The surviving members of the Beatles are to sue music companies EMI and Capitol Records.

They claim the record companies used fraudulent schemes to "pocket millions of dollars" due to the band.

Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and relations of George Harrison and John Lennon want at least

Like they don't have enough money Hmm?

Like they don't have enough money Hmm?
One wonders?

Like they don't have enough money Hmm?



If I was as prolific a musician as they were/are a band, you bet your sweet bippy I'd sue if people used my work without my permission or stole money from me.

Like they don't have enough money Hmm?
Well, if they lose their lawsuit I'll send the poor bastards a few boxes of ramen noodles just to make sure they don't starve to death.

Maybr Paul's got to claw back all the money that Heather's had off him!  ;D

Actually I agree with Beth. It is the principal of it because record companies are thieving bast*rds and the band deserve what is rightfully theirs. 

Actually I agree with Beth. It is the principal of it because record companies are thieving barst*ds and the band deserve what is rightfully theirs. 
So true, so true. Just ask Badfinger-fan about that.  :(

Like they don't have enough money Hmm?


When you have lawsuits like this, it is normally about much more then money.

The Beatles have always been very cautious about allowing licensing of their music.  During their height in popularity, they would turn down huge offers for putting their songs on commercials and in movies.  That is what led to the friction between Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson.  Almost immediately after acquiring the rights to the Lennon-McCartney songs, they were licensed to commercials (Nike), movies (Can't Buy Me Love), and almost anything else that would turn a buck.  And because of the agreement of the time, The Beatles had no say in who could use them, and got almost no money for it.

The Beatles may not need the money from any decision made from this suit, but there are hundreds of lesser known artists who will benefit.  The results will probably make changes in the way licensing is granted, and how accounts are kept.

When you have lawsuits like this, it is normally about much more then money.

The Beatles have always been very cautious about allowing licensing of their music.  During their height in popularity, they would turn down huge offers for putting their songs on commercials and in movies.  That is what led to the friction between Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson.  Almost immediately after acquiring the rights to the Lennon-McCartney songs, they were licensed to commercials (Nike), movies (Can't Buy Me Love), and almost anything else that would turn a buck.  And because of the agreement of the time, The Beatles had no say in who could use them, and got almost no money for it.

The Beatles may not need the money from any decision made from this suit, but there are hundreds of lesser known artists who will benefit.  The results will probably make changes in the way licensing is granted, and how accounts are kept.
I was actaully being sarcastic/silly, as you will see from my later post I agree with them doing this 100%

I agree with, Mush, it sounds like it's at least as much about artistic integrity.  I was sorry to see Jacko beat the Beatles out of their own catalogue in the '80s.  And of course the record company rips them off.  That's been going on for forty years. 

As far as money goes, it seems the more you have the more you spend.  It costs a fortune just to pay the managers, lawyers, and accountants to maintain your fortune!  Sir Paul always boasted of his modest lifestyle, but the definition of "modest" changes after your first ten million pounds you got!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tophat.gif

I agree with, Mush, it sounds like it's at least as much about artistic integrity.  I was sorry to see Jacko beat the Beatles out of their own catalogue in the '80s.  And of course the record company rips them off.  That's been going on for forty years. 

As far as money goes, it seems the more you have the more you spend.  It costs a fortune just to pay the managers, lawyers, and accountants to maintain your fortune!  Sir Paul always boasted of his modest lifestyle, but the definition of "modest" changes after your first ten million pounds you got!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tophat.gif



OMG! You agree with Mushroom??!!!  :o :o :o  Is the world coming to an end?  ;) :D ;D ;D


I do agree, also. It is the principle of the issue. I was upset when I heard that Wacko Jacko got the copyrights to the songs. Even if it was (cough, cough) Yoko who did-that wouldn't have bothered me as much because she was actually part of the equation. Where Wacko was NOT!!!




Cat

OMG! You agree with Mushroom??!!!  :o :o :o   Is the world coming to an end?  ;) :D ;D ;D


LOL!  Cat, we actually agree quite often.  It is just more entertaining when Max and I argue and fight.  8)


As far as money goes, it seems the more you have the more you spend.  It costs a fortune just to pay the managers, lawyers, and accountants to maintain your fortune!  Sir Paul always boasted of his modest lifestyle, but the definition of "modest" changes after your first ten million pounds you got!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tophat.gif


Of course, you also have the classic Anti-Government Protest song that George Harrison wrote. 

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

And yes, residuals and royalties are taxed as income.  The income which was high when a group are Superstars quickly falls away to almost nothing once their popularity fades.  That is why so many has-beens of the past do regular performances in Vegas and other Casino cities.  They may have been superstars, but once the money stops rolling in, you still have a lot of bills to pay. 

Just ask MC Hammer how that works.  Hard to pay property taxes on the mansion, when your residuals are only $5k a year.

And in a similar vein, I refuse to buy music online.  Weird Al is leading the fight against even "legitimate" E-music retailers like iTunes, because of the loss of royalties.  Al reports that he makes 85% less from people who buy from iTunes then if they had bought the CD.  Then when you throw in the allegations that iTunes (and others) are unserreporting the sales of music, it makes for a big rip-off of musicians by Apple and other companies.

http://www.myspace.com/weirdal

Oh, and if you want to hear the music video for Al's newest song, go here:

http://www.dontdownloadthissong.com/

It's free, and done in the style of "We Are The World".  :)

Actually I agree with Beth. It is the principal of it because record companies are thieving bast*rds and the band deserve what is rightfully theirs. 


Couldn't agree with you more, Gis  :)

I don't leave the principle out of it.  Commercial exploitation probably bugs me more than Sir Paul.  I hate to see my favorite Beatles' songs used as jingle for widgets and chewing gum! Sir Paul gets paid, I don't.  Of course, as a musique concrete fan, I'm one about three Beatle's fans who ranks "Revolution Number 9" in his Beatles top 5.  RN9 has what Frank Zappa referred to as "no commercial potential."  They buried that one on side 4 of the so-called "White Album," so folks generally heard it when they were too stoned to change the record!
;D

Look what happened to The Clash, "London Calling" got used for a Jaguar commercial.  I think that's what killed Joe Strummer!

I agreed with Jello Biafra on the "Holidays in Cambodia for Levi's" controversy.  Jello's a prick, but he's on the right side of the issues!  In the Dead Kennedys case, I also sympathized with the rest of the band who wanted to license DK songs for commercials.  East Bay Ray and Klaus Fluoride ain't exactly driving Bentleys!  I still think Jello did the right thing by blocking the deal.  He was a total prick the way he did it, but if he was anything otherwise, he wouldn't be Jello!
8)

Like they don't have enough money Hmm?


One could say the same about EMI.

If the money rightfully belongs to the Beatles, then why should they not go for it?

One could say the same about EMI.

If the money rightfully belongs to the Beatles, then why should they not go for it?

Yeah...we're talking about a huge frickin' mega-corporate record company!  It's not as if George Harrison went up to some Bangledeshi kids and said, "Hey, how about my cut?"
::)

Whatever they're doing, they'd better hurry up...

Despite calls from certain quarters, the 50-year copyright rule still applies in this country...meaning that, theoretically, their earliest recordings can be made 'public domain' (in Britain) by 2013/14...

So who are part of these 'certain quarters'?

Probably not Sir Cliff Richard...his early recordings are 'up for grabs' in 2009, so I'm sure he hasn't been trying to 'influence' Tony by giving him the odd 'free holiday' or two...

Er...

In the U.S., copyright applies for longer.  It's something ridiculous like 70 years after the copyright holder's death!

In the U.S., copyright applies for longer.  It's something ridiculous like 70 years after the copyright holder's death!



The length of the copyright term within the United States was extended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which made the copyright term the life of the author plus 70 years for works created after January 1st, 1978. In the case of a work of corporate authorship (also known as "Work for Hire") the term will be 95 years from the date of first publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever expires first.


I don't think copyrighting something is ridiculous. 

I don't think copyrighting something is ridiculous. 

I agree there.  Copyright is quite necessary.  I was saying the copyright length of right holder's natural life pluse seventy years is ridiculous.  Sometimes copyright law can also be drawn up to favor publishers and recording companies, rather than the artists themselves, but that's a tedious subject.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/sleepy2.gif

Suffice it to say there's a difference between necessity of law and whether applied law is effective or reasonable.

Michael Jackson didn't purchasing the rights to the Beatles songs for money or greed. He is a huge Beatles fan and I think he bought them because he thought he could do more to keep the Beatles legacy going than McCartney. I think when he let films and adverts use Beatles songs, he thought it would make Beatles music more popular and well known. I don't think he realised the harm in using a good song in an advert.

Michael Jackson didn't purchasing the rights to the Beatles songs for money or greed. He is a huge Beatles fan and I think he bought them because he thought he could do more to keep the Beatles legacy going than McCartney. I think when he let films and adverts use Beatles songs, he thought it would make Beatles music more popular and well known. I don't think he realised the harm in using a good song in an advert.


Thank the Lord for Michael Jackson, who felt that he could be a better steward of the Beatles' music than Paul McCartney, who only cowrote the vast majority of the songs.

Of course Michael and Paul were good friends at that time, so Michael's benevolence is not that surprising.

This is kinda like the privatization of social security issue.  The benevolent government knows much better what to do with my retirement savings tha I ever can.  So it is best that I turn my money over to Uncle Sam and his wise fiscal talents.

Have I been out of the loop???

Doesnt Michael jackson and Sony own the rights to the entire Beatles catalogue as part of the ATV (or whatever it was) rights?


If so, why does any of the Beatles have any right to them legally?


Morally, yes, the Beatles should own their peices of work...

Of course, it could be argued that they couldve easily bought them back in the 80's when Jackson bought them...But didnt. So who has the moral grounding?









AN

Doesnt Michael jackson and Sony own the rights to the entire Beatles catalogue as part of the ATV (or whatever it was) rights?

Well, it's not so much the publishing rights of the songs...more the actual recorded works themselves that The Beatles (or what's left of 'em) are bellyaching about...

If so, why does any of the Beatles have any right to them legally?

Strictly speaking, they don't...as far as I'm aware, the recordings are owned by EMI, but are only released under total agreement with Apple Corps (so there may be some 'big legalities' there)...

The group signed a completely piss-poor royalty agreement many years ago and although they did successfully obtain a better royalty rate in later years, it's obviously not enough...

I mean...Macca's got a divorce to settle, for starters!