| April 14th, 2004 05:10 PM |
|
|
| scope |
Found this little tidbit on the web today.
Stones Go to Court Over Royalties
The Rolling Stones' stars Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts are taking their record label to court in a dispute over royalties for their last album.
The frugal rock legends are going to the British High Court to ascertain whether Decca owes them royalties for their greatest hits album 'Forty Licks,' which features classic hits including "Brown Sugar" and "Sympathy For The Devil."
A source comments, "The Stones may be multi-millionaires but they're still scrupulous where the money is concerned."
The trio wants the court to order Decca to produce a range of documents relating to the royalties, amid claims the company is refusing to allow them or their auditors to inspect records.
The Rolling Stones are the most financially successful band ever - grossing an average of $81 million each year.
Copyright World Entertainment News Network 2004 |
| April 14th, 2004 05:11 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
Excellent Howard Carter like find Scopey !!!!!!!
TOP NOTCH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TOP NOTCH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
" Stones Rule ! ..................Oh , YOU BASTARDS ! "
Jercee JOE BOY ! |
| April 14th, 2004 05:15 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
I'd have thought that this would have been settled already. But what do I know? |
| April 14th, 2004 05:37 PM |
|
|
| caro |
Well there's something I always wondered about : I know the french laws about royalties a bit, and they're really made to ensure an artist will NOT lose his rights over his work if he signs some contract with hidden clauses or whatever. Usually, when a contract is obviously unfair to the artist, it will be declared null.
Also, the rights over an artist's work are divided in two : one "moral" and one "financial" right. An artist will never lose the "moral" rights over his work (which means, in the case of the Stones for example, the could prevent Britney Spears from covering Satisfaction, even if they don't own the "financial" rights anymore.
And one more thing : the artist can sell his financial right over his work, of course, but only for a fixed period of time. A record company cannot get the royalties for a song forever (unless they make a second contract and so on).
All this to say : theoretically, the Stones could get the royalties for their early records at least in France...and given Mick's inventiveness when it comes to money matters, I'm sure they could work something out for the rest of the world. Like using their moral right (it exists in the UK and US too, doesn't it) to say "we have a problem with records manufactured anywhere else than in France". Thus selling all their work through french salesmen under french laws...
Not that I want to push the french economy (*cough*), I'm simply amazed the Stones could lose so much money over a contract they signed 30 years ago...
|
| April 14th, 2004 05:52 PM |
|
|
| charlotte |
good job Scope! |
| April 16th, 2004 09:34 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
What a bunch of scabs! Like a few thousand means anything. Oh, well, just write another song, ya fucking old ass holes.
The views above are not necesarily those of Corgi. Especially seeing as how he cant spell necessarily. It aint necessarily so. |
| April 16th, 2004 09:43 AM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
What a bunch of scabs! Like a few thousand means anything. Oh, well, just write another song, ya fucking old ass holes.
The views above are not necesarily those of Corgi. Especially seeing as how he cant spell necessarily. It aint necessarily so.
I appreciate your honesty Corgi....I love the Stones as much as anyone, but they are fucking greedy bastards...then again, so am I. |
| April 16th, 2004 09:46 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
" I appreciate your honesty Corgi....I love the Stones as much as anyone, but they are fucking greedy bastards...then again, so am I. "
Corgi and Josh are both Great Men !
Josh , are you gonna watch Chris Rock's new HBO special THIS Saturday Evening ?!?!?!
It promises to be a " Must See " !!!!!!!
Word !
Jersee Joe !
|
| April 16th, 2004 09:51 AM |
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
quote:
Joey wrote:
Josh , are you gonna watch Chris Rock's new HBO special THIS Saturday Evening ?
 |
| April 16th, 2004 09:58 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
The US does not generally recognize moral rights as the Europeans do. In this country we have a compulsory license system so that when Britney covers Satisfaction she does not need the permission of the Stones but must pay royalties on the underlying composition.
As for nullifying a contract -- generally in this country, unless there is some sort of deception or fraud, a contract handing over rights to a sound recording (the actual song, not the underlying musical composition) will not be nullified by a court. Usually the parties are presumed to be competent -- even if the terms suck for the artists (common for newbies -- see American Idol's contracts).
Also, I do not believe the US copyright laws have a temporal cutoff for a contract -- that is, once the Stones handed over the rights to their early catalog to Allen Klein, I don't think those rights would revert back by operation of law. The Stones could try and buy them back (good luck).
|
| April 16th, 2004 10:01 AM |
|
|
| jb |
Believe it or not Joey, I have never purchased premium T.V. channels like HBO or Showtime even though I earn over 600k annually....I limit my T.V. viwing pretty much to the following shows:
1)CBS evening news with Dan Rather(Jennings is pro-arab and Brokaw too waspy)
2)Hardball with Chris Mathews-this guy is an obnoxious ass who always interupts his guests but I enjoy it.
3)O'Reiley factor-perhaps the most obnoxious, right wing source of propaganda ever next to Rush, but I can't stop watching...after all...O'reiley is looking after you...
4)Switching b/t Deborah Norville and Paula Zahn...I would love to fuck both of them contemporaneously...
5)Hannity and colmes-Colmes is a so-called liberal who agrees with everything the Hannity and the RNC put
out...sort of like a self-hating Jew
6)Scarborough Country-I can't get enough discussion of ther "Passion" and he always has on the former Jacko adviser Rabbi Schumley Boteach!!!
7)NIghtline(but only when Koppel is hosting as opposed to the guy who looks like the Doug LLewelyn who use to be the host of the "People's Court"...
8)First 1/2 of Letterman.
[Edited by jb] |
| April 16th, 2004 10:07 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
>I appreciate your honesty Corgi....I love the Stones as much as anyone, but they are fucking greedy bastards...then again, so am I.
LMAO - post of the week!!
|
| April 16th, 2004 10:14 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
" Believe it or not Joey, I have never purchased premium T.V. channels like HBO or Showtime even though I earn over 600k annually "
" ....I limit my T.V. viwing pretty much to the following shows:
1)CBS evening news with Dan Rather(Jennings is pro-arab and Brokaw too waspy) "
Me Too !
" 2)Hardball with Chris Mathews-this guy is an obnoxious ass who always interupts his guests but I enjoy it. "
YES !!!! Me too !
" 3)O'Reiley factor-perhaps the most obnoxious, right wing source of propaganda ever next to Rush, but I can't stop watching...after all...O'reiley is looking after you... "
YES !!!! Me too ! That is where I got the " Why ?!?! WHY ?!?! " from ..............................
" 4)Switching b/t Deborah Norville and Paula Zahn...I would love to fuck both of them contemporaneously..."
YES !!!! Especially Zahn as she knows and worships my idol Johnny Carson !
" 5)Hannity and colmes-Colmes is a so-called liberal who agrees with everything the Hannity and the RNC put
out...sort of like a self-hating Jew "
I despise Hannity and Colmes has no balls ( Plus he IS a little strange looking what with those goofy glasses that don't quite stay on his face ) WTF ?!?!
" 6)Scarborough Country-I can't get enough discussion of ther "Passion" and he always has on the former Jacko adviser Rabbi Schumley Boteach!!! "
{{ ? }}
" 7)NIghtline(but only when Koppel is hosting as opposed to the guy who looks like the Doug LLewelyn who use to be the host of the "People's Court"... "
I thought Koppel passed from this ord in ' 87 ?!?!
" 8)First 1/2 of Letterman. "
YES !!!!! Me Too !!!! It is a MUST ! -- Especially on Wednesday Evenings when they open up the " CBS Mailbag " and parade out " Monty ( Smitty ) " in some strange get up !!!! ( Strange Woman THAT one ) !
Come ..............Drink with The Joey this evening ( We usually start around 10:00 PM CDT and envelope ourselves in a Boozy Haze by 11:00 PM CDT ) Temp. is supposed to reach Ninety Degrees today so it is " In the Breeze " TONIGHT !
" Stones Rule You Bastards ! "
D. J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !
|
| April 16th, 2004 10:19 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Joey -- did you see that the Van Nuys porn industry is shut down because of an HIV scare!!
Whatever will you do?? |
| April 16th, 2004 10:19 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
What a bunch of scabs! Like a few thousand means anything. Oh, well, just write another song, ya fucking old ass holes.
True enough. They should have enough $$$ for their great grandchildren to live happily ever after. I don't understand the point of it. |
| April 16th, 2004 10:24 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
Joey -- did you see that the Van Nuys porn industry is shut down because of an HIV scare!!
Whatever will you do??
Still Waiting for the " Paris Hilton Deluxe Edition " DVD !
Developing ..........................
Jersee ! |
| April 16th, 2004 10:26 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
On a related note our guv here in Virginia knows Howe to keep things from getting....out of hand:
RICHMOND, Va. — Gov. Mark R. Warner (search) liked a bill that cracks down on summer camps for nude juveniles so much that he offered only a clarifying amendment to it Thursday, then announced what he'd done without sparing a pun.
"I support the bottom line intent of this bill," the Democratic governor wrote in a brief, tongue-in-cheek commentary full of double entendre. Midnight was his deadline to veto, sign or amend legislation passed during the 2004 regular General Assembly session.
"This bill has been the butt of many jokes, so with naked admiration for its patron, I am offering this amendment," his missive concluded.
The patron, Del. John S. "Jack" Reid, introduced the bill after a weeklong summer camp was held last June for nude children ages 11 to 18 at Southampton County's White Tail Park nudist community. It was the first such camp in Virginia and only the third in the nation.
"Stripped to its bare essence," as Warner wrote, the bill bars the state Department of Health from licensing any hotel, summer camp or campground that holds activities for nude minors whose parents or guardians are not "registered for or otherwise accompanying the juvenile."
Warner's amendment, offered at Reid's request to make its intent "more transparent," requires that "for a camp to obtain a license, a parent, grandparent or legal guardian must actually be revealed at the camp, not simply register."
Lawmakers will reconvene on Wednesday to consider whether to accept or reject Warner's amendments and override any vetoes.
White Tail's owner and manager, Bob Roche, found no humor in Warner's wordsmithing and said the amendment would hurt his business.
"It's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen a governor do," Roche said in a telephone interview from White Tail, home to 35 families year-round and 140 part-time.
He said Warner's amendment is unconstitutional and he intends to sue to overturn it. Roche said White Tail is holding another au naturel camp for youths in July, but he had not yet determined whether parental presence will be compulsory.
|
| April 16th, 2004 10:26 AM |
|
|
| jb |
|
| April 16th, 2004 12:17 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
On a related note our guv here in Virginia knows Howe to keep things from getting....out of hand:
RICHMOND, Va. — Gov. Mark R. Warner (search) liked a bill that cracks down on summer camps for nude juveniles so much that he offered only a clarifying amendment to it Thursday, then announced what he'd done without sparing a pun.
"I support the bottom line intent of this bill," the Democratic governor wrote in a brief, tongue-in-cheek commentary full of double entendre. Midnight was his deadline to veto, sign or amend legislation passed during the 2004 regular General Assembly session.
"This bill has been the butt of many jokes, so with naked admiration for its patron, I am offering this amendment," his missive concluded.
The patron, Del. John S. "Jack" Reid, introduced the bill after a weeklong summer camp was held last June for nude children ages 11 to 18 at Southampton County's White Tail Park nudist community. It was the first such camp in Virginia and only the third in the nation.
"Stripped to its bare essence," as Warner wrote, the bill bars the state Department of Health from licensing any hotel, summer camp or campground that holds activities for nude minors whose parents or guardians are not "registered for or otherwise accompanying the juvenile."
Warner's amendment, offered at Reid's request to make its intent "more transparent," requires that "for a camp to obtain a license, a parent, grandparent or legal guardian must actually be revealed at the camp, not simply register."
Lawmakers will reconvene on Wednesday to consider whether to accept or reject Warner's amendments and override any vetoes.
White Tail's owner and manager, Bob Roche, found no humor in Warner's wordsmithing and said the amendment would hurt his business.
"It's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen a governor do," Roche said in a telephone interview from White Tail, home to 35 families year-round and 140 part-time.
He said Warner's amendment is unconstitutional and he intends to sue to overturn it. Roche said White Tail is holding another au naturel camp for youths in July, but he had not yet determined whether parental presence will be compulsory.
www.HoweMilitary.com  |
| April 16th, 2004 12:23 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Joey, your an f-ing powerhouse!!! |
| April 16th, 2004 12:27 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
jb wrote:
Joey, your an f-ing powerhouse!!!
I would like to nuzzle you .
 |
| April 16th, 2004 12:45 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Why did Trump keep the black man down? |
| April 16th, 2004 12:48 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Sue him! |
| April 16th, 2004 12:50 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
Sue him!
 |
| April 16th, 2004 01:31 PM |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
The US does not generally recognize moral rights as the Europeans do. In this country we have a compulsory license system so that when Britney covers Satisfaction she does not need the permission of the Stones but must pay royalties on the underlying composition.
Absolutely. There's a big difference in the copyright laws in the USA and Europe (especially in France, with the concept of unalienable moral rights). And unless I'm mistaken, the contract between Klein and the Stones was drawn according US laws, wasn't it? And Klein is a resident of the USA. So the laws of another country cannot be used there!
They probably also must take into account the UK laws, as the Stones were residents of England at the time, as was their record publisher, Decca. But I think the copyright laws in UK as not very different from the US, with a license system and the possibility to sell outright the copyright to a recording.
The only way the French laws could be taken into account would be *perhaps* if some of the Stones were residents of France. But not even Mick stays here more than 6 months a year. For obvious fiscal reasons, he prefer to have his domicile in Mustique Island! 
quote:
As for nullifying a contract -- generally in this country, unless there is some sort of deception or fraud, a contract handing over rights to a sound recording (the actual song, not the underlying musical composition) will not be nullified by a court.
Exactly. And I note that the action started by the Stones is about an alleged miscalculation of the royalties by Decca. They don't want to nullify the contract (at least for now) but they want Decca to disclose their accounting documents (amount of sales, percentage of royalties on each song, etc) to the Stones auditors. They think Decca didn't give them as much royalties as the contract grant them and want to check Decca's accounts. Always careful with their money, the Stones! 
quote:
Also, I do not believe the US copyright laws have a temporal cutoff for a contract -- that is, once the Stones handed over the rights to their early catalog to Allen Klein, I don't think those rights would revert back by operation of law. The Stones could try and buy them back (good luck).
Absolutely. Unless there is a breach of contract on the part of one of the parties, or if one can prove there was some kind of fraud, the selling of copyrights has no time limit.
For instance, the original creators of the Superman character sold their copyrights to the publisher for a lump sum, shortly after coming up with it. They had financial problems and thought they wouldn't get as much from royalties than from that sale. When the Superman comic books and cartoons had a huge success after World War II, the creators of the character couldn't reclaim their rights. Dura lex, sed lex! |
| April 17th, 2004 06:25 AM |
|
|
| caro |
Ok, thanks Nanky & MW for the infos. I had thought french laws would simply apply to any record sold in France, no matter the artist's and label's nationality.
Completely off-topic NB to MW :
>Dura lex, sed lex!
Se pourrait-il que la marque du même nom ait voulu lancer son image par une piètre contrepèterie? Remarque stupide, je sais, mais ça m'a sauté aux yeux |
| April 17th, 2004 08:03 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Typically a country's laws do not apply in another country.
Contracts are kinda funky -- one could include a choice-of-law clause that says the contract will be dealt with using a specific law. For example -- New York law vs. California law. That would not impact the federal copyright laws, but would have an impact on how the contract is interpreted -- which is a state law issue in the US.
I would imagine that if a certain foreign country's contract law was preferred, the choice-of-law provision could state that the contract is to be interpreted based on it. Even if in another country -- that would just be a matter of proof at trial. But the copyright laws would still be the copyright laws of the country where the sound recording is being distributed.
I'll stop now...
|
| April 17th, 2004 08:34 AM |
|
|
| LadyJane |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
I'll stop now...
Thank you...I'm trying to wake up!!
LJ. |
| April 17th, 2004 08:44 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
I didn't even mention the TRIPs provisions of the GATT treaty and whether the US's failure to honor moral rights is a violation thereof.
Sorry.....no more
I promise! |
| April 17th, 2004 08:53 AM |
|
|
| LadyJane |
LJ. |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]