I Don't Like Mondays: Geldof fesses up, Fingers vindicated

[Geek99]

19 hours ago, KevB said:

I don't know how these things work. Does the beneficiary get their share of royalties backdated to when it was written or just from when the court ruling happens? The latter would seem unfair (diminishing returns on many songs you'd think). 

The original sole beneficiary (A) has had all the benefit already that rightly belonged to someone else (the now-joint beneficary (ies) B) , should A be be allowed to keep it, or its proceeds ? That does not sound like justice.

The complainant B has gone out on a financial limb to get what he believes to be a rightful share, and had convinced a court who have agreed that B has been short changed. If A is allowed to keep 10m£ when he only rightly deserved to get £5m that is unfair. B should be put into the place where they would have been . If A has to sell a yacht to achieve that so be it. 

[tauzero]

19 hours ago, KevB said:

I don't know how these things work. Does the beneficiary get their share of royalties backdated to when it was written or just from when the court ruling happens? The latter would seem unfair (diminishing returns on many songs you'd think). 

In this case (and probably most cases like this) it's an out-of-court settlement so we'll never find out. I imagine it'll be costs plus some payment (less than 50%) for past royalties plus writing credits and a share (might be more than 50%) of future royalties. IANAL though.

[Geek99]

On 27/01/2019 at 01:24, Ricky 4000 said:

Hrm, quite a precedent set there, by the Law Lords... interesting. ☺️

yes, as long as you can prove co -authorship you can take as long as you like to claim, but don't ask for back royalties, only future shares are allowed. I do not honestly think that is fair, but their Lordships were unanimous in the House Of Lords judgement. It might be fairer to allow back royalties at some reduced rate to allow for declining future royalties 

 

[Geek99]

3 minutes ago, tauzero said:

In this case (and probably most cases like this) it's an out-of-court settlement so we'll never find out. I imagine it'll be costs plus some payment (less than 50%) for past royalties plus writing credits and a share (might be more than 50%) of future royalties. IANAL though.

no, the House Of Lords judgement allowed only future royalty claims. Their decision on the delay in bringing a claim was found on the fact that no harm had been caused to the defendant because the complainant had take so long to act and that in the contrary, the defendant has been benefited in that time by a full share of the royalties. The loss due to delay fell only on the claimant 

[tauzero]

1 hour ago, Geek99 said:

no, the House Of Lords judgement allowed only future royalty claims. Their decision on the delay in bringing a claim was found on the fact that no harm had been caused to the defendant because the complainant had take so long to act and that in the contrary, the defendant has been benefited in that time by a full share of the royalties. The loss due to delay fell only on the claimant 

I see, Fingers didn't start the action until 2016. I thought skank meant a properly long-running court action (cf. Bleak House) 😁

[Wolverinebass]

1 hour ago, tauzero said:

U2's system of simply splitting it four ways has a lot to be said for it.

U2 haven't done that since Achtung Baby. Everything from Zooropa has been a 30/30/20/20 split. 

[peteb]

6 hours ago, PaulWarning said:

Royalties is a mine field because the songwriting credits are based on the lyrics and the melody line so you get situations where a guitar lick makes a song like  the Police's Every breath You Take but Andy Summers gets no royalty at all and to make matters worse when Puff Daddy sampled the riff Sting got all the royalties.

Andy Summers has every right to be p*ssed off I reckon

That's not entirely true. Sting gets the sole credit for 'his' songs, but Summers and Copeland get points on the publishing to recognise their contribution to the popularity of the Police's ditties...

[PaulWarning]

36 minutes ago, peteb said:

That's not entirely true. Sting gets the sole credit for 'his' songs, but Summers and Copeland get points on the publishing to recognise their contribution to the popularity of the Police's ditties...

must admit I'm not sure what that means but I suspect it's a fraction of what Sting receives, I read that Sting gets all the royalties from the Puff Daddy song, and I've seen an interview with Andy Summers where he's complaining about it, I would have thought Sting would have done the decent thing and handed them over, maybe his conscience only stretches to saving the Rain Forests

[tauzero]

1 hour ago, Wolverinebass said:

U2 haven't done that since Achtung Baby. Everything from Zooropa has been a 30/30/20/20 split. 

So the rhythm section get slightly fewer millions then. That's a burden I think I could live with. Mind you, as recently as 2016 Bono apparently thought that they split the money equally.

[skankdelvar]

7 hours ago, PaulWarning said:

You get situations where a guitar lick makes a song like  the Police's Every breath You Take but Andy Summers gets no royalty at all

... and that's a bastard difficult lick to play correctly, IMO. Involves some very nasty stretches. 

[skankdelvar]

2 hours ago, tauzero said:

I see, Fingers didn't start the action until 2016. I thought skank meant a properly long-running court action (cf. Bleak House) 😁

IIRC Mr Fingers and Sir Bob had been bïtching about the matter for some time before Pyjama Boy deployed m'learned friends.

[odysseus]

You don't see wordsmiths of this calibre very often nowadays.  I doff my cap to you, Mr. Delvar.

[Billy Apple]

9 minutes ago, skankdelvar said:

IIRC Mr Fingers and Sir Bob had been bïtching about the matter for some time before Pyjama Boy deployed m'learned friends.

That's what you get when you spend 37 years in bed... Mr Geldof has it away with ya dinner money!

[skankdelvar]

Just now, Billy Apple said:

That's what you get when you spend 37 years in bed... Mr Geldof has it away with ya dinner money!

The piquant irony surrounding Mr Fingers' choice of stage wear during his employment in The Boomtown Rats is that he'd play a gig in his pyjamas, come offstage, get changed into normal clothes, go home, take off his normal clothes, put on a different pair of pyjamas and go to beddy-bos.

His mother Mrs Dymphna Fingers commented at the time: 'He's got three pairs of sleeping jim-jams and seven pairs of stage jim-jams. Holy Mary, Mother of God,, that's ten pairs a week in the wash. I can't keep up.

'He should have gone for the 'big game hunter' look like his Da suggested. All I'd have to do is blanco his solar topee once a month and I could have a normal life. That Bob Geldof comes on like a nice lad but he's got shifty eyes, the little feck'.

[Billy Apple]

I'm bloody great me!

 

[skankdelvar]

2 minutes ago, Billy Apple said:

I'm bloody great me!

That's Father Dougal on guitar next to him, isn't it?

[PaulWarning]

6 minutes ago, Billy Apple said:

I'm bloody great me!

 

His Bobness has his faults but I thought that was brilliant, he upset the so called punks (in fact, middle aged men who think being a punk involves wearing a leather jacket having a Mohawk hair style) by insulting them and some of them didn't get it and walked out, oh the irony

[Billy Apple]

1 minute ago, skankdelvar said:

That's Father Dougal on guitar next to him, isn't it?

Maybe the BTR's cold enjoy a renaissance on hilarious a sit-com show set on a remote Irish Ireland?

Come on Fingers, gerrouto'fekkin bed an put the fekkin kekkle on!

Give us some fekkin gelt fa ah box a Barry's ya fekkin bollox

Fekkin hell lads it's Bonio from D'U2!

Hallo Lads, have any if yu's seen me fekkin hat?

etc etc, fill in the blanks

 

[Billy Apple]

1 minute ago, PaulWarning said:

His Bobness has his faults but I thought that was brilliant, he upset the so called punks (in fact, middle aged men who think being a punk involves wearing a leather jacket having a Mohawk hair style) by insulting them and some of them didn't get it and walked out, oh the irony

I thought the irony was the ones who he's insulting were the ones who took the time to turn up to see him.

[Geek99]

3 hours ago, tauzero said:

I see, Fingers didn't start the action until 2016. I thought skank meant a properly long-running court action (cf. Bleak House) 😁

Three years to a higher court is actually pretty good going 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Geek99

[Lozz196]

1 hour ago, PaulWarning said:

His Bobness has his faults but I thought that was brilliant, he upset the so called punks (in fact, middle aged men who think being a punk involves wearing a leather jacket having a Mohawk hair style) by insulting them and some of them didn't get it and walked out, oh the irony

I walked out but that’s coz I thought they were pony. Was quite disappointed as, even with his having to be the big man and showing everyone he was boss, I’d been quite looking forward to seeing them.

[PaulWarning]

3 hours ago, Lozz196 said:

I walked out but that’s coz I thought they were pony. Was quite disappointed as, even with his having to be the big man and showing everyone he was boss, I’d been quite looking forward to seeing them.

if you walked out because they were musically pony that's fair enough, must admit I was disappointed with them at Butlins last year, extended songs just so his Bobness could prance around, should have gone to see Sham instead, still think it's a bit much for (so called) punks to be walking out because he was winding them up, they fell for it, when I first went to punk gigs 1977 that was part of the fun

[steve-bbb]

... just put this up here ... 

 

[Monkey Steve]

23 hours ago, PaulWarning said:

must admit I'm not sure what that means but I suspect it's a fraction of what Sting receives, I read that Sting gets all the royalties from the Puff Daddy song, and I've seen an interview with Andy Summers where he's complaining about it, I would have thought Sting would have done the decent thing and handed them over, maybe his conscience only stretches to saving the Rain Forests

yes, I saw an interview with AS where he complains that while he was happy with the settlement he gets for the Police catalogue, it grinds when his riff is the one part of the song that is taken and Sting gets the writing credit and the bulk of the royalties for a massive selling single.

As I recall, Nirvana had a similar agreement to recognise the contribution to the songs even if they didn't fall under the definition of lyrics and melody that gets you the writing credit.

The one that appals me was the Rolling Stones, where Ronnie Wood was told that he didn't write any of the songs that he wrote, they were the Rolling Stones and Jagger/Richards wrote everything

[PaulWarning]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Steve said:

.

The one that appals me was the Rolling Stones, where Ronnie Wood was told that he didn't write any of the songs that he wrote, they were the Rolling Stones and Jagger/Richards wrote everything

Bill Wyman also got screwed, he wrote the riff for Jumping Jack Flash, or so I read somewhere