Leddy Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Publishing = about the song writing/lyrics/composition.Recordings = not related to publishing.I understand that, so when you purchase the publishing rights to previously recorded material - are you not then paid when those recordings are used in a video game? If so, having no control over whether they are used, and that decision remaining with the person you bought them from - is that not a bit of an oversight on the purchasers part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GET OFF AXLS BACK Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Publishing = about the song writing/lyrics/composition.Recordings = not related to publishing.I understand that, so when you purchase the publishing rights to previously recorded material - are you not then paid when those recordings are used in a video game? If so, having no control over whether they are used, and that decision remaining with the person you bought them from - is that not a bit of an oversight on the purchasers part?My understanding is that normally the person/company holding the publishing rights determines when and how the are used and they take a cut. The artist would retain a percentage of royalties for the material.It makes no sense for a person holding the rights to have no control, if so the have pretty much just given money away.This deal is very odd, we all assumed more Guns stuff would be in the media yet less has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leddy Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Publishing = about the song writing/lyrics/composition.Recordings = not related to publishing.I understand that, so when you purchase the publishing rights to previously recorded material - are you not then paid when those recordings are used in a video game? If so, having no control over whether they are used, and that decision remaining with the person you bought them from - is that not a bit of an oversight on the purchasers part?My understanding is that normally the person/company holding the publishing rights determines when and how the are used and they take a cut. The artist would retain a percentage of royalties for the material.It makes no sense for a person holding the rights to have no control, if so the have pretty much just given money away.This deal is very odd, we all assumed more Guns stuff would be in the media yet less has.Yeah, I remember there being a press release at the time, but don't recall it going into those kind of specifics. I would also say that it would be a pretty reasonable assumption that the purchaser would gain the share of the decision licensing material would involve, and having made such a significant investment would look to capitalise as much as possible - kinda glad they haven't to be honest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leddy Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 publishing rights and recording rights are two different things. if i wanted to put the appetite version of my michelle in a film, i would need to get two separate licenses. i would have to make a deal with the publisher for the rights to the composition and i would have to make a deal with the record company and/or artist (depending on who has control of the record) for the rights to the recording.if i owned the publishing rights to appetite, i would receive the songwriting royalties from record sales, radio airplay, public performances, commercials, films, etc.a band can sell the rights to their publishing while still maintaining the rights to the actual recordings (assuming they have control over the recordings to begin with).Okay, I get that - but what would be the point in ever purchasing publishing rights if you don't have the right to license the music? - where's any chance of payback? - The owner of the recording rights could just veto any and every offer :-/If Axl seriously sold his publishing rights for $20m+, while retaining the rights to decide as and when, and specifically how, anything is used, then he pulled a master stroke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolRanchDressing Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 If you own the publishing to a catalog of songs, every time one of those songs is sold, you would be entitled to the mechanical royalty that is paid to the owner of the copyright to the composition. You would also be entitled to the royalties generated by live performances, cover versions recorded by other artists, the songs being played on the radio, etc.Unless someone steals your work, of course. You're an expert on those matters too. Could you perhaps elaborate on some of the ways music and emails can be stolen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Michael Jackson purchased The Beatles Catalog years ago,a very savvy business move, that ironically was suggested by McCartney.McCartney admits advising him the advantages of buying catalog/rights but was understandably taken aback when he found out whose catalogue M.J. had purchased. Edited January 9, 2012 by sailaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolRanchDressing Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) never stolen anything in my life.chipotle ranch > cool ranchHelp me understand the difference in semantics. I'm not nearly as intelligent as you are. You didn't steal, you merely took possession of something that did not belong to you, without permission from the person who did own it. You then used the "borrowed" information to attempt to blackmail its owner into giving you something? Please help me put my finger on the most accurate verb... not stole... but...You > Ignatius Reilly Edited January 10, 2012 by CoolRanchDressing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damn_Smooth Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 not sure what you're referring to.if i mail you an apple that you did not ask for, are you stealing when you open your mailbox and find the apple?If you send me that apple, I wll gladly accept all accusations of thievery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Hand Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I believe it's what you did with the apple that fans take issue with, my friend.I personally don't care and would have read the documents if they were released( as would anyone on here that's honest with therselves) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolRanchDressing Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) not sure what you're referring to.if i mail you an apple that you did not ask for, are you stealing when you open your mailbox and find the apple?Why employ analogies? You took possession of emails and songs that belonged to Guns N' Roses, correct? The fact that they were given to you is moot if the person giving them stole them in the first place. You did not offer to give the stolen emails and songs back. Instead, you used the stolen property to try an extort more from Guns N' Roses and to promote yourself. Edited January 10, 2012 by CoolRanchDressing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Annnnddd goodbye original thread topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolRanchDressing Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 i thought we were talking about apples.No, I think you'd rather make an analogy to apples because it's a nice way to make your actions and motives more ambiguously palatable. But since everyone around here already knows what a lowly, pathetic, loathsome, sniveling piece of dog shit you are, I can only assume you're making the effort for yourself. Okay, if you wanna dance that sad little dance, I'll play along...You're right. Your actions are blameless because if you think that if I were to hypothetically find a piece of fruit in my mailbox, I would hypothetically eat it. Jesus fucking Christ, not only is it pathetic that you try and employ an analogy, but the analogy itself is fucking hair-brained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Hand Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 What if you were a known pot smoker and one of your friends left you a fat sack of stank in your mailbox. Little do you know the cops have been watching your friend and saw him leave it there, and they wait for you to get it and then bust you.No, you didn't ask fir it but because of your past your friend thought you would want it and the cops thought you arranged to have it there.Its your past actions biting you in your ass kinda thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stro Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 What does any of MSL shit have to do with this lawsuit? I'd much rather this be another Slash vs Axl thread than some bullshit with MSL that is completely unrelated to the topic. Unless he works for Activision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PirateChick Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Kind of connected since this thread comes down to Axl's rights in regards to the songs, does he/his management have to okay for any of the old guys to release old GNR songs on their records? Like Slash's solo album having the PC remake, Nightrain, and SCOM with Myles, or Rocket Queen with Myles. Does Axl have to say yes for that or is Slash (or Duff/Izzy/Matt/Steven) able to release those with no issue since he is credited with the songs as well?I was wondering the same, Axl should sue Slash for that paradise shitty cover on his solo album it SUCKS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolRanchDressing Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 would it or would it not be stealing if you opened your mailbox and found an apple you did not ask for?It would be stealing if you kept it. It would be stealing if you ate it. It would be stealing if you ignored the owner's request to have his apple back. Just saying someone else gave it to you doesn't mean it was theirs to give. Is basic morality really that difficult to grasp? No.You're either lying to us or lying to yourself. Probably both.You are hated. Never forget that. A marginally higher IQ speaks nothing to the blackness of your heart or the worthlessness of your soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts