Comments on: How EMI treated dying songwriter

By: david

david — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:12:57 +0000

sorry ,but i can find nothing positive in record labels! especially the kartsmell ones.they just rip off sonwriters .it’s like copyright,it’s time for a change.pay the writers directly or just put them into the public domain.if there going to get nothing from the riaa,then what difference do it make who listens to them?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:12:44 +0000

A fight over a song written nearly a century ago, will people still be fighting over “ownership” of this same song a century from now?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:41:35 +0000

“sent a notice to EMI predecessor Leo Feist on behalf of Gillespieâs son, terminating the companyâs rights to âSanta Claus is Cominâ to Townâ and 19 other songs”

Songwriters may terminate assignments for various reasons, one being a termination right built into the Copyright Act. Another being the non performance by the publisher, as when a song makes no income or is never recorded.

Unfortunately the publishers have a number of gimmicks in court so as to never terminate their ownership. Some are ignoring the termination notices from songwriters, never advising songwriters of their rights, claiming that the song failures are due to the songs being worthless, claiming royalties were paid but old records/checks cannot be found, the assignments are for the copyright duration of the songs, there are no performance requirements on the assignment contracts, and so on.

In short, the contracts signed by songwriters are one sided and abusive,

Unfortunately also most so called intellectual property lawyers need to make a living and dare not gain a reputation of being anti industry and dare not argue against publisher claims or have no imagination as to how to prevail in favor of the songwriter.

Also no judge dare declare the standard songwriter-publisher contracts abusive and illegal while the government monopoly lawyers never look into the matter.

I hope in this case the outcome is different and the songs are taken away from the publisher.

By: EE

EE — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:33:32 +0000

@an0n

You are trying to reason with what I (and others) suspect is a corporate shill trying to discredit the site and its audience.

I’m not saying I disagree with you, it’s just wasted effort. The person in question crafts his comments to fall just under Jon’s liberal censorship policies by not making a direct threat. In this case, he’s stating a fact because everyone “shall die.” It’s just how life works.

Most of us (the regulars on this site) have decided that ignoring him is better than debating the issue because his goal seems to be to shift the focus of the discussion from the story to discussion of his comments.

Don’t feed the trolls.
—————————————
@ the story

I wish that this surprised me, but it doesn’t. Hopefully, this sleaze will bankrupt itself soon…….

By: an0n

an0n — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:11:22 +0000

@Reader’s Write
“The EMIâs parasites and their lawyers shall all die.”
Whilst I agree that EMI and all related record pushers are parasites, saying that the lawyers should die is one of the reasons that the media refer to us as if we are criminals, or children who don’t like paying for what they want. How can we be taken seriously if we keep on with the abuse and death threats instead of intelligently debating and discussing the issue? After all “The pen is mightier than the sword”.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:44:32 +0000

What is the news. This is what music publishers do all the time.
Its a racketeering business.

The problem is the racket cannot be fought individually in court.

Soon an secret offer is made to the lawyer and there ends the fight.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:10:22 +0000

The EMI’s parasites and their lawyers shall all die.