Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Axl is no longer registered as an ASCAP writer/composer. As far as I can tell he was with ASCAP up until a couple of weeks ago.

Apparently he is now with SESAC.

Some info about SESAC:

Whereas ASCAP and BMI operate on a not-for-profit basis, SESAC retains some income as profit. While ASCAP and BMI distribute all income from performance royalties to their composer and publisher affiliates (less an administrative fee), SESAC retains an undisclosed amount of performance royalty income. SESAC is also unique among the U.S. performing rights organizations in that it does not offer open membership ? one must be approved to join.

Didn't get it. What's the benefit to be with SESAC?

I don't have any clue what you're saying

Axl is considering how new songs written in the future are managed at a time when the band have reformed.

One would guess there is an intention to write new material, so, nice find Sherlock  : ok:

ASCAP / SESAC et al are music publishers. Educate yourselves here; http://www.ascap.com/Home/Music-Career/articles-advice/ascapcorner/corner1.aspx (http://www.ascap.com/Home/Music-Career/articles-advice/ascapcorner/corner1.aspx)

Not to disagree with mysteron..but they really aren't publishers. We are likely disagreeing over semantics, though.  They are essentially clearing houses (along with bmi), called PROs (performing rights organizations), that grant use licenses to places like radio stations, music halls, restaurants, venues, etc. This allows those places to play any/all songs from that entities (ascap, sesac,bmi) catalog of authorized material...and pay one fee, rather than per song. The size of the fee corresponds to the reach of the entity...so a radio station, say, pays more than a restaurant.

The pros track this stuff by reviewing playlist (for radio stations, etc) and by polling about music type (restaurants, bars, etc) played.

The answer to the original question is: because seacs distribution schedule, even keeping a portion of the proceeds, is more advantageous than ascaps, largely. Especially if there is current (post 2005) music being considered.

http://www.artistshousemusic.org/expert/what+is+the+difference+between+ascap+bmi+sesac+music+reports

http://blog.songtrust.com/songwriting-tips/pros-whats-the-difference/

Not going to disagree. I was just keeping my post short (typing on my phone) :)

I always count on you for the educational additions

isnt he amazing? hes our resident genius. cant have a good forum without one.

I thought that was my roll


Hahahhahaha

everybody knows bacon and geniuses are of equal importance. you lose either one and the world goes to shit. japanese bacon sucks.... no fat, no grease. you have to actually add oil to the pan to cook it.

i guess you would be canadian bacon, being from canada and all? canadian bacon is good, but i really miss that american bacon.

So it's a hint that he may have changed to be better suited in case of new music?

good job Spirit....always interested in the business side of things....helps kill the time between albums!  :hihi:

Pilferk will know for certain, but I think swapping to SESAC will only benefit newly released songs. Any older songs will still be paid through ASCAP

Thanks. Hopefully it will be for a purpose. :)

I don't think so actually. Axl is registered as an SESAC writer now, meaning any royalties he gets when any of the old songs are played will be managed through them.

I think the older songs are still registered with ASCAP even though Axl has moved. I think he still gets paid through ASCAP as an expired artist. Again, not 100% on that, I could be completely wrong. Someone told about all this years ago and half of it went in one ear and out the other  :hihi:

I saw Bob Dylan listed on the SESAC related site, so I think Knocking on Heavens Door could be a SESAC song

If you search up any GNR song on ASCAP's register, Axl is registered as an SESAC writer for all songs.

But the songs are still on ASCAP I presume

Yes, because people like Slash is registered with ASCAP.

Also, Black Frog is still an ASCAP publisher.

Axl's publishing deal is probably expiring soon, the one he originally made with Sanctuary.

Good Info Thanks Gunners

 : ok:

Checked out the ASCAP website today and Slash is no longer an ASCAP writer either... No info about any new affiliation though.



Edited to add:

To my knowledge they have both been registered with ASCAP throughout their career. Is it a coincidence they've switched it up within one months time?

Duff is not an ASCAP writer either. Did he ever was?

I'm pretty sure he was, but I'm not sure when he dropped out.

If anyone has Give Em Hell (latest Baz album, 2013), could you check the liner notes for the song Duff co-wrote? It should mention this.

This note (1) has now been added to Slash, Duff and the "Guns N' Roses Music" -partnership:

(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g279/spirit1983/Skjermbilde%202016-04-24%20kl.%2020.14.23.png)


Can anyone shed a light on what this entails? Could a new partnership agreement have been made, or could Slash and Duff have now been included in Black Frog Music?

Removing material from the registry is legally significant.  It is astonishing that this thread has little interest while there are pages on who's attending what show where!  If two of the four songwriters for this track have no "current affiliation" as recently recorded by ASCAP, while the third writer (who is now performing with the two unaffiliated) has recently transferred rights to SESAC, and all of this occurred in conjunction with a new calendar year and an announcement to "reunite," then it could very well be an indication of modified terms to the partnership agreement to which, obviously, all three would have to had agreed upon.  Stated differently, Slash, Izzy and Axl, to my understanding, are the surviving partners of Gn'R, Inc., which is separate from Axl's ownership of the brand (the band name) after Duff and Slash signed it over to Axl.  Slash and Duff have no (recently) reported affiliation for this track while Axl has transferred to SESAC.  All three are now performing for Gn'R, Inc. as opposed to legally fighting one another over merch and licensing as they did for a decade or more.  The fourth songwriter for this track, Izzy, remains with ASCAP, sold his equity partnership share of Gn'R, Inc. years ago and is not performing with Gn'R as an employee of Axl.  While no modifications to the partnership agreement will likely ever see the light of day and Slash and Duff are Axl's employees moving forward (unless they were offered and repurchased shares of the Gn'R name), this registry post is an absolute goldmine!  Most legal documents regarding business affairs can and should be held confidential, but not all aspects of a business can be tucked away from the public (like Rolling Stone and Jann Wenner fleecing the public by operating the RRHOF as a lucrative business)--so great detective work here, Spirit!

It's all ancient greek to me... and probably that way for most of us. Thanks for a little insight.

Does this mean the three of them are basically partners now in all things GNR related with the exception of ownership of the GNR name?

I am betting 1. They are moving to Sesac like Axl did and 2. They formed a new partnership for future Gnr ventures.

obviously just a guess. :-\

As a returning member of the Gn?R online community after a decade or more absence, it seems the boards are rife with confusion about the partnership versus the brand name (the Gn?R name itself).  A simpler way of understanding the difference is to consider a food manufacturer who purchases the ?recipe? and the copyrighted brand name for a cereal so that it can produce and distribute it.  The purchasing manufacturer doesn?t want the ?recipe? without the brand name?the brand name is what is familiar to customers.  The original developer of said ?recipe? and holder of the copyrighted name may take any number of legal actions during the sale to preserve his legal interests, monetary and otherwise moving forward, including requiring to be on the board of the new manufacturer, requiring a certain percentage stake, and retaining any number of legal rights (and residual payments) even after it sells it to another manufacturer.  If part of the sale moving forward is that the new manufacturer cannot change the ?recipe? without agreement from the original developer, now a board member (stakeholder, etc.), then the original developer can and should challenge this action by filing suit.  While this litigation unfolds, the new manufacturer carries on business with the copyrighted name of the cereal because it now owns the name.  This process can go on for years.  But if the case(s) never go to trial, then there will never be public record of what actually occurred to settle the dispute BUT if there were some change to the registry in the copyright office, the information changed would provide clear clues as to how the dispute was settled when coupled with publicly known facts, such as the original developer remaining on the board of the new manufacturer after the dispute is settled.

Dude, make punctuation your friend.

But, if I am understanding these walls of text correctly, could this bode well for new things in the future?

That doesn?t answer your question, JAEBALL, but your question is impossible for anyone to definitively answer. Except, of course, for those involved and their respective attorneys.  But the proximity of the registry changes to the announcement of ?reuniting? with the known fact that Izzy has not ?reunited? and remains registered with ASCAP, is nothing short of a smoking gun that the three parties have resolved all legal disputes regarding Gn?R, Inc., and not just as it relates to licensing and merch.  It could, and very likely, does mean that they have modified the partnership terms and not just about previously recorded material (songs, logos, etc.) but material produced in the future.  But, again, unless Slash and Duff were offered to repurchase shares in the brand (band) name and did so or this issue (and related issues like percentages of creative control, albums to be produced, etc.) was specifically addressed in a modified partnership agreement, then they will be Axl?s employees moving forward (and Axl where say when and where, if ever, a new album is released and who plays what on it, when and where they tour, etc.).  Stated differently, what Spirit uncovered is a smoking gun but in the best possible sense!  As a bit of a P.S. to my example about the ?recipe? of a cereal and the brand name of said cereal, I used the term ?copyright? rather than ?trademark? to draw a clear line from my example to the Gn?R name and music produced thereunder as distinguished from the partnership itself.  And, for all we know, there may have been some mechanism in their former partnership agreement where if Slash and Duff were not performing/recording under the Axl owned brand (band) name, then some other(s) represented Slash and Duff?s interests in the partnership in their performing/recording absence (like a board, but with attorneys).

Agreed, when the subject matter permits such!  Legal premises, even summarized, do not lend themselves to terse sentences.  And yes, Spirit's find is the most significant type imaginable.  It is concrete evidence of some level of (likely full) resolution to former legal disputes AND nothing short of a smoking gun on a modified agreement regarding future material.  No rumors, speculation, or splicing together of known or interpreted fact--which is the reason I bolted from these boards more than decade ago.  That is not to suggest, though, that there is anything wrong with fans doing so during a 25 year period where the sole owner of the brand (band) name produced 15 songs of new material!  All fans want is to hear their favorite band record and tour new music!

This is really interesting, but also very complicated, since there's different affiliations (?), like the brand, the GNR company itself, song rights etc. They are all separate business if I'm not mistaken.
It's so much stuff that it seems these guys will be connected for the rest of their lives! It's great that they finally could agree on something, it must be really exhausting having to deal with all this just to....I don't know, sell some tshirts.

Thanks for trying, JustanUrchin!

Thanks!  I cannot overstate the legal significance of the registry changes, and the timing thereof at the start of this calendar year, as uncovered by Spirit.  In 2005, Slash and Duff sued Axl because Axl transferred publishing from GNR Music to Black Frog Music Publishing (which is a shell entity because Axl owns it).  Slash and Duff did not become aware of this until their ASCAP checks stopped.  While Axl, as the sole owner of the brand (band) name, could do as he pleases with publishing the then future material (ChiDem), he could not do the same with the back catalogue which is copyrighted material owned by the partnership of Slash, Duff and Axl and dedicated to a particular publishing company.  Hence, the decade plus feud around licensing where Axl refused to agree to license songs for movie soundtracks and sued Activision for including Slash?s image on a Guitar Hero game.

I think it's kinda obvious that most fans would feel more interested in talking about things like shows and what happened (in front of them or on Youtube) than something like this.





/jarmo

I couldn?t say as fans of the band come from all walks of life and occupations.  But as a long-time fan and supporter of the band and one with more than a passing familiarity with business entities, this is the most exciting thread for me.  Whatever wedge that may have existed due to personality conflicts and egos, the litigation guaranteed animosity and intransigence on all sides.  This, of course, results in parties making statements like, ?Not in this lifetime? even if they want resolution.  I should know?I?ve made similar comments.

The registry movement on publishing of the back catalogue between the three partners in this partnership would look great pinned to the top of the board as it is direct evidence of resolution to a decade plus legal battle.  It likewise points to a modified partnership agreement, and if so, a primary reason would be because of a design for the three of them to publish new music.  This isn?t a sexy topic, but it is the only topic that evinces a legal resolution while clearing the path for what fans have clamored for over many years:  new music from a fully or semi-reunited line-up.

Yes, I see that. If you're interested in business or law, then this might be interesting.

If you know nothing about it, it's easier to comment on something like a concert. :)


But until someone clarifies what this might mean, it's all speculation.



/jarmo

I sure get that people overlook it because it's just plain hard to understand.

Tho if I understood it right, it means that the feud is settled and we all have a happy family here. If it means we'll have babies, we still don't know, but at least they are having sex again. :hihi:

Actually, I think the legal agreements between those guys made it much easier for them to sitting down and finally talk face to face again. From what I remember, they had been talking through lawyers for years, even when Slash was still in the band somehow, and that's obviously a harsh way to keep a partnership - and of course, it's extremely bad for any friendship. That's why I assumed it was all settled when they agreed to perform togheter and announced the regrouping.

One thing: they announced the regrouping in January 6th, five days after the ASCAP indication:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=66753.0

But of course, the movie theater teases and agreements to play Coachella and other stuff took place before that. I don't know when exactly the official merch in GNR.com, but seems like it was mid-2015, right? I guess it was by that time when they all agreed to regroup, at the very last. Sure they had to resolve all the legal matters before a proper announcement, but they had plenty of time to get back in touch throughout the whole year. :)

Perfectly (and succinctly) put!

Agree on the first two lines, but disagree on the last.   ???  The registry and the information provided thereon is not speculative, rather it is direct evidence of legal resolution.  Partnership dealings/movement regarding the very subject matter of litigation (here, licensing and ASCAP payments of copyrighted material) involving named parties is not speculative, rather it only occurs after resolution of litigation via trial or settlement. 

For example, Voodoo, you, and I are in a partnership but you two have signed over the brand (business) name to me and I conduct business under that name.  You two subsequently discover that I have transferred some (physical) capital assets, and pursuant to the partnership agreement I cannot do such without your prior knowledge.  You and Voodoo file suit.  It would be legally imprudent (and very costly) that I attempt any further unilateral decision on the capital until the litigation is resolved.  So, I continue business as usual under the name, but everything stops regarding my transfer of capital until there is settlement between us or the Court (or jury) decides for us.

If an interested investor in our partnership later learns that (for example, through announcement of new contracts involving the capital, permitting, refinancing collateral, capital gains sell-offs, etc.) that the formerly disputed assets are being moved, then the investor knows that there has been a resolution of the subject matter.  Further, if the three partners are acting in concert with the assets, then it is safe for the investor to assume that not only has there been legal resolution of the subject matter but that we have modified one or more terms in our partnership agreement as we are moving the assets as a body.  And, finally, if we three partners announce to the public that we have agreed to contract our equipment on a massive building project, that all three of us will be on-site as the construction proceeds, and we are all seen smiling and working together?well, then, that?s all the circumstantial evidence that the investor needs to know that the legal matter was resolved amicably to everyone?s satisfaction regardless of the time it took to resolve or the animosity involved.  The investor has direct evidence that the capital (subject matter of the litigation) is free to move and therefore knows that the matter has been largely (or fully) resolved even if he never learns of its details.  He knows that this clears the road for the business because the business is based upon (physical) capital assets.

The business (assets) of music is based upon copyrighted material.   :beer:

I don't know if it's relevant, but if you search the ASCAP database and have a look at any of Slash's solo songs, the same note exist there (for Slash). Only with another date from 2015.

Note that with, for example, ?Apocalyptic Love,? Myles remains with ASCAP as well as EMI, Happy Papper, and WB (all as expected as publishing entities) while Slash and his Dik Hayd publishing are not currently registered.  Again, the transfer note is for the start of the current calendar year.  While, conversely, for ?Anything Goes,? Adler, Izzy and Weber all remain with ASCAP for licensing/payment as well as Black Frog, GnR Music, and Universal (all publishers) while Axl has transferred and Slash and Duff are unaffiliated.  If Axl, Duff and Slash plan to copyright new music together, then it is unlikely that they would use Slash?s Dik Hayd or Axl?s Black Frog, so it doesn?t really matter where they are registered. 

After a quick search of California?s State Department, it appears Axl has a maze of registered entities.  (A business entity, be it a P.C., sole proprietorship, corporation, LLC, LLP, etc., must register with the Secretary of State in the state in which it does business or state of incorporation).  Axl?s maze of entities appears to be everything from service of process to publishing to touring.  Perhaps a board member here with more time on their hands can track the entity threads down for us, bearing in mind, of course, that any of the members? biz orgs aren?t necessarily registered in California, though it?s likely given the legal climate favoring those in the entertainment biz.  They aren?t necessarily registered under the brand (band) name or partner?s names, either.  Gn?R, Inc., I now see, is dissolved according to my search, so the partnership would have to be re-registered under another name.  This (dissolving an entity?LLP, LLC, PC., etc.) is quite common, and shouldn?t be a cause for concern for fans.  If the partners didn?t just modify some terms of their partnership but dissolved the past partnership to create an entirely new partnership (for different legal rights and protections), then that would be a good time to also change the partnership name.

Entity Name:   GUNS N' ROSES, INC.
Entity Number:   C1441630
Date Filed:   07/25/1988
Status:   DISSOLVED
Jurisdiction:   CALIFORNIA
Entity Address:   12424 WILSHIRE BLVD. #1000
Entity City, State, Zip:   LOS ANGELES CA 90025
Agent for Service of Process:   CHARLES SUSSMAN
Agent Address:   12424 WILSHIRE BLVD. #1000
Agent City, State, Zip:   LOS ANGELES CA 90025

I think you might be looking at this in a 'way too business' oriented manner. How the business is construed does not really have anything to do with how the copyright regarding the songs and their recordings is handled. Copyright is handled individually. I am not saying what you're saying is NOT true, however, when looking at it from a music industry perspective I see something else.

ASCAP and SESAC are organizations protecting the copyright to a song and are taking care of the payment of fees to its copyright owners. In this case, copyright referring to the songwriters as well as the performers. In my interpretation, what has changed is that Slash and Duff currently do not have a KNOWN affiliation in regards to their copyright to this song (hence the (1) in front of their name). Since they were registered for this song under the 'Guns N Roses Music' publisher/administrators this also now has a (1) in front of its name. Maybe meaning 'take note, no known registered affiliation' meaning there's no clarity about which organization should be payed when using or selling this song. So nothing has changed regarding the Guns N Roses publishing/administration in itself.

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

So to conclude, all this means to me is that Axl changed from ASCAP to SESAC (something you can probably only do per calendar year) and Slash and Duff have not (yet) informed which organization they're now affiliated with for this calendar year.

Of course, I do not know the details. But I do have extensive knowledge on these kinds of organizations and copyrights regarding music and this is nothing out of the ordinary and does not really mean anything regarding future music or business entities.

Ps. English is not my first language so I tried to explain it as good as I possibly can.

Yes, the old partnership was dissolved back in 1995. Later Axl created a new one. I know this because a couple of years I read a legal document posted in another GN'R forum. I didn't read the whole things back then because it a very long PDF with all kind of legal technical language. But in the first page or so it is mantioned that the old partnership was dissolved.

To clarify, the people listed on a song's ASCAP site is the people with publishing rights to the song. As a performer on a song you don't automatically receive publishing rights to that song.

If you look at all the songs from UYI (except the covers), it's the same four persons listed for every song: Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. I believe this is a direct result of the partnership created, where all four of them have a say in giving the go-ahead for using the song for whatever purpose.

The way it is constructed, it does not in reality reflect who in fact wrote the songs.

ASCAP and SESAC are in fact just middlemen, handling the business side of things. If a song is used somewhere, royalty money for that song is then generated and ASCAP (or SESAC) registers this and makes sure the money ends up with the person(s) owning the rights.

As I've understood it, here's how the partnership was in the latest years:

"Guns N' Roses Music" ? A publisher which had Slash, Duff and Izzy included as owners.

"Black Frog Music" ? Axl's publisher.


Both these publishers are listed on the classic GN'R songs, and made sure the four of them had the rights to the songs. You can notice that "Guns N' Roses Music" is not listed as a publisher for the Chinese Democracy songs, but "Black Frog Music" is present.

I understand what you are saying, but composer royalty money can only go -at least in Europe and I thought it was the same in the USA- to the person who actually WROTE the song. It very well might be possible that these four names appearing have to do with giving permission to license/covers, and are not necessarily regarding the payment of said royalties.

I looked it up and on November Rain it is indeed four names names that appear. However, only Axl wrote it so I cannot imagine he gave up 75% of that income or even sold it to S,D&I. So this construction does raise a few questions with me.

EDIT: or they simply decided that the four of them own all the copyrights to all songs on the UYI albums.

It's all very complicated I think.

I think you might be right with that last sentence. Could have been a part of a business deal, maybe the ownership of the name in exchange for equal royalties for the UYI songs.


EDIT: Just to add: writing credits and publishing rights usually go hand in hand as I've understood it. That's probably why on the ASCAP site, the names are listed under the "Writers" heading. But sometimes they aren't the same.

For instance, The Beatles catalog's publishing rights was owned by Michael Jackson for many years.

Yes, your last edit is in fact true. In case of The Beatles: Paul McCartney still received royalty checks for WRITING the songs, but Michael Jackson got the publisher's cut for that. Usually, a publisher gets 33% in Europe, and the lyricist 33% and the music composer 33%. In the USA I think it's worse for artists, where the publisher usually gets 50%.

And therefore there's not much to conclude from the (1)'s in the ASCAP listing other than Slash and Duff not having a known to ASCAP affiliation with a performing rights organization.

Publishing (specifically licensing) has been the root of the members? legal problems for a decade plus.  This not only creates monumental legal barriers with their assets (copyrighted material, logos, licensing in all areas) but directly relates to whether the members would publish new music moving forward, and, not inconsiderably, creates animosity on all sides until resolved!

This is where you are interpreting the words in an incorrect manner related to what's being discussed. The before mentioned is ONLY referring to the songs, not logo's and other copyrighted material. ASCAP is only about the copyright on the music.

So publishing and licensing is not being referred to as meaning PRINT, MERCH etc. Publishing means something different relating to the music.

Basically, look at it this way: if your cover band wants to perform 'Welcome to the Jungle' (or 'Freebird' or 'Call Me Maybe' or whatever) at a paid gig, you are legally required to pay money to ASCAP (or SESAC or whichever agency the rights holder is registered with). That agency collects your payment and then distributes the money to the rights holder(s)--the composer, the producer, the publisher, et al.

These organizations ensure that their members' creative works are not used unless there is compensation to those who hold rights to it. They are not publishers, since they actually also represent publishers and collect money for them, as well the artist, when you play WTTJ at that bar or whatever.

Axl switching from ASCAP to SESAC (or being a member of both) can only mean that it makes financial sense. From the description of SESAC, basically it's a more exclusive organization than ASCAP--so it's the one big names will gravitate to.

It seems that we're crossing communications.  :smoking:  My focal point is on the decade plus litigation (ownership of the name itself?which controls everything moving forward and gamesmanship with the band?s assets?copyrighted material) and the business entity itself--the partnership.  The CLEARINGHOUSE for copyrighted material is irrelevant to either of these subjects and my conclusions.

EDIT: Never mind, I indeed read your post wrong.

I don't think you need to pay any agency for a performance. It only refers to recording and releasing music.

Yes, you do.

For the ones who want to read it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights)

https://www.sesac.com/About/About.aspx (https://www.sesac.com/About/About.aspx)


Next to that, it also refers to recording and releasing music. So, it's both.

To restate my conclusion from prior posts here:  the assets of this business (the band) is its copyrighted material as it is the door to publishing and licensing.  Any group movement of assets, in my experience, does not occur unless there has been legal resolution when the subject matter of the litigation is those very assets.  Spirit uncovered the near simultaneous action of three members (now touring together), and only those three members, in the clearinghouse for their copyrighted material of their back catalogue.  If all manner of publishing and licensing of copyrighted material is the crux of past legal disputes, then transferring those assets in any way (even if just from one clearinghouse to another) is legally significant.

And, yes, my description of business entities, and how litigation affects the mechanics of said entities, is true.  Thank you for noting such.  And your language is no barrier at all!  Your points are clearly stated.  I think that we are just crossing communications on points of emphasis--yours seems to be on the mechanics of the clearinghouse, mine is on the litigation and partnership.

But the business (the band) is not the same company as the Guns N Roses MUSIC publishing company (as shown on the ASCAP site Spirit showed us). Because in the past Slash, Duff and Axl owned the Guns N Roses MUSIC publishing company (a partnership), but Axl owned the Guns N Roses name, and thus the band (a business) which Slash and Duff were no part of after they left in 96/97. Therefore, if I understand you correctly the copyrighted material in the form of songs have never been 'assets' of the business (the band) the way you describe it. They are two different businesses/companies with each their own 'products'.

Also, they did not collectively 'move their assets'. Axl went to SESAC, and we have no idea where Duff and Slash went.

Actually print and merch related to songs is covered. For example a song book sold with piano music or guitar tablature is covered by the publishing rights of the music. I know it's a very specific example, but one that does stray from the 'publishing' of audio tracks as is normally thought of.

Yes thank you. I've done some music management and early on was very suprised when small venues prohibited us from playing even one cover song because they couldn't afford the ASCAP fees required. And yes, of course, they also deal will sales and stuff like that, but their biggest strength is getting money whenever a members song is played or broadcast... protecting the rights holder's interests... so radio, streaming, jukeboxes, live performances. Every time you hear November Rain on the radio, ASCAP gets money and distributes it to the rights holder(s). Every time it's played on a jukebox, more money. Streaming, money. So, obviously, higher up the money chain (publishing) there is a big clamour to get more points, credit and such, because then your mechanical income compounds with each use.

Yikes!  I don?t want to get trapped in an argument for the sake of arguing, especially when we?re not focused on the same subjects, and are coming at those subjects with different points of understanding and emphasis.  But allow me to preface this ?wall of text,? as another poster accurately described it, by saying that we have much more in store than just a concert leg or two.  Or as another poster wrote, they?re having sex but we just don?t know when there?ll be a baby!

1.  I appreciate your posts on the mechanics of the clearinghouses, but the legal procedures by which they clear and track material and pay the copyright holders is unrelated to my focus.  And I think that we?re on separate pages regarding our understanding of business organizations and their legal significance.  You?re now focused on publishing entities (which, without looking, are probably LLC?s or LLP?s) of one or more members of the partnership.  Axl, as posted above, has registered multiple business entities with the Cal. Department of State.  I described his registered entities as a ?maze.?  Slash also has registered business entities in Cali, and presumably Duff does as well.  This has no bearing on the band as a ?company? if they have different ?companies.?  You are conflating the issue of the brand (band) name, mechanical royalties, and the partnership agreement (which controls the terms of licensing and publishing).  In fact, one of these publishing LLP?s could be you sitting in a physical location in Cali with a phone and a computer doing nothing.  The TYPE of entity gives one legal rights and protections in order to conduct business and avoid personal liability?it does not define the partners? legal arrangement in the parent entity, which is publishing and licensing in the case of this business.

5.  The brand (band) name was the source of prior litigation after Steven had been fired and Izzy sold his share of the partnership.  This occurred because Duff and Slash argued that they had signed their right to the brand (band) name away under duress.  Axl apparently prevailed, and thus retained the name.  That brand was crucial to all then future decisions regarding the band, including its recorded future music (ChiDem), touring, licensing of future music, publishing, etc.  It in no way affected their copyrighted backlog, and still won?t, unless there has been a modified partnership agreement or entirely new partnership agreement executed.  If any agreement recently executed did not provide Duff and Slash an opportunity to repurchase shares of the name, then that does not mean they are necessarily now Axl?s employees as others state as fact.  That would depend upon the modification of the prior partnership agreement or a new agreement.  Stated differently, ownership of the brand (band) name is irrelevant in the sense that Axl could retain ownership of the name but Duff and Slash could have equal one-third (or another percentage) shares in the partnership.  In either event, it?s unlikely that the public would ever know.  And, presumably, most don?t care except for how it relates to publishing future music.

2.  Gn?R, Inc., since dissolved, was an incorporated business, likely with a board.  I continued to refer to it as partnership in the prior posts so as not to confuse anyone who may be following the thread, which is probably only a few of us! (as it wouldn?t make a difference to most, anyhow, if they can?t legally differentiate between a partnership and a corporation.).  Any NEW venture with those three members would need to be registered in the state in which it conducts business or in the state of incorporation.  This entity, by contractual agreement, would establish the duties, rights and responsibilities of all parties to the business organization.  Identification of that new or merged entity in Cali?s DoS database would close this entire thread.

4.  Without getting too deep into the legal weeds, the mere movement of three people who have been involved in litigation on the very subject of that litigation?copyrighted material as it related to publishing and licensing?at all, much less in close proximity, means that all legal claims involving that material have largely (or fully) been settled.  I provided an example above in a different business setting of (physical) assets?machinery that is sold, leased, capitalized, depreciated, etc.  Copyrighted material is not an asset as you have taken from my posts.  Again, crossed communications when simplifying a complex idea.  Copyrighted material is a legal instrument that, when held, legally protects that material.  Even summarizing this as I have done risks misinterpretation for those not familiar.  To this business, a band that produces, sells, merchandises, licenses and tours music, the copyrighted material is then their only business ?asset.?  It is not what each individual has in investments or bank accounts, and it is not patents, design, mortgage-backed securities, consumer goods, etc., etc., etc.  Again, three members of a partnership locked in litigation over copyrighted material and its use regarding all manner of publishing and licensing, have reassigned those rights (or are in the process of doing so) to clearinghouses.  So, yes, those rights are being ?moved? (or freed movement, or transferred, or acted upon, or whatever phrase makes sense to you) and in near conjunction with one another, and ONLY for those three who were in the former partnership agreement, which has likely been modified or dissolved and a new agreement executed.  So, it doesn?t matter where Izzy, Adler, Dizzy, etc. are registered as they are not in the partnership.  Nor does it matter where the publishing entities are registered.  In that sense, the clearinghouse and its mechanics is irrelevant; the relevance is that the subject matter of more than a decade of litigation is now being shopped either individually or as part of a settlement or as part of a modified partnership agreement or as the result of a new agreement.  The point is that simple:  Spirit?s discovery that the subject of a decade plus of litigation is being shopped by the three members entangled in that litigation.  That is huge.

Phew!  I hope that this clears up your understanding of my points of emphasis.  If not, then you?ll just have to challenge me to a sing-off!   :beer:

No, I am not conflating. I was under the impression you were, that's why I asked if you were. But I am glad we're on the same page after all :-)


This is where we simply disagree. It's not about me not understanding what you are saying. You add meaning to something that's been shown here by Spirit, and I don't add that same meaning to it. So when I look at that ASCAP screen cap on page 2 I don't see anything of significance in relation to resolving the litigation from 10 years ago. To me, they're not connected. Unless you know for a fact that it was said in this partnership agreement they can NOT choose which party they use for the performing rights royalties? Because I think it's coincidental. SESAC is quickly becoming bigger and buying up other companies and therefore Axl might be drawn to them as they might be able to collect more, and b/c they also operate worldwide and ASCAP only in the USA (as far as I can tell). Or maybe because Universal moved there as well http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/universal-music-publishing-moves-production-catalogue-ascap-sesac/ (http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/universal-music-publishing-moves-production-catalogue-ascap-sesac/)

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ng4lrb.png)
Slash's songs with MK&TC are also listed in the same manner as is his Dick Hayd publishing. Is that then also huge? Or part of the litigation? No, it's not. Who the individual members chose to collect their performing rights royalties has changed, and to me that is not huge at all. Because THAT was never part of the issues. It's like you said already: a minor thing and not that relevant. So I don't see that 'huge' thing you're speaking of.
 

I think it's clear now, and we simply disagree on what something means. However, it is fun to have these kinds of conversations b/c I have to dive deep into what's being discussed. A sing off I would lose for sure, unless you have an even worse singing voice than I have  :peace:

There are, in fact, two different types of royalties:

Composer (writer) credits
Performance credits.

If the SONG is used, in any way, the composer(s) are paid.

If the RECORDING that the performer actually performs on is used, in specific instances, then performance royalties are also paid.

Composer royalties tend to be significantly more than performance royalties. 

But, to be clear, NONE of that has to do with SESAC.

There are broad "flat/blanket" license agreements with venues that allow the playing or performance of music, that are then divided up by the clearing houses (ASCAP, SESAC, BMI,  etc) to their artist membership.  THATS what we're talking about here.

I explained this a bit in an earlier post:


In reading some of the more recent discussion here...I think there is some over statement based on speculation and a tab bit of confusion on what SESAC and ASCAP are.  These are specific entities serving a specific purpose.  They are NOT THE RIAA/SOUNDEXCHANGE (which deal with direct publishing royalties for album sales and the like), which seems to be a point of confusion in this discussion.

This is not correct, actually.

If you cover the song, live, in an ASCAP, SESAC, or BMI licensed venue (and they all are...or nearly so) YOU (the performer) pay zippo.  It's covered under the venues license.  Then they all (the PROs) divide up money and such between themselves to get the payouts to the artists in question.

If you want to actually PUBLISH (aka record and put on an album) "Welcome to the Jungle", you need to get a mechanical license (or digital license) from the publisher(s) to do so.  That's a completely separate animal.  They can also file for a compulsory license (which is cheaper, usually..about .10 per song, per album sold) but not as advantageous, usually..  Both require notification of the artist/publisher prior to release.


Pretty much, just not in the way you suspect.  It's the venue that is actually providing the compensation.  You are correct. They are NOT publishers...they are PROs.


SESAC is invite only, and has a better fee schedule.

That's NOT to say it might not mean something...maybe they are all trying to unite under one banner to make things easier for potential new music.  But it's doens't HAVE to mean that. At all.

The issue is the supposition they're "moving assets".  They're not.  Axl changed clearing houses for his share of the clearing house payouts.  That's not tied to SPECIFIC material, per se.  It's not like direct publishing rights or RIAA royalties for album sales (a subject of previous litigation).  This also isn't like when he put his share of publishing under Sanctuary's control, for example. It's also not likely to result in a non-payment of Slash/Duffs share of the clearing house payouts (again, a subject of previous litigation AND...potentially...another reason why Axl might want to leave ASCAP considering they admitted it was their clerical error, previously).  It's very different and wouldn't be seen the same way by the courts. It's more akin to changing payroll companies.

He's just changing up who sends him his quarterly check...ASCAP vs SESAC. I'd guess largely because he was either a) invited to SESAC this year or b) he was made aware of the better fee schedule.

It MIGHT be an indication of what you're supposing.  But it's no sure thing. 

Edit: By the by...all their filed legal wranglings were resolved, via settlement (if you watched the proceedings) a few years ago. We all saw the legal filings and court schedules.  There was nothing left on the dockets to "resolve".   Now...something might have BROUGHT new proceedings up, but not this.  It wouldn't effect the other band members in any real way.  There'd just be no cause.

This is what I was trying to convey. You worded it better though, Pilferk  :)

Thanks!

It's a complicated topic and, to be quite frank, the terminology specific to the discussion isn't "user friendly". 

I know that, in the interest of brevity and clarity, I've tried to simplify some of it...and know there may come some further discussion, or need for clarification, as a result.

I also get that some folks might interpret the move differently, or add more weight, based on their experiences. And that's fine.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.  The music industry lends itself well to exactly those types of varying interpretations and discussions because of the "uniqueness" of some of it's entities and make up. :)

On that we have full agreement!    :beer:

In that spirit of agreement on disagreeing:

The pleadings from ?a few years ago? to which you refer, I have not seen.  To my knowledge, these pleadings date at least 13 years.  The pleadings were also noted to me in private message, but I still haven?t seen them.  The question is not whether the public pleadings exist, but whether anyone has tracked them down by docket number and is able to reproduce them.  Or is this just urban legend and everyone online operates from a shared knowledge that no one has actually ever read?  While not suggesting such is the case here, I have read the browbeating online from those who self-proclaim to be in the know even if it?s apparent to others with knowledge of biz orgs that those supposedly in the know are parroting ideas with no fundamental grasp of the concepts themselves.  That said, if the pleadings are produced, one with knowledge of that subject matter would be able to quickly reach conclusions based upon the claims and the responsive pleadings themselves regardless of the fact that subsequent settlement(s) are not available to the public.  And quite frankly, the settlement(s) themselves, beyond being confidential, are irrelevant to whether critical mass was reached on the proprietary biz org vehicle of their choosing as the vessel for copyrighted material.

My conclusions rely upon more than passing familiarity with biz orgs and how subsequent behavior regarding the very subject matter of prior litigation evinces resolution.  So, yes, it is what I?m supposing.  And happily so, as a fan first!  The confidence to shop clearinghouses (or take other publishing actions) on copyrighted back catalogues subject to litigation arises from likely full resolution of all claim(s).  The fact that it is occurring collectively and specifically for those three members, regardless from which clearinghouse each individual decides to collect his payments, is prima facie evidence.  Throw in the timing, and to me it?s a moot point.  There are signs even if said resolution is never made public.  This is one.  I?ve provided numerous practical biz org examples in previous posts.  Only in the world of Gn?R does such basic biz structuring and action take on mysterious and sacrilegious meaning to its ?investors??the fans.  The nature of the posts in this thread are akin to routine discussions involving everything from a mom and pop sole proprietorship down the street to a P.C. in the city square to a publicly traded corporation on Wall Street.

My point of emphasis is the litigation on licensing and publishing of copyrighted material and subsequent behavior regarding the very subject matter of that litigation, not the legal mechanics of the clearinghouses.  To me, the clearinghouses distract the discussion.  It?s like I?m asking Slash about guitar tuning and others answer by reference to the touring crew and their union representation agreement.  So, an absolute statement that their ?legal wranglings were resolved? without confirming final entry on the specific dockets is bold, but doesn?t square with practice.  And as late as 2012, there was contention over the release of a 3D concert, therefore there was no ?resolution? at that time, but by virtue that it was published points to isolated agreement.  It is this type of legal thawing that is essential to partner settlement(s), not the venom and ridiculousness that I?ve seen online about Slash?s wife, ?vaults? of mythical material, conspiracy theories about Duff and Axl in London, self-proclaimed experts who never produce sourcing on the status of non-partners in the ?reunion? (including comparing Adler to a dog that must ?behave?), assuming that Slash and Duff are ?employees? of Axl due to ownership of the band name with no knowledge of the partnership agreement moving forward, and all manner of conjecture, badmouthing, and insults to other fans who contribute to the online Gn?R community in their unique ways be it through photos, Periscoping, memorabilia, quotes?or real world knowledge and experience regarding matters that arise in the course of businesses.

As to, ?something might have brought new proceedings,? that is better phrased as a question than a statement as it points to the crux of the matter:  in what corner did this litigation end and through what biz org door did they reemerge?  A partnership which dissolved likely at-will during the course of litigation yet apparently with no draw during the winding up (which is akin to ?assets? being distributed), and that partnership merges into another entity, including one for the specific purpose of a joint venture with the same partners regardless of whether it is subsequently incorporated into a subsidiary corporation, is a likely path but is only one variation of several.  The actual mechanics of the dissolution are thus secondary to subsequent behavior of the partners as applied to the discussion in this thread.  Whether one chooses to agree that the ?asset? of this biz org (the band) is its copyrighted material is their concern.  Whether one agrees that recent behavior, including its timing, of the three partners evinces critical (likely full) resolution of all claims regarding proprietary rights and the chosen, merged or newly registered proprietary vehicle as it specifically relates to the exclusive right to license, publish and otherwise exploit its musical work is their choice.  I have my answer from this thread.  Reviewing those claims and responsive pleadings would, I expect, further it.  The identification of a new vessel (LLP, LLC, Corp.) of their choosing as their proprietary vehicle on Cali?s DoS website would end the discussion of what, and to what degree of finality, their claims were resolved.  That, in of itself, should be the only answer fans need to the future.  To paraphrase another poster in this thread, from a biz org perspective, the parties are having sex but there isn?t yet a due date.

One conclusion, though, should be undeniable:  it would be an ugly sing-off as I sing poorly!   :smoking:

Theres a thread around here with links to the dockets and filings from both the royalty suit, the suit that post scripted gh's release, and the 2009 suit. All were settled or dismssed according to their last activity on the dockets and that activity looks to be years old. Much older than 2015. I've read them, but, to be 100% honest, i'm too lazy to hunt them down at this point. I'm not trying to change minds....just explaining why i dont think this is remotely a "smoking gun". Its interesting, but not compelling, to me. But, if you are of a mind, you can search here, mygnr, and msl's site to find links. I think you can even search, by name, in la and orange county court docks on their site....you might have to register.

Do you have further links to any active suits/proceedings on the dockets? Because there would have to be (or have been very recently) active litigation to support your supposition. Otherwise, theres nothing to stop axl, anyway. And I would be surprised if there were active proceedings not reported...that would defy history.unless your point is axl would he afraid to make such a switch because it might incite litigation...but then see below.

I have done a cursory search...i cant find a single instance of legal proceedings concerning an artist switching clearing houses. Ever. The closest thing to it is the slash/duff suit resulting from ascaps screw up....and that was for non-payment. So....i dont see precedent that would be the basis for any such proceeding(or restriction). If you do, id happily look at it. Personally, i don't think something this minor would be grounds, because there would be no apparent damages.

Edit: the negotiations over appetite for democracy was in relation to mechanical licesure. Thats not legal wrangling. Thats seeking publication rights. There was no litigation that i ever saw. Just two parties with opposing opinions on compeneation...that was eventually (obviously) resolved WITHOUT the need for litigation.

Edit2: you keep insisting the clearing house switch is a distracton. I dsageee....because its the topic of discussion.  You cant detach it from your point wothout that point crumbling outside the topic.

If you want to say that the reunion is evidence they have mended fences.....you will likely find agreement. I think you will also find widespread agreement that sone sort of new agreement or partnership is in place, based on OTHER evidence.

But, while you seem to bemoan the added complexity you see being added by others, i would turn the mirror back around on you. This is, meaning the actual topic of this thread, a very simple thing. It doesnt necessarily have any other meaning than "axl saw a way to get a bigger check". Yes, it MIGHT be more than that...but this, in and of itself, doesnt look like proof, evidence, or even anything compelling, to me. Its certainly not evidence that heretofore unknown and undocumented legal proceedings have suddenly been resolved, imho. And thats not due to any lack of understanding or experience in the matters we are talking about. Quite the contrary.

Ok, I was curious. Heres the "big suit" in question.  First the filing, then the proceedings scheduled. Dismssed in 2006 with no prejudice. Looks like a settlement to me. I'm not going to compare e-peens to bolster why that might be compellng to others....thats useless considering this forum and platform....because it's certainly enough for ME. ;)

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612223614/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

http://www.lacourt.org/CaseSummary/UI/casesummary.aspx?

If that link to the la court doesnt work, you can find the case with this docket number: SC081543

lol, what the hell is going on in here

Exactly!

One thing is agreeable:  causes of action are available for public access in the County in which they are filed.  It is simply a matter of the resource of time to locate said pleadings.  But it's nonsense to engage in discourse about legal matters involving biz orgs if another party has little or no knowledge and experience with the subject matter, and thus doesn't address what it obvious--the elephant in the room--to those knowledgeable in the area.  The salient points of emphasis go unaddressed and become barely recognizable as they are diverted to tangential matters. 

Then again, I personally would not debate Slash on guitar tuning when I have rudimentary knowledge of the subject and little experience.  Others might, but I wouldn't.  If I did, Slash might humor me for a bit when I challenge him on how he knows what sounds better by ear than with my slick guitar tuning app (which I don?t even really understand how it works), but then he?ll likely tire when I continue to argue my position by questioning his knowledge of the matter or his word selection to describe proper tuning.  And if I focus on tangential matters, say how a touring crew is paid and details about the union representing said crew, Slash will probably dismiss me altogether, finish tuning his guitar, and then rock the stage!

Thanks again to Spirit for the find!  And to all those who looked at these walls of texts and thought, "What the hell is wrong with these people? It's only rock n' roll!"  But good things are in store for Gn'R fans, at long last.   :beer:

Wow, you need a lot of words to say that you think we are too stupid to understand your reasoning or arguments (even though there aren't any  :hihi:). We get it, you are a lawyer. Now get this: I work in music publishing and you sir, have shown not even the slightest knowledge or understanding of what's being discussed or offered by Pilferk or me. Or if you do, you have great skills of continuously avoiding what's been said by writing long texts about something that does not really have to do with anything that's been said, and then conclude it with 'if you did not get the significance of what I said you're not smart enough or experienced enough to converse with'. Look, it's quite clear to me that there's only one elephant in the room and that's that your attitude, behavior and passive aggressiveness are a tad bit rude and unnecessary. But hey, you're a lawyer and you know best. Even if you don't but that's just how you roll.

Also, I am out  : ok:

Yeah, i find if you have to rely on your resume, or "big timing" (aka...i know what i am talking about and you, and everone else don't...i am an EXPERT...I promise!), then its probably not because you've made a strong argument. And it's not because people don't understand the points you are making.

I try to refrain from citing my resume and work experience unless its absolutely essential to an anecdote. If i cant make my case based on logic and some evidence....its not worth making. The opinion should stand on its own....

honestly, im not smart enough. i dont know what the hell happened. i hope whoever was smart enough figured it out though.

Well, to be honest....I only now said I work(ed) in publishing since I felt that I had to say that in order to somewhat explain why I feel I know what I am talking about. But I am just here -on this forum- because I am a big GnR fan....that's all that matters to me anyway.

Yeah, i'm not really talking about you, here. ;). Thats the type of response that bent in the convo takes..and its not one you initially started...and then its all e peen comarisons from anonymous posters in a forum on the net. ;) tHATs pretty much pointless, and doesnt really further the discussion or make anyone's point.

I feel your ponits stood up just fine, on their own.

Thoroughly enjoyed this foray into the attempted conversions of molehills into mountains, the attempts to place a flag on and name said mountain, the explanation(s) on why the molehill is not a mountain at all, and the followup description of why the potential mountain climber probably should invest in a topographical map in lieu of DVDs of season 1-3 of Boston Legal and a few VHS tapes of Perry Mason.  :hihi:

Well done Pilferk and Freddie!

To steal a quote from another poster, ?what the hell is going on in here??

I walk out the front door a week or so ago with rum n? cola in hand, and a festering hobo sneaks in the back days later to lap at the filth and stench of the rotting, beaten carcass that I left behind and proclaims ?victory.?

My work was not done here, after all.

Many, many folks have more than a passing familiarity with biz orgs.  Investors, bondholders, and stakeholders come to mind.  As do partners, sole proprietors, executives and board members.  For good measure, while you?re standing there with your pants around your ankles, yet gain, why not continue to declare that you know my occupation while you trumpet yours.

Having been exposed as a fraud without knowledge of the most basic biz org principles, you resort to parroting labels tossed about in another profession.  Is your familiarity with those labels from personal experience?  Or maybe too much Dr. Phil?

It?s a simple matter:  your regurgitation of the mechanics of copyright clearinghouses is unrelated to my statement that resolution of the subject matter of a decade plus of litigation was had.  Settlement outside the judicial process of said litigation manifests itself in a variety of ways, depending upon the entity and its type of biz.  The discovery in this thread is one for this particular venture, regardless of which clearinghouse the individuals involved ultimately decide upon.  These three partners have modified an existing partnership agreement, created a new one, or dissolved the partnership and reregistered as a new entity.

Tell the two or three followers of this thread again how clearinghouse mechanics affects, in any way, my conclusions.

Contrarianism isn?t cool.  But knowledge is.  Gn?R is back as an unfettered, functioning biz org.

Bullshit isn't cool either....and you are quite full of it.  :hihi:

Pretty certain you have no idea what the current "biz org" of Guns is.

It is quite obvious you are full of bullshit and suffer from verbal diarrhea- so that is shit to the 2nd power.

You like to hear yourself yap- the word Self Important comes to mind- It is more than obvious you have zero real knowledge about the internal business workings of GNR.

Nice try though.  :hihi:

Since you're replying to me...where exactly did I do that?  Unless you're talking to Freddie.  But if so..you replied to the wrong post.

Because you'll note: At no point have I brought up what I do (or have done) for work, where I do (or have done) it, or (more specifically) who I've discussed this with to fill in any gaps that might make me at all unsure of my underlying points. And, really, I try to ONLY reference those things when relaying an anecdote, where that context matters.  Like: "When I worked in a venue 20 years ago, we did/set things like this. YMMV.".

And there's a very good reason for WHY that is...and it's not because I'm afraid my epeen won't measure up.  It's because it's all bunk on an anonymous message board where every 14 year old kid is a lawyer and every basement dwelling bottom feeder is a tycoon of industry.


I think you're perhaps confused by who has, and hasn't, been exposed, in this thread, to who, and by who.  But that's OK.  Really.

Again, I don't need to put forth my resume, or use archaic, overly complex, quasi-legalese to make that point, either.  If you feel that's the only way to make your points appear to have merit...great.  But I think you'll find the BS meters around here are relatively refined....and the arrogant "I know what I'm talking about and you don't" routine is not only old, it's not very compelling.  If that's the way you want to frame your points, that's totally up to you.  And it's up to the readers of this thread to accept or discount them.  How do you think that's going for you?


I agree. It's completely unrelated.  And thus, unrelated to the topic at hand or the mechanics of the change. And thus, inappropriate for you to base any conclusions on, whatsoever. Finally, some understanding.  Thanks for admitting we were right all along. :)

And...I linked and provided you a way to search for the ACTUAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS YOU KEEP MENTIONING.  And evidence that any legal issues were long since squashed and settled. Long before the reunion.  The settlement, at the time, I'm sure provided more than enough structure and guidance to operate Guns n Roses, going forward, in perpetuity (both as a band, and as a shuttered partnership still owning assets).  And there has been no reason to think Axl feared any legal repercussions from operating as he had been since the apparent settlement.  And CERTAINLY nothing to stop something as remotely banal as changing clearing houses.  And in all of this, THATS THE POINT.  It's a minor move, personal to the artist, that would have zero effect on the status of GnR as a business unit (past or present).  ZERO.   And there is ZERO legal precedent, that I can find, for such a move by Axl, relating to any band, existing or broken up, causing any legal wrangling, litigation, or even raising so much as a mouse fart from other members of that band (biz org or musical construct). ZERO.  I've invited you, twice now, to provide some sort of evidence, example, or precedent of why such a minor move WOULD indicate anything..and all I've gotten is continued assurances that it would. Because you say so. Because you know.

As for the last sentence...um...yeah...given they're currently touring together, no kidding? Did anyone ever object to that premise?  Do you honestly believe ANYONE thinks they'd be on the road without some sort of contract between them? What form, shape, or makeup that might be is both irresponsible to speculate on (especially if you know "current biz org stuff") and, in absolutely NO way, indicated by Axl's move.

The objection is, was, and will be: It has nothing to do with Axl changing clearing houses.  You keep talking about how the mechanics of that process are irrelevant.  I'd invite you to look at the topic of the thread, again. They are, perhaps, the only relevant thing being discussed in this thread.


They effect them because the action, and the mechanics behind them, were the foundation of your initial conclusions.  You used your conclusions to some how add merit to the move.  You added 2 + x and came up with 4.  Without actually KNOWING anything about music publishing, you assumed x was 2.  And when those who ARE familiar came in, and let you know that, in fact, x =0.....you decided to go on the full offensive, trying really really really hard to prop yourself up as an expert so as not to...IDK...lose board warrior points? not be taken seriously going forward? troll for all your worth? wahtever.....and, between you and me dude...you fucked it up hard.

If you want, I'm sure the few people actually reading this thread would chime in and let you know that.  sky dog looks to have already done that.  Now I have. I think we know where Freddie and Emily stand.

That pretty much leaves you alone on your own little island.  And hey...if you're happy there....please, by all means, stay.  You can use your illusion..let it take you where it may...


You're right, contrarianism isn't cool.  Thus, since you're not actually SUPPORTING your points with anything resembling...well...points...I'd suggest maybe you stop.  Or learn the definition of what a contrarian is.

Here, I'll help:

Now, given the setting....who do you think the contrarian is again?

But I do agree that knowledge is cool!  When you feel like actually imparting some, let us know. :)  Because all I see here is self-aggrandizing, grandstanding, and chest thumping, on your part. And an insistence, without ACTUALLY knowing anyone here, that you know more than them about...well...EVERYTHING, and so should be believed without evidence.  Certainly, you have not actually DEMONSTRATED any knowledge in this thread..just an insistence you have some.

And that's the difference, here...if you're wondering.

With that, I'll let the overly verbose (and I thought I RAMBLED on....DX, I never, ever want to hear another objection about my style of prose, EVER again) have the last say.  I'm sure we'll get another tirade insisting that he knows because he knows and we're all just plebes.

Spirit...if you find anything else interesting, regardless of the ebbs and flows here...please continue to share it?

can't wait for this response... :D

Honestly, I can.  I doubt it will vary much from the message of the past 3 or 4: I'm right. You're wrong. I'm smart. You're dumb. I know everything there is to know about business. You don't. I know all there is to know about the music industry, recording contracts, and publishing.  You don't (and what you do know isn't relevant, even though we're talking about actual musicians and artists).  I can't explain how I know it, and can't demonstrate that you don't....but its true. I promise. Because I am infailable.  All in as verbose and arrogant a way as can possibly be delivered, with as much quasi-legalese as they can muster (which any jury would, I promise you, laugh at, if spouted off by any true litigator, and any board room denizen would instantly discount if used to address them).

It's quite boring, actually.  But I'm sure we'll get it. And then we can all chuckle and move on.

Tell that to his face!

 :D



/jarmo

Yeah, I mean...pretty much.

I have, to this point, questioned the tactics, not the poster.  We're waning from that a bit as his more...um...hostile response has hit.

But, as I said, I'm done with him.  If he's trolling, he's doing a bad job of it. If he's in earnest, he's doing a bad job of that, too.

See, I have been chuckling since the beginning....the long and short of it is that he has NO clue as to what the current contracts and partnership agreements are between Axl-Slash-Duff...none.

and if he does know, he has provided no proof. :-\

Certainly, given they are on the road together, we can make some assumptions: There is a current contractual agreement between the 3 guys, of some sort...at least to cover the upcoming touring.  They might be more "harmonious" in terms of approving use of previously recorded material in other things (like TV, movies, concert DVDs, etc), given that, too, since the use of old material in many forms might be seen as promoting the upcoming tour, which puts more $$ in everyone's pockets.  If there is any thought of new music or publishing anything of any kind (like a concert DVD), there is likely some sort of new agreement about how that would go.  What form that all takes? Anybody's guess.  And, really, without actually seeing (or talking to someone who's seen) the contracts, not only is speculation idle on the topic, it's irresponsible (IMHO).  Because there are just SO many possibilities, and none is really more likely than the other (and this move to SESAC doesn't make any more likely than the last)

But, to base any conclusions on Axls move to SESAC seems like insisting that because he buys alpo instead of purina, his underwear is blue.  And that's because he'd only buy alpo if he was sure that NOBODY would catch him buying it, realize he has on blue underwear, and object.   

When it's more likely that alpo was just on sale this week, and sent him a shitload of coupons. It was the better deal!  Now, he MIGHT have blue underwear on, but....the alpo buy is not the key to that conclusion.

But, anyway.....onward and upward. :)

we need a new htgth shirt with that phrase on it! id buy it! good inside joke, like the spaghetti incident. or in more recent news, the bread incident.

When J.A. Urchin talks, people listen.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.  An entire page devoted to me?  If someone pares down this sea of words and posts the Reader?s Digest version of text addressing my conclusions (if such exists), I?ll reply in short order.  Scrolling through, it appears to be The Attack of the Contrarians, Vol. III so it?s doubtful anyone will provide me such.  If not, I?ll read through and reply when time permits.  I?m sure all will be waiting with bated breath.