Any significance? Axl switches from ASCAP to SESAC

[FreddieJames]

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.

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 :-)

4.  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.

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/


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.
 

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!   

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 

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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.

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:

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/

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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.

[FreddieJames]

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.

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 

[pilferk]

This is what I was trying to convey. You can better word it 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.

[JustanUrchin]

This is what I was trying to convey. You can better word it 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!   

[JustanUrchin]

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.

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.

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!   

[pilferk]

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.

[pilferk]

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

[ice cream sand pig]

lol, what the hell is going on in here

[JustanUrchin]

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.   

[FreddieJames]

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.   

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  ). 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 

[pilferk]

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.   

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  ). 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 you 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 

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....

[ice cream sand pig]

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.   

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  ). 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 you 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 

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

[FreddieJames]

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.   

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  ). 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 you 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 

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....

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.

[pilferk]

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.   

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  ). 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 you 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 

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....

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.

[EmilyGNR]

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. 

Well done Pilferk and Freddie!

[JustanUrchin]

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. 

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.?

[JustanUrchin]

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.   

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  ). 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 you 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 

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....

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.