standalone value. Pattenden emphasized that Indigenous communities have a unique advantage due to their proximity to resource development and involvement in key agreements related to environmental, legal, and financial terms—including royalties. Looking ahead to 2026, Pattenden outlined two major catalysts: progress on the Seabridge Gold KSM project, where Nations Royalty holds EBAY payments, and the announcement of a new Indigenous partnership that would launch the pooling initiative. He also noted the company's efforts to support Indigenous groups in negotiating fair royalty agreements. #proactiveinvestors #nationsroyaltycorp #tsxv #nrc #otcqb #nrycf #vric2026 #MiningRoyalties #IndigenousBusiness #SeabridgeGold #KSMProject #MiningInvestment #Royalties #ResourceDevelopment #TSXV #OTCQB #DerrickPattenden #CanadaMining #ProactiveInvestors #NaturalResou

Metallic Minerals Corp CEO Greg Johnson joined Steve Darling from the Vancouver Resources Investment Conference to share news about the company's ongoing momentum as it advances multiple exploration and royalty projects across North America. Johnson highlighted that after years of bear market conditions, the junior mining sector is finally seeing a generational shift — and Metallic Minerals is positioned to benefit. Johnson outlined a busy 2026, building on a significant 2025. “It's already over a billion pounds of copper, 17 million ounces of silver,” he said, referring to the La Plata project in Colorado, which also includes newly added platinum, palladium and gold ounces. The project is supported by Newmont, which funded recent drilling. In Yukon, the company's Keno Silver project is moving forward after publishing its first resource of 18 million ounces in 2024. With Hecla Mining ramping up to commercial production next door, Metallic Minerals aims to build on that resource through 2026. Importantly, Johnson also highlighted a third income stream — a royalty portfolio in the Yukon — that produced CAD $650,000 worth of gold in 2025. “At $6,500 Canadian gold... it's an amazing business,” he said. The company expects a record year in 2026 from expanding royalty operations. Looking ahead, Johnson confirmed exploration drilling at Keno Silver will begin in late spring or early summer, followed by work at La Plata later in the year. The company also plans to test new porphyry targets in partnership with Newmont. #proactiveinvestors #metallicmineralscorp #tsxv #mmg #otcqb #mmngf #vric2026 #GregJohnson #LaPlataProject #KenoSilver #CopperExploration #SilverStocks #MiningInvesting #JuniorMining #Newmont #HeclaMining

In this raw, unfiltered conversation, Pimpin Ken, a former high-level pimp from Chicago and Milwaukee, breaks down the psychology, power dynamics, and realities of the pimping game during its peak in the 1970s–1990s. Ken speaks candidly about how he entered the life as a teenager, the culture of pimping that existed at the time, and how manipulation, control, and desensitization became central to survival. He explains the difference between street-level track work and higher-end strip club and VIP hustles, detailing how money was really made — and why most people misunderstand the game entirely. This interview also dives deep into: -The psychology behind control, power, and influence -How pimping was normalized in certain eras and communities -The role of trauma, abandonment, and emotional conditioning -Why he avoided violence and relied on manipulation instead -The evolution from street hustling to sophisticated financial setups -His thoughts on relationships, marriage, masculinity, and power -How prison, reading, and reflection changed his perspective This is not a glamorization — it's a firsthand account of a brutal system, told by someone who lived it and survived it. Support Ken Books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/PimpinKen7?srsltid=AfmBOoocrftoIFbUynb_2YpRlVnI7TyfLbkZk6L55Hq6d821w17fi1K5 Audio Book: https://www.audible.com/pd/Pimpology-Audiobook/B0196WKYU8?source_code=ASSGB149080119000H&share_location=pdp Hip Hop Fraternity: https://www.pimpinken.net/ This Episode Is #Sponsored By The Following: The Wellness Company! Power up with RECHARGE! Click https://twc.health/connect and use code CONNECT for 10% Off + Free Shipping on every order

On this episode of 83 Weeks, Eric Bischoff and Conrad Thompson take a deep dive into WWE's so-called royalty system. Eric weighs in on a recent social media post from Marc Mero that reignited the debate, offering his candid take on how things really work behind the scenes. The guys also break down the fallout from TNA's debut on AMC, including the disappointing ratings and reports of interest from a major hip-hop artist looking to buy the company. Plus, has WWE Unreal officially gone off the rails? Eric and Conrad share their unfiltered thoughts on Season Two of the Netflix series. It's a news-heavy, opinionated edition of 83 Weeks you won't want to miss. HARRY'S PLUS - Get the Harry's Plus Trial Set for only $10 at https://harrys.com/83WEEKS #Harryspod MARS MEN - Get 50% off FOR LIFE, Free Shipping AND 3 Free Gifts at Mars Men at http://Mengotomars.com  CHIME - Chime is not just smarter banking, it is the most rewarding way to bank. Join the millions who are already banking fee free today. It just takes a few minutes to sign up. Head to http://Chime.com/83WEEKS  . SIGNOS - Visit http://SIGNOS.com  and get 25% off select plans with code 83WEEKS.  STEVEN SINGER JEWELERS - No one does real diamond jewelry better. Experience the difference at Steven Singer Jewelers. Go online to http://IHateStevenSinger.com  today! Always fast and FREE shipping is waiting for you. BLUECHEW - Get 10% off your first month of BlueChew Gold with code 83WEEKS at http://BlueChew.com  PRIZE PICKS - Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/83WEEKS  and use code 83WEEKS to get $50 in lineups after you pay your first $5 lineup! SAVE WITH CONRAD - Stop throwing money away by paying those high interest rates on your credit card. Roll them into one low monthly payment and on top of that, skip your next two house payments. Go to https://www.savewithconrad.com  to learn more.

Find us at www.crisisinvesting.com   In this enlightening episode, Matt and Doug discuss the historic highs in silver, breaching $100 per ounce, and gold approaching $5000. They analyze the rapid movement in the precious metals markets, discuss strategies for holding and buying more, and delve into the lagging performance of mining stocks. They touch on broader economic issues, including Trump's political maneuvers, global unrest, and the absurdity of the ongoing drug war. Doug shares insights on historical U.S. territorial expansion, the implications of Alberta's potential secession, Trump's so-called 'Board of Peace,' and the intense dynamics involving China and other global powers. Listener questions spark discussions on diverse investing strategies, private ownership, and managing personal wealth amidst chaotic global markets. 00:00 Market Madness: Silver and Gold Surge 02:00 Mining Stocks: The Hidden Gems 04:17 Experts Roundtable: Insights and Discussions 06:43 Trump's WEF Speech and Political Reactions 08:16 The Board of Peace: Trump's Global Strategy 13:56 Drug War and Societal Issues 18:15 Global Territories: Greenland, Cuba, and More 30:21 The Pathological Behavior of Leaders 30:41 Jared Kushner's Vision for Gaza 31:40 The Unpredictable Future 32:53 Comparing Trump and Gorbachev 35:58 David Rogers Webb's Choice to Stay in Europe 41:52 Investing in Newsletters and Media Outlets 51:27 Alternative Investments: Farmland and Royalties 56:10 The Future of the US Dollar 58:49 Conclusion and Farewell

Flea revealed that his new solo album ‘Honora' will be coming out on March 27th and also announced a small accompanying NA and UK tour to support it,  Bandcamp has become one of the first major music streaming platforms to ban music that is fully generated or relies heavily on AI, Sting has paid $800k in unpaid royalties so far to his Police bandmates since their legal battle in court kicked off in late 2024, ex-Sex Pistols singer John Lydon admits he appeared on the recent season of The Masked Singer UK so he could get the money to record a new PIL album, A new documentary about Paul McCartney's band Wings will debut on Amazon Prime Video on February 27… PLUS ‘This Week in Rock & Roll History Trivia', Rock Birthdays, ‘The Best & Worst Rock Album Artwork of the Week' & much more!All of our links are up at www.rocknewsweekly.com every Monday, where you can check out the full episode on 8 different platforms (including Amazon Audible & Apple/Google Podcasts)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/@rocknewsweekly#Flea #Sting #Bandcamp #JohnLydon #ManOnTheRun#Rock #News #RockNews #RockNewsWeekly #RockNewsWeeklyPodcast #Podcast #Podcasts #Metal #HeavyMetal #Alt #Alternative #ClassicRock #70s #80s #90s #Indie #Trivia #RockTrivia #RockBirthdays #NewMusic #NewMusicReleases

An independent musician seeks advice on skipping out on Spotify. Royalties for most artists are dismal on streaming services—is corporate licensing for background music a better option? Side Hustle School features a new episode EVERY DAY, featuring detailed case studies of people who earn extra money without quitting their job. This year, the show includes free guided lessons and listener Q&A several days each week. Show notes: SideHustleSchool.com Email: team@sidehustleschool.com Be on the show: SideHustleSchool.com/questions Connect on Instagram: @193countries Visit Chris's main site: ChrisGuillebeau.com Read A Year of Mental Health: yearofmentalhealth.com If you're enjoying the show, please pass it along! It's free and has been published every single day since January 1, 2017. We're also very grateful for your five-star ratings—it shows that people are listening and looking forward to new episodes.

In this episode of Mining Stock Education, host Brian Leni interviews Brian Dalton, CEO of Altius Minerals, to discuss the current state of the mining royalty sector. They delve into various topics including the competitive edge among royalty companies, contrarian opportunities in the market, and Altius's recent acquisition of Lithium Royalty Corp. Dalton shares his perspective on the importance of royalty and streaming financing, the impact of new entrants like Tether in the market, and how geopolitical factors and deglobalization are shaping the sector. He also discusses the challenges and opportunities in asset selection, the implications of market overshoots, and the future of the mining industry. Listeners will gain valuable insights on how to think like a CEO of a royalty company and make informed investment decisions. 00:00 Introduction 00:30 Current State of the Mining Royalty Sector 01:12 Consolidation and New Entrants in the Royalty Space 01:39 The Role of Royalties in Mining Financing 04:27 Tether's Entry into the Royalty Space 07:42 Investor Perspectives and Market Dynamics 22:08 Contrarian Opportunities in the Mining Sector 28:08 The Commitment of a Royalty Investor 28:53 Investor vs. Businessman: Key Differences 29:28 The Importance of Market Valuation 30:13 Navigating Emotions in Investment 30:52 Discussing the Lithium Royalty Corp Acquisition 31:46 Lithium Market Dynamics and Growth 40:16 The Role of Geopolitics in Resource Investment 44:17 Balancing Cash and Shares in Deals 46:34 Ranking Opportunities in the Metals Market 51:24 Altius's Market Presence and Future Plans Altius Minerals: https://altiusminerals.com/ Sign up for our free newsletter and receive interview transcripts, stock profiles and investment ideas: http://eepurl.com/cHxJ39 This interview was NOT sponsored. Mining Stock Education offers informational content based on available data but it does not constitute investment, tax, or legal advice. It may not be appropriate for all situations or objectives. Readers and listeners should seek professional advice, make independent investigations and assessments before investing. MSE does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of its content and should not be solely relied upon for investment decisions. MSE and its owner may hold financial interests in the companies discussed and can trade such securities without notice. MSE is biased towards its advertising sponsors which make this platform possible. MSE is not liable for representations, warranties, or omissions in its content. By accessing MSE content, users agree that MSE and its affiliates bear no liability related to the information provided or the investment decisions you make. Full disclaimer: https://www.miningstockeducation.com/disclaimer/

What does it really mean to own a song? In this episode of Duologue, Leslie sits down with Josh Gruss, founder and CEO of Round Hill Music, to explore the hidden business behind the songs we love. From Nashville songwriting rooms to global music catalogs, Josh breaks down how songs are created, who owns them, and how royalties actually work. They discuss the difference between songwriters and artists, why publishing rights matter, and how iconic songs can generate value for decades. The conversation also unpacks high-profile ownership disputes, including Taylor Swift's rerecordings, and explains why music publishing is often described as the “real estate” of the music industry. Along the way, Josh shares his unconventional career path from finance to founding one of the world's leading music publishing companies — and why great songs tend to stand the test of time.Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

In this episode I'm pulling back the curtain on the biggest moves I've made in order to maximize my royalties. I'll walk you through how my international royalties started flowing faster and more predictably, how I simultaneously quadrupled my BMI royalties, and why consistency became the real secret to my success. If you're trying to build sustainable sync licensing income and wondering what actually works, I'm sharing exactly what I did, the mistakes I made along the way, and the strategies that finally got me on track toward full-time royalty income.   want a free coaching call with me? https://www.roymatz.com/coaching   Michael Maas Courses:  Sync Music Business Course https://roymatz.krtra.com/t/7R1Cl8hft4oQ   Trailer Music Production https://roymatz.krtra.com/t/uYdZ26NTCfa4

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Kerin Adelson and Dr. Maureen Canavan discuss JCO article "Association Between Systemic Anticancer Therapy Administration Near the End of Life with Health Care and Hospice Utilization in Older Adults: A SEER Medicare Analysis of End-of-Life Care Quality," highlighting adverse outcomes for patients who receive any type of systemic anticancer therapy(SACT) at EOL (end of life) and the need for better communication between oncologists and patients regarding expected risk and benefits of such treatments to properly align goals-of-care. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO authors Dr. Maureen Canavan, epidemiologist and associate research scientist at Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center; and by Dr. Kerin Adelson, Chief Quality and Value Officer, medical oncologist, and clinical researcher on health services and clinical care delivery at MD Anderson Cancer Center. In the manuscript "Association Between Systemic Anticancer Therapy Administration Near the End of Life With Health Care and Hospice Utilization in Older Adults: A SEER-Medicare Analysis of End-of-Life Care Quality." that you recently published in the JCO, you performed an analysis that included more than 30,000 older adults in the SEER-Medicare database, and you observed that 7.6% of these patients received any systemic anticancer medication within 30 days of death. So, I wanted you to explain why you thought that this was a priority right now, and whether there was any previous data that was published in the literature, and if you think that there was any significant gap in the literature that led you to the research you just published. Dr. Kerin Adelson: We have published a series of articles looking at real-world trends  in patterns of care, particularly related to systemic anticancer therapy at the end of life. This has been gaining increasing focus in recent years because of the understanding that when patients stay on systemic anticancer therapy, that is often a surrogate for a lack of goal-concordant care. So, patients who continue to receive systemic therapy have worse quality of life, are more likely generally to have a medicalized death, and less likely to use hospice. And what our prior work has shown is that more and more we are seeing patients using immunotherapies and targeted therapies towards the end of life. No prior work had really comprehensively examined whether these novel therapies were associated with those same patterns of care increases in acute care utilization and decreases in hospice. Dr. Davide Soldato: So basically, the data that we had up until that point was mostly with cytotoxic chemotherapy, and the emergence of this new treatment, which frequently are thought to be less toxic and so less problematic also in the end of life, led to this research. Is that correct? Dr. Kerin Adelson: Correct. Dr. Maureen Canavan: I would also build on that. I think that as the landscape of cancer care changes, it is important to really understand the availability of treatments, but then also, as Kerin noted, it is important to focus on goal-concordant care. We have established literature, studies we have done and some other studies that have looked at cytotoxic chemotherapy, but with the emergence of these targeted therapies, we really did not know a few things. We did not know the rates of utilization in a large national population, and how that was associated with these elements of medicalized death like ED use, hospitalizations, acute care use. So this was really a question that we had going into it. How can we expand the knowledge base so that both patients and providers can be more cognizant when thinking about goals of care conversations and ensuring that that is in place? Dr. Kerin Adelson: And our work has kind of evolved to answer some critical questions. So, one of our early papers looked at different rates of systemic anticancer therapy at the end of life, and that is where we showed that we were seeing a lot more immunotherapy and targeted therapy. And then we asked the question, well, oncologists generally when they give these treatments, they are hoping that those treatments are going to work and help the patients live longer. So we did another paper where we actually looked at practices who were more aggressive near the end of life and whether they had better overall survival than practices that were less aggressive, accounting for the fact that there could be populations of patients who benefited. And in fact, we showed there was no survival difference. So then this paper sort of answered the question: Well, if it is not having benefit, is this treatment actually doing harm? And this study gets at that question: What are the harms of continuing patients on therapy past the point of benefit? Dr. Maureen Canavan: And I think building off of that, the use of the SEER-Medicare database is a quite robust database. So in this, we have very specific data we can track. We can track the exact type of treatment they had, you know, was it a targeted therapy? Was it immunotherapy? So looking at those subclasses of therapy. We were also able to directly link it within that time frame to the acute care utilization, a limitation that we had in some of our previous work that that data was not always available. So it is more focused in the sense that we were looking at older adults, so patients 66 years of age and older, but we were able to get those individual metrics. So to Kerin's point, we did not see the survival benefit. What do we see then for these medicalized death elements? So the higher rates of all of them across the board. Dr. Davide Soldato: So coming back to the cohort and to the data that you utilized, Dr. Canavan mentioned the use of the SEER system to analyze these data. You already mentioned that you included mostly older adults, so those aged 66 and more. And also there was a little bit of restriction regarding the fact that the patient needed to be covered by Medicare in the last year of death concerning Part A and Part B, and the last 30 days from death concerning Part D. So I just wanted to ask a little bit of a question regarding these findings and whether you think that we also need additional work, especially in the younger population because I think it is something that all of us who work in oncology have seen. The aggressiveness, and this is also something that you showed in your data, tends to increase as the age of the patient tends to decrease. So we tend to be more aggressive towards younger patients. So just a comment on that on the population and generalizability of the findings. Dr. Maureen Canavan: Yeah, I will start with the data question element. Thank you. I think there are a few things to point out for that. So in terms of the restriction to ensure that they had continuous Part D coverage, that was necessary for us to track their oral medication use during that time. So kind of an easy response. The Part A, Part B requirement, it is actually pretty widely used in studies of SEER-Medicare data, and that is you want to establish the patient population, that they are not getting treated with another insurance provider in some way that you are not able to track. So that ensures that we can track not only their systemic anticancer therapy use but also when we are trying to make sure that we are controlling for confounders like chronic conditions and stuff, we are able to track the presence of chronic conditions. So we wanted to make sure we were not biasing the data, so I think that was an important consideration. You do point out very wisely that there are then limitations with the generalizability, and I think we would be lacking if we did not account for that. But I think it is important to establish this baseline relationship association, and then you can step out, we will say, to more diverse populations. So I think we could potentially maybe try to relax the timeline to see if people that might have influx in and out of the Medicare system are still seeing those same rates. I think it is likely they would. But I think to the bigger point that you bring up is that establishing this within the older adults where, you know, we do see as they get older maybe less rates of systemic therapy, extending it to the younger population. There is a challenge with that in that just that data is not available to the robust level that SEER-Medicare is. Both Kerin and I have noted that there is the possibility to look within one specific insurance provider type. Again, recognizing the limitations of the generalizability, but always slowly pushing the needle, finding out more about younger adult populations. And I think this is maybe in an ideal world, but setting the precedent that we really do need to track this on a national scale within younger adults because they do have the need. We do see these higher rates of utilization, and really making sure again with the mindset always of the best interest of patients and the most informative to providers in how we are looking at care. So I think generalizability is definitely a goal. However, there are limitations of the availability of data for younger populations and I think that they are a necessary restraint that all researchers should acknowledge. Dr. Kerin Adelson: Yeah, I think it is important for our audience to understand that health services research and large database research is really limited by what databases are available and what are the characteristics of those databases. So we have done a lot of work in an electronic health record database, and there you can get certain kinds of granularity that you may not be able to get in a payer or a claims-based database. But what you do not get is that comprehensive look at, say, what happens if a patient goes to another practice. Claims-based databases offer you that, but research on US populations is limited by our payment system. So when you look at younger patients, there are so many different insurance companies that when you are trying to get that comprehensive view, it can be hard or very expensive actually. These commercial insurers will sell their data to different databases. So for us, the largest single payer in the United States is the US government, and that is for patients who are over age 65, and that is why you see lots of US-based studies done in the Medicare population. Interestingly, a recent paper by a Canadian group showed very, very similar patterns. It was a significantly smaller study but, right, Canada is a single-payer system and so they were able to really look at all ages, and we did see the same patterns of care in a different payment system. Dr. Davide Soldato: Going back a little bit to the type of treatments that were observed in your manuscript, so we start from a 7.6% of patients who received any type of systemic anticancer therapy within 30 days from death. And when we split the different categories that you analyzed, which I think is a very strong aspect of your manuscript, we see that more or less 50% of the patients received chemotherapy, 20% more or less received immunotherapy, more or less 20% targeted therapy, and then there is a combination of those agents. So just wanted to have a little bit of your opinion compared also to the data that you already published and that you mentioned before. Was this in line with previous data? Was there anything surprising about this? We saw a little bit of a raise in the use of immunotherapy and targeted therapy as you were saying, but still, there is a very high proportion of chemotherapy, 50%. Dr. Kerin Adelson: So I think that really, really reflects the time period in which we studied where immunotherapies were gaining ground. There was tons of excitement and we were seeing this shift. I bet if we do the same study in five years that chemotherapy percent may even go down to half, and we are going to see more and more targeted and immunotherapies, and that is just reflecting the pattern of drug discovery that we are seeing. Dr. Davide Soldato: Coming to the real question that you wanted to answer with this manuscript, so is systemic anticancer therapy associated with worse outcomes in terms of healthcare utilization and use of hospice resources? Was there any hint that for example immunotherapy was related to less of these adverse outcomes? Dr. Kerin Adelson: So I will be honest, I was a little bit surprised that the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy was that much more strongly correlated with acute care use at the end of life. You know, I had really thought most likely that what we would see were similar rates. And we did. Each different type of systemic anticancer therapy was associated with significantly higher odds of ending up in the hospital, going to the ICU, dying in the hospital, going to the ED. But that group that got dual therapy was that much higher, you know, over three times the risk. And that surprised me because what it suggested is that there is likely a component of treatment toxicity that is leading to some of the acute care use. It is not simply just a constellation of patients who have not yet transitioned towards hospice or palliative care or end-of-life care who are then more likely to end up in the hospital. But the fact that we see a difference between, say, single-agent immunotherapy and dual combination with chemotherapy does suggest that the treatments are actually contributing to some of what we are seeing. Dr. Davide Soldato: But still, all of the treatments that you evaluated were still associated with higher healthcare utilization. Like there was no signal that, for example, giving immunotherapy at the end of life was not associated with these adverse outcomes. Correct? Dr. Kerin Adelson: Correct. And you will find oncologists out there who will say, actually, these treatments are so good that they might actually lower rates of hospitalization because they keep patients healthy. And certainly, that may be true upstream or earlier in the course of disease, but at the end of life, any form of systemic anticancer therapy is really a surrogate marker for lack of transition towards what is likely appropriate end-of-life therapy. And I just want to point out that time spent in the hospital, going back and forth to invasive procedures, going to the intensive care unit, even going back and forth to an infusion center, that is time that is not spent at home with loved ones for people who have very little time left to live. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was exactly the point that I wanted you to stress because I think it is really the most important message that we can get as oncologists from this manuscript. Like there is no treatment that is not associated with potentially harming our patient and, as you were saying, taking off time with loved ones in a critical period of the life of these individuals who have been diagnosed and treated for cancer. So, basically what we saw in the paper was a 7.65% utilization of systemic anticancer therapy. And I might imagine that for some oncologists or for some hematologists that might not actually be that much. Like they could potentially say, "Okay, but it is like 7%, it is not that high. I would have expected something higher." So I just wanted a little bit of perspective regarding also quality metrics that we have available for these types of indicators at end-of-life care. What would be the appropriate percentage of people receiving any type of treatment within 30 days from death? Dr. Maureen Canavan: A couple caveats, as a data person I always like to give those. This was among all cancer patients, so not necessarily patients that had been on active treatment. So I think that number was actually quite lower than when we looked in another study about patients that had chemo within the last year, so on, you know, active treatment. So I think that is an element to take into consideration is that those numbers will vary based on who your denominator population is. So that is important to consider. Additionally, the National Quality Forum, they call for reducing rates of systemic therapy at end of life. But I think they, similar to how I would be, are cautious to point out this is the exact number, or it should be zero. Because there are cases where you have to go in line with patient preferences. And if a patient is very adamant that they want to continue treatment, that needs to be a decision that comes between them and their provider. So, you know, the zero, though sounding ideal to us who want to encourage transitions and encourage goals of care conversation is a nice number, it is not a realistic. So, to evade your question completely, I do not think there is a set number. But the goal is to make sure that both patients, providers, everyone is informed and is making the best holistic decision. So there is this natural tendency, I think, to keep fighting both for the patient and the provider to try to beat something, but recognizing the point at which we are beyond a benefit of treatment and what would be most beneficial to the patient in terms of getting back to that idea of, you know, the time with their families and whatnot. So is the number zero? No. Could it probably be lower than we have? I think yes, definitely. Dr. Kerin Adelson: I completely agree with everything Dr. Canavan said. I think one of the other challenges is that this data isn't being tracked and publicly reported across the world. And so what that optimal rate is, is a little unclear. We see different rates also depending on the population included. So one of the things Dr. Canavan said is our database included patients who were likely treated long ago for cancer and cured of their cancer. So they were less likely to die on systemic therapy. But until everybody starts tracking and reporting, it is really hard to know where we are as a country or really as a global population, and then what are the bars that we want to achieve in driving down the rates. I think some data shows that probably something in the range of 10% or below, you know, for patients who have more active cancer is probably where we should be going and driving towards. But until we have more public reporting of these metrics and consistency in how we measure them, it is really hard to come up with a single number. Dr. Davide Soldato: I have the impression that sometimes there is also a little bit of difficulty for the oncologist or the hematologist to really understand who are the patients who are approaching end of life. So there has been some data and you also report some of them in the discussion of the manuscript regarding, for example, prompts inside of the electronic health records or the use of artificial intelligence to try to predict what is the disease course. So just wanted a little bit of perspective if you think that these tools could potentially be helpful and if you think that we will be able at a certain point to implement them in routine clinical care. Dr. Kerin Adelson: I have been working on trying to do this actually at MD Anderson and coming up with a really reliable data tool that will tell us who are the patients who are going to die in short order after receiving systemic anticancer therapy. And it is not that easy, I will say. So, you know, I think we all want this amazing machine learning model that is incredibly reliable. But like any statistical test, there are problems, right? So a very sensitive test that is going to identify high, high risk of dying at the end of life is going to be compromised by false positives. And when an oncologist knows that the test might be a false positive, it becomes very hard for them to take action on it. Similarly, you know, a very, very specific test is going to be compromised by false negatives. So in that case, you could end up having patients who are at risk for dying and still treating them with chemotherapy. And so, you know, I think in the end we need some tools. It will be great if machine learning becomes very reliable and we have the right structured data elements in our electronic health records to give these reliable prediction tools. But I think there are some basic things that we all know, and those are the markers of chronicity of cancer. So patients who have had multiple lines of therapy already, right? Past the point of clinical trial benefit. Patients who have lost significant amounts of weight. Patients who are not getting out of bed and have worse performance status. Patients who are increasingly confused, right? And not mentally engaging the way they did previously. Those markers have been shown in numerous publications by a colleague of mine, David Hui and others, to really be pretty strong predictors, and they resonate with clinicians more than a machine learning score might. You know, I think when clinicians do not understand what the elements in a machine learning tool are, they are less likely to trust it and more likely to say, "Oh, it is a false positive or a false negative." But very few clinicians can argue against the fact that the patient who hasn't gotten out of bed in two weeks is somebody who is less likely to benefit. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. Adelson, I would like to close this podcast and I would like to thank you again for joining us today. Dr. Maureen Canavan: Thank you so much. Dr. Kerin Adelson: Thank you so much for having us. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. Canavan, Dr. Adelson, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Association Between Systemic Anticancer Therapy Administration Near the End of Life With Health Care and Hospice Utilization in Older Adults: A SEER-Medicare Analysis of End-of-Life Care Quality." If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can f ind all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. 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.    Disclosures Kerin AdelsonStock and Other Ownership Interests: Carrum Health Consulting or Advisory Role: Abbvie, Quantum Health, Gilead SciencesPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Genentech Other Relationship: Genentech/Roche Employment: Emilio Health/Brightline Health(An Immediate Family Member) Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Emilio Health/Brightline Health, Lyra Health (An Immediate Family Member)

“We were a very valuable deep-science company that had the wrong business strategy,” Zymeworks CEO Ken Galbraith tells Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Sam Fazeli on this episode of the Vanguards of Health Care podcast. In discussing the company’s strategic reset, Galbraith explains how Zymeworks shifted from a platform-heavy biotech to a partnership-driven model that balances innovation with capital discipline. The conversation covers zanidatamab’s path to market, lessons from partnering with Jazz and BeOne, the value of asymmetric antibody design and why retaining upside through milestones and royalties could reshape long-term value creation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

12-20-25 - Entertainment Drill - MIX - John Hinkley Owed Royalties From A Devo Song - Lil Nas X Song On Next Kidz Bop Album - 2021 - BOSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

12-20-25 - Entertainment Drill - MIX - John Hinkley Owed Royalties From A Devo Song - Lil Nas X Song On Next Kidz Bop Album - 2021 - BOSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Grab our breakdown of the 5 Low-Cost Businesses That Make $1 Million: https://www.franchiseempire.com/lowcost?utm_source=TJJan032025If you liked this video, but want to learn about franchises with higher profit margins check out this video next: https://youtu.be/voDIBiM58awThinking about investing in a Culver's franchise? In this breakdown, I cover startup costs, royalty fees, average sales, and why it might not be as profitable as it looks. We'll also talk about scalability, margins, and whether it's a smart move going into 2026. You'll also learn more about the brand's history and how it has grown so quickly in some parts of the US. Make sure you watch before you invest!------------------Considering Investing In A Franchise?

Movie stars and music artists get “royalties” for their past work. Can you do the same in retirement? Like this episode? Hit that Follow button and never miss an episode!

Make sure you don't miss out on my Most Incredible Franchise Gift Ever: https://www.franchiseempire.com/mifge?utm_source=TJdec132025If you liked this video, but want to find out about franchises with lower start up costs, check out this video: https://youtu.be/voDIBiM58awArby's is one of the most recognizable fast food franchises, but is it actually a good investment? In this video, we break down the full numbers behind owning an Arby's in 2025, including startup costs, royalty fees, average unit sales, and top vs. bottom-performing locations. You'll learn how much franchisees are really making, how Inspire Brands plays a role, and whether the economics make sense for today's buyer. If you're researching fast food or sandwich franchises, this video will give you the clarity you need before making a move.------------------Considering Investing In A Franchise?

Drew Clark, President and CEO of Summit Royalties Ltd. (TSX.V: SUM), joins me to introduce the value proposition and coming growth catalysts from their portfolio of 47 royalty partner projects, mostly focused on gold and silver.   We discuss how this Company started off privately when closing the IAMGOLD Royalty Portfolio Acquisition for $17.5M on May 30th, then the acquisition of a royalty at West Red Lake Gold's Madsen Mine on September 4th.  Then on November 5th the company released news of their “go public” transaction with the reverse takeover of Eagle Royalties the prior day on November 4th, and then their listing as Summit Royalties on the TSX Venture exchange on November 10th.   The Corporation's current portfolio is backstopped by 3 cash-flowing production assets, and an additional 44 royalties on development-stage and exploration-stage properties. The Corporation intends to become the next mid-tier streaming and royalty company through future actionable and accretive acquisitions to increase production and cash flow growth. The Corporation currently has no debt and sufficient cash on-hand for use in future acquisitions.   Drew starts off taking us through the growth on tap for 2026 and beyond at their 3 producing royalties and streams.   Madsen - 1% NSR Royalty focused on gold and operated by West Red Lake Gold Mines in Ontario, Canada Bomboré - 50% Silver Stream; operated by Orezone in Burkina Faso Zancudo - 0.5% NSR Royalty; operated by Denarius Metals in Colombia   Next we reviewed 2 of their key development royalties:   Pitangu - $80/oz until 250 Koz produced - 1.5% NSR thereafter; operated by Jaguar Mining in Brazil AurMac – 0.5% - 2.0% NSR Royalty Coverage; operated by Banyan Gold in the Yukon, Canada   Drew briefly mentions a few other royalties in their portfolio that he sees as valuable, and also highlights that their Net Asset Value (NAV) is weighted towards Canada after Eagle & Madsen Acquisitions, and is trading at an attractive P/NAV multiple at present.   Wrapping up Drew shares his background in the sector, along with other members of the management team and board, along with the capital structure, key stakeholders, and financial health of the company to keep executing on more deals in the year to come.     If you have any follow up questions for Drew about Summit Royalties, then please email them into me at Shad@kereport.com.   Click here to follow the latest news from Summit 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.

Artist Sara Pichelli discussed the royalties she gets from Miles Morales, or lack thereof. The Beauty is getting a new printing in advance of the Hulu TV series. Lake Como Comic Art Festival announces guest list.SUBSCRIBE ON RSS, APPLE, SPOTIFY, OR THE APP OF YOUR CHOICE. FOLLOW US ON BLUESKY, INSTAGRAM, TIKTOK, AND FACEBOOK. SUPPORT OUR SHOWS ON PATREON.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Ravin Garg discuss strategies to increase trial representation, including leveraging trial navigators and prioritizing pragmatic trial models, as featured in the ASCO Educational Book article, "Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Accessibility: Making Trial Participation a Standard of Care." TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast from ASCO featuring compelling perspectives from authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I am a medical oncologist at University Hospital Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I am also the associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. We know that in recent years, the oncology community has increasingly prioritized the need to modernize clinical trial eligibility, reduce patient burden, and enhance diversity in trial participation. On that note, today we will be speaking about ways to enhance access to clinical trials with Dr. Ravin Garg. He is a hematologist oncologist at Maryland Oncology Hematology and also an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. Dr. Garg is also the co-author of a fantastic paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled, "Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Accessibility: Making Trial Participation a Standard of Care."  Dr. Garg, welcome. Thanks for being here, and congrats on your paper. Dr. Ravin Garg: Thank you for having me, Pedro. I am excited to be here. Dr. Pedro Barata: [KI1]  Your paper is a wonderful, multidisciplinary piece that actually features perspectives from the different stakeholders, right? The patient advocacy, industry, community practice, and academia about these challenges in making trials more available. This podcast is a wonderful platform. It reaches out to a lot of folks within our community. So, I will start by asking you the obvious. Why do you think it is a must read for our community, for our listeners? Dr. Ravin Garg: So Pedro, thanks again for inviting me. You do a great job with these podcasts.  So, I think first and foremost, oncologists right now are under a lot of stress, just in terms of clinical volume. There is concern for research money, and how we get the best care for our patients. So I think this article is very important because it helps bring together, as you had mentioned, the stakeholders throughout academic to community practice and everywhere in between, and try to find how, as a team with different oncologists who partake in different aspects of oncology, can come together to streamline the process to try to get our patients on trials, or certainly have them have availability of trials, just if they are interested in going on them. Being in practice, we have had several challenges that we can talk about throughout this podcast, but I think it is a very important paper because it recognizes that at the end of the day, it takes a team effort for all of us in academics, community, industry, and pharmaceuticals to really come together as a team to really help put forth the trials for our patients. Dr. Pedro Barata: So, from the perspective of a community oncologist, how do you put together, or maybe you can describe some of the challenges that you see to increase trial participation in the community? Dr. Ravin Garg: Yes, Pedro, that is a great question, and it is something that I keep on thinking about and trying to find ways to be better at it myself. But I will say some of the challenges as a community doctor that I have seen for myself and talking to other colleagues. Number one, I do think there is a lot of stress on doctors in the community in general, Pedro. Oftentimes we are tasked to see a wide smorgasbord of patients, so we may not have the luxury of being a specialist in any particular tumor subtype. Like oftentimes, we will have to see lung cancer, the next one will be breast cancer, the next one could be CML, the next one could be thrombocytopenia. And as you know better than I do, Pedro, the field in each one of these disciplines is changing so rapidly: molecular genomics, radioligand treatments, different imaging tests, MRD testing for some of our hematologic malignancies. And I think one challenge we have in community is just keeping up with the basics of Oncology 101. In the process of doing that, it can be very difficult to sometimes remember that we have very exciting trials available for our patients. So, I think a lot of it is the day in and day out of being an oncologist is so taxing at times that oftentimes a research trial is not the first thing in our head space when we see a patient. I think number two, Pedro, at least in the community, and perhaps this is with academics too, is that we are bombarded, I would say, by a lot of messaging these days. We have in-baskets to go through, labs to go through, things of that nature. And in the process of a patient visit, seeing them, doing an exam, taking a history, trying to go over the NCCN guidelines on best practice for how to manage their care, at least for me at times, it is very hard to remember, "Hey, there might be a great trial available, whether within our network or maybe partnering with an academic center." So getting through a day can be fraught with a lot of peril and just difficulties, I would say. And I would say number three, Pedro, at least as, you know, I am in a private practice where I do see a wide range of benign and malignant hematology and solid tumors, so I would not call myself a specialist. And I think the challenge with that, at least for trials, Pedro, is that when you are a specialist or perhaps you are focusing on a couple of disease subtypes, you become more of an authoritative voice in those types of tumors, and you might be more aware of the trials within your network or perhaps in proxy with an academic center that you can offer your patient. So I think when sometimes we spread ourselves too thin, it can be very hard to be a thought leader, if you will, in a particular subtype of a malignancy, let's say, and maybe not be aware of a trial that could be really well-suited for your patient. In terms of ideas that myself and colleagues have had in terms of helping mitigate against some of these, I would say, setbacks or issues in the practice for trial enrollment, some of the things we have talked about, Pedro, is, number one, is we do partner with academic centers. So we live here in Maryland. We have several really fantastic academic centers. So, you know, oftentimes, not just within our practice of Maryland Oncology Hematology, we have a lot of great trials available here too, for certain, but in addition to that, we will often times work with doctors at Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, and Maryland if they have a compelling trial that we do not have within our network. It is really of the patient's interest, Pedro, to reach out to them in a collaborative manner to see if they have a trial that might be really compelling for your patient. So I do find myself collaborating a lot with colleagues in, like talented like yourself in academics. You know, I think you do a lot of GU malignancies. So as an example, like partnering with colleagues who are GU experts and say, "Hey, we have a patient with stage IV renal cell. These are the standard options I know, but are there any trials that you might have available?" I think the other thing that has been very helpful for us is having navigators within research, Pedro. Like as an example, what has really helped the uptake of trial enrollment for our center in Annapolis is having a research navigator because often times what they can do is, a priori, Pedro, before you see the patient and you are kind of formulating a standard of care treatment plan perhaps, they might tug you on the shirt and say, "Hey, we have a great trial here through Sarah Cannon, or there might be something else out there." And being aware of that when you go into a patient's room really provides a nice arena, if you will, to go and say, "The standard of care is here, but hey, we have a trial option that might be well suited for you, maybe perhaps even better, that we can talk about, too." So having research support in the community is really a huge boon, I think, Pedro, for us to really increase our enrollment for patients onto trials. Dr. Pedro Barata: Yes, I really love that, Ravin. So, let me switch gears a bit. I would love for you to talk a little bit about patient advocacy because they do play a huge role in cancer, and they address many barriers. How do you think we should leverage the patient advocacy groups to reduce patient burden and maybe have them really leverage patient advocacies to improve representation in clinical trials? What do we think we can do more? Dr. Ravin Garg: Oh, Pedro, I think they are very critically important. As a clinical oncologist now, and I would say this is for anyone in the field of medicine, you are exactly right. I think patients are bombarded by information. There are a lot of things online, whether it be TikTok, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and people really just have a lot of information given to them. And some of it is fact driven, and some of it is not, Pedro. And oftentimes, I do think there can be at times a mistrust with some medical personnel. I think we are in an era where we are seeing that to some degree with some attributes of medicine. And I think of it as an opportunity for education for the patient and for myself as a physician. And I think patient advocates, to your point, which was well taken, serve as a bridge to both. And what I mean is that, you know, patient advocates are wonderful. They are, I think, outstanding communicators. They almost are a neutral party, Pedro, where many patients feel that they are an independent source of information that is free of bias, if you will. They are there to provide support, emotional support, scientific support for patients so they can make an informed decision. So, in terms of our practice right now, patient advocates is something that we are evolving in that capacity, I would say, Pedro. I think now more than ever, having more people as bridges of communication with care providers along with patients is of critical importance. And I would venture a guess, and I think this has been published, where patient advocates really can help tremendously in familiarizing patients with trials and what they are all about and maybe clear up some misconceptions of what trials, what the mission of trials are. Because I do think some patients, at least I have had a few over the years, where when they hear the term trial, they almost think they are being experimented upon, when, in point of fact, they could really help advance their care. That messaging along the way for some can may be mixed up a little bit. And so I think patient advocates is a really great way to offer more information for patients with a source they find very independent and trustworthy, if you will. And it can really help expedite, and I think make a more fruitful conversation for care providers, whether academic or community, and they might be more open-minded in terms of enrolling onto a trial. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. Yes, I agree. I agree with you completely.  So let's focus a little bit now on the folks designing the studies. We usually call them the sponsors. It might be an academic sponsorship, if you will, but we can also have pharma being the sponsor of a study. The angle from an academic design, it is not necessarily the same as what happens when we have pharma. And from that angle, how do you think a more inclusive research can be promoted? Dr. Ravin Garg: Oftentimes with trials, I think keeping them simple, as simple as we can. And what I mean by that is, often times for trials, Pedro, even for care providers who are enrolling, it can be daunting when there are a lot of different things involved, particularly, let's say, for investigator sponsored, which are incredibly brilliant science, incredible, but it can be a little bit daunting for patients and even the referring physician to talk about getting translational specimens, imaging, traveling to certain centers to get scans and biopsies and even different diagnostic testing like PSMA testing for, you know, prostate cancer. And it can, I think, be very intimidating for patients in terms of what might be required of him or her to enter onto a trial. Like, "This is not what I signed up for. This is laborious. This is a full time job for me. Do I have to pay for parking to go to a city? Do I have to pay for these imaging tests? And do I have to stay in a place for my family to enroll onto a trial?" So I think keeping trials as simple as possible, but yet cull the data we need as investigators where we can really advance the care, hopefully get approval for a drug, but also learn more about the medication and how it works for our patients. So I think simplifying language for trial is very important. I know when I have gone over studies for patients, Pedro, if it is a voluminous amount of information, they can right away get very intimidated. "Like, oh my goodness, this is like a term paper for college again," you know? I am joking, but you know, keeping language simplified is very important, I think, number one. And I feel that sometimes when they are asked to do a lot of different diagnostic testing, which is very important for translational work, I 100% understand, but I do think sometimes patients can get a little bit off put, if you will, and frustrated with the whole process of doing it. The second thing for our patients, Pedro, that they have mentioned to us when we put them on trials, not just within our own site but elsewhere, is that it takes a lot of time in terms of collecting information, perhaps a washout period from their last standard of treatment prior to enrollment onto a study. Many patients, Pedro, as you know better than I do, are in maybe crisis in terms of their health and their cancer might be growing, promulgating out of control, and they worry about not being able to expeditiously start onto a treatment, onto a trial. So that can lead to a lot of frustration. And one thing that you brought up, which was outstanding for me, is the enrollment criterion for some of our patients is felt to be somewhat strict. We have had some patients who may have had a remote history of a stage I malignancy that was by all accounts in remission, you know, let's say 4 or 5 years in the past, and the risk of recurrence at this point would be incredibly low, but they may not be able to enter onto a study because of some stringent criterion put forth. And that can be a little bit frustrating. In fact, I have had one or two patients who, as an example, with kidney issues, but the GFR was about 60, like right near a cutoff that oftentimes, as you know, we use where you can get into trial or not. And you know, if they are at 58, as an example, and otherwise they are a picture of health, a great candidate for a trial that will likely advance their care, and if the entry criterion is too stringent, that might be a lost opportunity for all parties involved, all stakeholders, if you will. I do appreciate the criterion for entry onto studies cannot be too liberalized. You have to have a certain baseline, but there is a little bit of a gray area and tension, of sorts, if you will, where the patient has a comorbid illness that is a disqualifying offense, but in practicality, perhaps it shouldn't be, especially if they are motivated and there is an opportunity to really advance their care. We have run into, not often, but sometimes in the past, I should say, where patients have been very off put because we try to get them onto a study and there may have been a particular feature or attribute in their underlying care that they couldn't get onto it. So I think having a little bit more thoughtfulness, perhaps, in terms of entry criterion and practicality, if you will, I think would really help enrollment onto studies. Dr. Pedro Barata: Really well said. Is there anything else that you would like to tell our listeners before we wrap up the podcast today? Dr. Ravin Garg: I would say just macroscopically speaking, it is really an honor to be an oncologist. I think I speak for both of us. Anyone listening who is thinking about the field, it is tremendous. Just the research, the bravery of our patients, and the thoughtfulness of our scientists like Pedro and translationalists and clinical trialists is really awe inspiring. So I have really loved this field. I will say from a trial perspective, we really need to enter as many patients as we can onto trials because the science is so brilliant now, the genomic underpinnings of the tumor, we are making great strides as a team of clinicians and scientists, translationalists. So the more that we can get people onto trials and get approved drugs, it is going to help them out in the end. So I think it is such an important time for all of us to come together as a community, find the best way to help our patients out. And clinical trials have to be at the forefront of how we can continue to advance care for our patients. Dr. Pedro Barata: Yeah, no Ravin, I really agree with you. We really need to increase access to clinical studies, and actually your paper is a great step in that direction by raising awareness, bringing up solutions, and again, collaboration, collaboration, collaboration is really a multidisciplinary effort to accomplish that.  Thank you so much for sharing your fantastic thoughts and insights with us. Dr. Ravin Garg: Thank you, Pedro. I am- you do a wonderful job with these podcasts. I am really honored to meet you and to be part of this. Dr. Pedro Barata: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. I encourage you to check out Dr. Garg's article in the 2025 ASCO Educational Book. We will post a link to the paper in our show notes. And please join us again next month on By the Book for more insights on key advances and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you for your attention. 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. Follow today's speakers:          Dr. Pedro Barata   @PBarataMD    Dr. Ravin Garg Follow ASCO on social media:          @ASCO on X      ASCO on Bluesky     ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:       Dr. Pedro Barata:   Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical   Honoraria: UroToday   Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon   Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck    Dr. Ravin Garg: Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Creator, editor, and writer of hemeoncquestions.com  

The much-anticipated ratification of Ghana's lithium mining deal faces yet another delay as the government moves to amend the royalties law to secure a stronger stake for the state.

Most producers underestimate how long it actually takes to make money from music. In this episode, I sit down with Ralph (Bassjackers) and Jobke to talk honestly about timelines, consistency, and what it really costs to build a sustainable career as a DJ/producer.We dive into why it took Bassjackers five years to break through with Mush Mush, how Jobke spent eight years grinding before getting momentum, and why so many artists quit right before things start compounding. We also touch on multi-genre vs signature sound, the DJ Levi debate, “real DJ” conversations, and how to build a long-term career in 2026.What we cover:Why your career takes years, not monthsMindset vs talentThe unsexy reality of studio workMartin Garrix naming storyTrend-chasing vs consistencyHype vs long-term respectRoyalty expectationsGoals for 2026Black Friday plugin picksChapters:(00:00) Intro(07:20) Why it takes YEARS to make money(09:10) Talent vs mindset(10:20) Reality of studio work(11:50) Track titles & Martin Garrix story(13:20) Romanticising the artist life(17:20) Bassjackers & “Mush Mush”(19:00) Jobke's 8-year journey(22:40) Gigs as a side effect(24:20) Royalties aren't a pension(26:00) Consistency vs trends(28:10) Two styles vs many(33:20) DJ Levi & “real DJ” talk(36:20) Short-term hype vs long-term career(45:50) 2026 goals(51:20) Black Friday plugin picksJoin the community / coaching / socials:https://linktr.ee/artistcoachingnl

D J Newmark Take a walk with me down Fascination Street as I get to know 'The Legendary Throwback King' himself, D J Newmark. In this episode, we chat about his growing up as a military dependent and traveling the world learning about how different countries and cultures make their mark on Hip Hop. Then we dive into how and why he decided to pursue a career as a DJ. He has toured with some of the biggest names in the genre, and he shares a couple of those road stories. Then we talk about his radio show. Catch the "Legendary Throwback King" on the airwaves weekdays from 3-7 pm EST as the host of "The DJ NEWMARK EXPERIENCE" radio show on YO! 107.1 FM (WLLY-HD3), West Palm Beach, Florida's premiere radio station for classic Hip-Hop and R&B music. They also simulcast live on the web @ www.yopalmbeach.com.  DJ Newmark also hosts a mix show segment called "The Flavor on Top of Flavor Master Mix" weekdays at 5:30pm EST. We also delve into Newmark's experience coaching youth basketball, and some of the other ways he gives back to his community. Lastly, we discuss his new line of Throwback inspired street wear. I have one of the shirts in his line, and it is so soft and comfortable that I can't stop wearing it. Check out the Throwback inspired line and everything else about D J Newmark on his website: DJNewmark.com

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 

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

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:

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

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

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

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.