Anyway these are some of the removed postings.
****************************************

Subject: Are you a songwriter, or a publisher troll?

An exception to the rules. Diane Warren is a smart lady, indeed.

But, I have recently been told by a well known singer that he cannot record any of my songs because his agreement with his record comany requires that he only record songs from their publishing division. My songs do not qualify, period.

“which they gladly do for a very small percentage coupled with huge advances”

All publishers I know of ask for 50 percent of the royalties and refuse to offer any significant advances. All my many songwriter friends have had similar experiences.

A friend handed pver songs to a publisher and after many years without getting any royalties worth speaking of, he had to threaten his publisher with physical harm to get his songs back. He is one of the lucky ones.

I’ll assume you are not ignorant of the facts and are doing PR.

Are you a songwriter, or a publisher troll?

“Threatening anyone with physical harm, as your friend did, is not a smart under any circumstances …”

Maybe he did not want to wait the 35 years in the law, that the publisher never explained to him anyway, as no publisher ever explains anything to the trapped songwriters.

Subject: Re: Re: Are you a songwriter, or a publisher troll?

“As for me, I have voluntarily given back many songs that I believed in and worked my butt off to get cut … without success…”

So you are a publisher! You should have said so in the very beginning so we knew where you came from.

Now, can you tell us how many publisher trapped songwriterers there are for each free and sucessful Diane Warren?

And how much money has Diane Warren really made? As you should know, it is one thing to be owed royalties from the record companies and another thing is getting paid.

Subject: You want me on the RIAA blacklist?
You want me on the RIAA blacklist?

Subject: Its all illegal

“[By the way, did you know that some of the publishing companies that have the same names as major record companies are not owned by those record companies?]”

This is so because the record company publisher’s catalog was sold for profit to investors that also call themselves publishers. These investors that acquire song catalogs usually know little about music publishing and promotion.

It should be noted that the sale represents a huge profit and this profit is not shared with the songwriters. Actually nothing about the transaction is informed to the songwriters.

That was the original “publishing game plan to begin with, I suspect. It is a way for a publisher to walk out of their contracts with the songwriters as the contracts are tranferred to the new publisher as well.

Too bad songwriters have not taken these renegade “publishers” to court for walking out of their contracts, a contract violation. The tranferring the contracts (and songs) to other publishers without a very specific authorization
by the songwriter is patently ilegal.

A problem with these catalog sales is that the new publisher may be located in another legal jurisdicion, possibly a legal haven, where songwriters cannot access and the new publisher may know little about the music business.

Songwriter contracts are signed by songwriters because they have trust and confidence on the publisher. It’s like a marriage. Then why should the trusted publisher be allowed to tranfer the songs to an unknown publisher that may not
be trusted at all? To a songwriter that would be like finding out they are now married to another person, because the previous one tranferred the marriage license.

The songwriters would win every case, if they would sue.

BTW, having a name that suggests that the owner may be a major record company is fraud and a deceit as it will confuse songwriters into falsely believing they are giving their songs to a major record company and that their chances of getting recorded by that major record company are better.

There were 10 comments under this story and for some reason unkown to me, they’ve all vanished. I certainly didn’t delete them and I’m trying to find out what happened.

Meanwhile, if you’re one of the posters and you perchance still have a copy of your comment, please feel to add it again.

Cheers! And thanks …

But, let’s get right to the bottom line: “The songwriters would win every case, if they would sue.”

If a songwriter were to try to sue based on the inaccurate statements you have made:
1. He couldn’t find an attorney to represent him because the claims are outrageous and totally without merit;
2. But, should the writer find a moron of an attorney to take such a case, it would be thrown out of court before the ink dried on the complaint.

Let’s get one thing straight… The minute a song is completed, the songwriter owns the copyright lock, stock and barrel. If he or she signs an agreement with any third party (usually a music publisher) that states that the writer ‘assigns, sells and transfers his rights’ to that third party, the writer no longer owns the work and is only entitled to whatever payments and reservation of rights are set forth in the agreement.

The new owner then has the right to sell or assign those rights to whomever they please, subject to the new owner complying with the terms and conditions of the agreements between the writer and the original publisher. Should the new owner fail to comply with the terms of the writer agreement, and fail to cure the problems when confronted, then and only then should a suit be considered.

Copyrights are sometimes referred to as Intellectual Property … “Property” being the word to focus on. If you own property and sell, assign and set that property over to someone else … you don’t own it any longer. Period!

Writers have to understand that BEFORE they sign away their rights. They also should understand that copyrights last for 70 years past their death and are likely to pass to many owners during that time. Therefore, there is no chance that the people you originally dealt with will be there for much of the copyright’s life and that should be taken into consideration when you assign your rights… if you do.

[Artists should also take note of the above statement ... If you sign with a record label based on the people at the label they won't be there in time ... and may not even last to the time your contract expires.]

Remember, the writer is the original owner of the copyright and controls the table until he or she assigns their all or part of their rights away. The operative word be “part.” You don’t have to assign your rights for the life of the copyright … you could, for instance, assign your rights for, say, 10 years… after which everything comes back to you.

Get an attorney! Don’t sign anything you don’t understand.

One last comment … writers are not entitled to any portion of the purchase price paid when a publisher sells a catalog. The price paid is based only on the publishers share of earnings. Royalties paid to writers and any other third parties are subtracted from the gross earnings BEFORE the purchase price is determined. Therefore, no part of the money paid for a catalog is based on writer earnings … and therefore nothing is owed to the writer.

But, let’s get right to the bottom line: “The songwriters would win every case, if they would sue.”

If a songwriter were to try to sue based on the inaccurate statements you have made:
1. He couldn’t find an attorney to represent him because the claims are outrageous and totally without merit;
2. But, should the writer find a moron of an attorney to take such a case, it would be thrown out of court before the ink dried on the complaint.

Let’s get one thing straight… The minute a song is completed, the songwriter owns the copyright lock, stock and barrel. If he or she signs an agreement with any third party (usually a music publisher) that states that the writer ‘assigns, sells and transfers his rights’ to that third party, the writer no longer owns the work and is only entitled to whatever payments and reservation of rights are set forth in the agreement.

The new owner then has the right to sell or assign those rights to whomever they please, subject to the new owner complying with the terms and conditions of the agreements between the writer and the original publisher. Should the new owner fail to comply with the terms of the writer agreement, and fail to cure the problems when confronted, then and only then should a suit be considered.

Copyrights are sometimes referred to as Intellectual Property … “Property” being the word to focus on. If you own property and sell, assign and set that property over to someone else … you don’t own it any longer. Period!

Writers have to understand that BEFORE they sign away their rights. They also should understand that copyrights last for 70 years past their death and are likely to pass to many owners during that time. Therefore, there is no chance that the people you originally dealt with will be there for much of the copyright’s life and that should be taken into consideration when you assign your rights… if you do.

[Artists should also take note of the above statement ... If you sign with a record label based on the people at the label they won't be there in time ... and may not even last to the time your contract expires.]

Remember, the writer is the original owner of the copyright and controls the table until he or she assigns their all or part of their rights away. The operative word be “part.” You don’t have to assign your rights for the life of the copyright … you could, for instance, assign your rights for, say, 10 years… after which everything comes back to you.

Get an attorney! Don’t sign anything you don’t understand.

One last comment … writers are not entitled to any portion of the purchase price paid when a publisher sells a catalog. The price paid is based only on the publishers share of earnings. Royalties paid to writers and any other third parties are subtracted from the gross earnings BEFORE the purchase price is determined. Therefore, no part of the money paid for a catalog is based on writer earnings … and therefore nothing is owed to the writer.

Please contact me at jon @ p2pnet.net. My views on anonymity are well-known and I guarantee your identity will be safeguarded, if that’s what you want.

Or you could summarize and re-post here and I’ll run the results as an article, and in that case, knowing the country you live in would be useful.

Cheers! And all the best …
Jon

This is so because the rcord company publisher’s catalog was sold for profit to investors that also call themselves publishers. These investors that acquire song catalogs usually know little about music publishing and promotion.

It should be noted that the sale represents a huge profit and this profit is not shared with the songwriters. Actually nothing about the transaction is informed to the songwriters.

That was the original “publishing game plan to begin with, I suspect. It is a way for a publisher to walk out of their contractswith the songwriters as the contracts are tranferred to the new publisher as well.

Too bad songwriters have not taken these renegade “publishers” to court for walking out of their contracts, a contract violation. The tranferring the contracts (and songs) to other publishers without a very specific authorization by the songwriter is patently ilegal.

A problem with these catalog sales is that the nwe publisher may be located in another legal jurisdicion, possibly a legal haven, where songwriters cannot access and the new publisher may know little about the music business.

Songwriter contracts are signed by songwriters because thy have trust and confidence on the publisher. It’s like a marriage. Then why should the trusted publisher be allowed to tranfer the songs to an unknown publisher that may not be trusted at all. To a songwriter that would be like finding out they are now married to another person, because the previous one tranferred the marriage license.

The songwriters would win every case, if they would sue.

BTW, having a name that suggests that the owner may be a major record company is fraud and a deceit as it will confuse songwriters into falsely believing they are giving their songs to a major record company and that their chances of getting recorded by that major record company are better.

Maybe he did not want to wait the 35 years in the law, that the publisher never explained to him anyway, as no publisher ever explains anything to the trapped songwriters.

“As for me, I have voluntarily given back many songs that I believed in and worked my butt off to get cut … without success…”

So you are a publisher! You should have said so in the very beginning so we knew where you came from.

Now, can you tell us how many publisher trapped songwriterers there are for each free and sucessful Diane Warren?

And how much money has Diane Warren really made? As you should know, it is one thing to be owed royalties from the record companies and another thing is getting paid.

Regarding the well known singer that told you he couldn’t record your songs because his record company requires that he record only songs in their publishing company … I have never heard of such a situation … It simply doesn’t make sense for the record company to limit themselves to songs by writers their publishing division represents.

If you walked in with what they thought was a slam dunk smash, they wouldn’t care who published it. They are in the business of selling records and they know that great songs are what sell records. If your song is better that the hundreds of songs that get submitted for every track on every non singer/songwriter album … it’s likely to get cut.

Are you sure the artist wasn’t trying to find a way to make you go away without having to tell you he didn’t like your music — or didn’t want the competition for songs he had written himself. Did you tell him you would ‘talk’ to the publishing company just to see for yourself where that might lead? Did you even play your music for the artist?

[By the way, did you know that some of the publishing companies that have the same names as major record companies are not owned by those record companies?]

You say, “All publishers ASK for 50%” … Well, yes … but you OWN the rights, so you can say … “No.” If you song is a killer you’re in the driver’s seat. I will say this, though, … of the hundreds of thousands of songs I’ve listened to in my career … less the 1% have been killers… However, if you are a solid writer that constantly turns out solid songs, there are very few situations where you can’t ask for – and get – a 75/25 deal… or better from today’s publishers. Of course, if you are as good as Diane Warren as a writer and self promoter, you don’t need a publisher at all.

Now, if you are a starting writer and are looking for a ’staff writer’ situation with a weekly draw – and are talented enough to land a staff writer deal in today’s market – you might start out with a 50/50 deal because the publisher will be spending a lot of money to support your endevors and present you in the right light. But, as you become more and more successful your advances will get bigger and bigger and the percentages will change in your favor with each extension of your contract … including, if you get really big … going back and revising the original 50/50 splits… and, perhaps moving into an administration only relationship.

As far as getting your songs back from a publisher … if you are a writer without a staff deal and haven’t been smart enough to write a reversion clause into your contract – meaning you get your song back if the publisher doesn’t perform … you may or may not get your songs back … You won’t get your songs back, for sure, if the publisher has caused them to be recorded… whether or not the record was successful … the ‘long tail’ is dragging a lot of that stuff out of the grave.

If you have a staff job … it’s unlikely that the publisher will return your songs given the amount of time, money and energy his has likely devoted to trying to make you a success.

Under the 1976 US Copyright Act the maximum amount of time a writer can grant rights to a publisher is 35 years except in under certain limited circumstances. However, most writer agreements today … if negotiated by someone who knows what they are doing … provide for terms shorter than 35 years… and provide for the song’s return if the publisher doesn’t secure a commercial use of the work.

Threatening anyone with physical harm, as your friend did, is not a smart under any circumstances … As for me, I have voluntarily given back many songs that I believed in and worked my butt off to get cut … without success…

None of the songs I returned ever got cut…. none!

But, I have recently been told by a well known singer that he cannot record any of my songs because his agreement with his record comany requires that he only record songs from their publishing division. My songs do not qualify, period.

“which they gladly do for a very small percentage coupled with huge advances”

All publishers I know of ask for 50 percent of the royalties and refuse to offer any significant advances. All my many songwriter friends have had similar experiences.

A friend handed pver songs to a publisher and after many years without getting any royalties worth speaking of, he had to threaten his publisher with physical harm to get his songs back. He is one of the lucky ones.

I’ll assume you are not ignorant of the facts and are doing PR.

Are you a songwriter, or a publisher troll?

But we know better than that. For a songwriter to get a song on a record the writer must fist give up the rights to either a publisher or to a record company that has a (conflict of interest) publishing division.

In the end a publisher “represents” the songwriter, for the benefit of? You guessed it right!

And who gets the money? You guessed it right!