Don't bid kids!

T

thedrums

Guest
Two scenarios:

1. Mike Joyce - who won a million in court - sells his stuff on eBay for charity.

2. Mike Joyce - who won a million in court - sells his stuff on eBay for his own greedy gain.

Now, if 1 was the case, good luck to him.
But the truth is scenario 2. What a money-grabbing leech.

f*** him.

DO NOT BID!
 
Here are two other scenarios you may like to ponder over. Two sides to each story my friend.

Two scenarios:

1. Mike Joyce - who won a million in court - spends his money wisely and lives happily ever after

2. Mike Joyce - who won a million in court - but the person he won it from refuses to pay a penny and flees the country claiming the law doesnt apply to him.

The truth is scenario 2. What a bastard of a man who refuses to pay up.

f*** him.

DO NOT BUY HIS NEW ALBUM UNTIL HE HAS PAID HIS DUES!

(Yes I know my email proxy is the same as the original post but trust me, we are two different individuals. And no, I'm not Mike Joyce either!)
 
Best reason not to buy them is you can get the same records for a fiver each in the shops.
 
Most people who sell on ebay do it to make money

> Two scenarios:

> 1. Mike Joyce - who won a million in court - sells his stuff on eBay for
> charity.

> 2. Mike Joyce - who won a million in court - sells his stuff on eBay for
> his own greedy gain.

> Now, if 1 was the case, good luck to him.
> But the truth is scenario 2. What a money-grabbing leech.

> f*** him.

> DO NOT BID!

If the items/tapes belong to him and he wants to sell, why the disgust?

I've yet to see anything being sold on ebay with the heading "all proceeds to go to charity". From what I heard, he has multiple copies of each anyway, so I'm sure he'll save one for himself.

Obviously, his ulterior motive is to cash in while he can but, if he hadn't been on the radio, you would be non the wiser.

The re-emergence of Morrissey has obviously pumped the price up of all things "Smiths" related, so he's decided to use the opportunity to sell.

It may be unethical, but hardly criminal.
 
f*** YOU. JOYCE IS A THIEVING C**T. HE KNEW THE DEAL WHEN HE JOINED THE SMITHS, THEN WENT BACK ON IT
 
Re: ignorance of a deal doesn't deserve an extra paycheck.

MJ has wasted the last 20 years living off the reputation of the Smiths instead of using his talent to earn a living. Now he has corrupted memoirs of the Smiths by signing his name so as to defile them. By the way shouldn't he share any profits with the other two Smiths - Johnny and Andy?

The Smiths were nothing without Morrissey's lyrics and vocals. He is still the star of the Smiths.
 
Re: ignorance of a deal doesn't deserve an extra paycheck.

> MJ has wasted the last 20 years living off the reputation of the Smiths
> instead of using his talent to earn a living. Now he has corrupted memoirs
> of the Smiths by signing his name so as to defile them. By the way
> shouldn't he share any profits with the other two Smiths - Johnny and
> Andy?

> The Smiths were nothing without Morrissey's lyrics and vocals. He is still
> the star of the Smiths.

No one would ever dispute that Morrissey was the real star and Marr second.
However, why should he share any profits made with the other two, when they probably own the same, if not more than him?
Your argument lies in the fact that he chooses to sell his inheritance, well so be it. So what? He has no need to share his inheritance with the other two siblings who probably have a larger slice of the cake than himself.

The argument is just ridiculous.
 
Re: ignorance of a deal doesn't deserve an extra paycheck.

> No one would ever dispute that Morrissey was the real star and Marr
> second.
> However, why should he share any profits made with the other two, when
> they probably own the same, if not more than him?
> Your argument lies in the fact that he chooses to sell his inheritance,
> well so be it. So what? He has no need to share his inheritance with the
> other two siblings who probably have a larger slice of the cake than
> himself.

> The argument is just ridiculous.
Read the High Court judgment, it was split equally between 3.
It's not Mike Joyce "inheritance" to share. It belongs to the person who created it and if he wanted it released for profit he would have done so already.
 
Re: ignorance of a deal doesn't deserve an extra paycheck.

> Read the High Court judgment, it was split equally between 3.
> It's not Mike Joyce "inheritance" to share. It belongs to the
> person who created it and if he wanted it released for profit he would
> have done so already.

OK "inheritance" was a loose term for something that obviously belongs to him as it's in his possession. Anyway, you know what I meant, you are splitting hairs here.

If Boz Boorer can flog his guitar on ebay why shouldn't Mr Joyce sell his wares. I just do not understand the hulaballo on here, I'm not siding with him in the court case or anything else, I'm just seeing things from today.

He has tapes/singles/memorabilia that obviously belong to him and he wants to sell them for as much as he can make.

Surely, if there were a legal argument against him doing so, it would have been made well before now. I would also think his "advisers" would have discouraged him from advertising on the radio.

"A mountain out of a molehill" is how it all appears.
 
Re: Most people who sell on ebay do it to make money

> If the items/tapes belong to him and he wants to sell, why the disgust?

> I've yet to see anything being sold on ebay with the heading "all
> proceeds to go to charity". From what I heard, he has multiple copies
> of each anyway, so I'm sure he'll save one for himself.

> Obviously, his ulterior motive is to cash in while he can but, if he
> hadn't been on the radio, you would be non the wiser.

> The re-emergence of Morrissey has obviously pumped the price up of all
> things "Smiths" related, so he's decided to use the opportunity
> to sell.

> It may be unethical, but hardly criminal.
wait a minute, weren't you the one whose picture was posted here and you were threatening legal action. That could be unethical but hardly criminal.
So imagine your face, as if it were Johnny Marr's music, being sold on ebay for money.
 
Re: Most people who sell on ebay do it to make money

Why don't you change the record.

What a boring sad piece of shite you are.

It has sod all to do with who wrote the music, it has to do with who possesses the objects.

There is a vast difference in a civilian having their liberties abused and a "musician" having their "music" sold, thick arse.

Still waiting to see your beautiful self by the way.

If you have to recourse to the same old argument, I wont waste my fingers typing again...to you.
 
Re: ignorance of a deal doesn't deserve an extra paycheck.

> OK "inheritance" was a loose term for something that obviously
> belongs to him as it's in his possession. Anyway, you know what I meant,
> you are splitting hairs here.

> If Boz Boorer can flog his guitar on ebay why shouldn't Mr Joyce sell his
> wares. I just do not understand the hulaballo on here, I'm not siding with
> him in the court case or anything else, I'm just seeing things from today.

> He has tapes/singles/memorabilia that obviously belong to him and he wants
> to sell them for as much as he can make.

> Surely, if there were a legal argument against him doing so, it would have
> been made well before now. I would also think his "advisers"
> would have discouraged him from advertising on the radio.

> "A mountain out of a molehill" is how it all appears.
A guitar is not the same as someone's work. If he splits the proceeds with Johnny Marr and Andy Rourke that's fine. I didn't read anything like that though.
If history repeats itself like it did on his site, maybe someone will threaten legal action and then he will complain that he wanted to make it public but the big bad Morrissey and Marr didn't want it.
 
Re: Most people who sell on ebay do it to make money

> Why don't you change the record.

> What a boring sad piece of shite you are.

> It has sod all to do with who wrote the music, it has to do with who
> possesses the objects.

> There is a vast difference in a civilian having their liberties abused and
> a "musician" having their "music" sold, thick arse.

> Still waiting to see your beautiful self by the way.

> If you have to recourse to the same old argument, I wont waste my fingers
> typing again...to you.

a person's photo is as personal as someone's music. You use someone's picture, you use someone's music, same liberties are abused. Only Mike Joyce is doing it for money.
you know what you don't even have to respond to me,just read the copyright laws and you understand the point I'm trying to make.
 
Re: Most people who sell on ebay do it to make money

> a person's photo is as personal as someone's music. You use someone's
> picture, you use someone's music, same liberties are abused. Only Mike
> Joyce is doing it for money.
> you know what you don't even have to respond to me,just read the copyright
> laws and you understand the point I'm trying to make.

I know the point you are trying to make.
I just find it so trite.
If I cared to show pictures of myself pissed off my head to everyone I worked with, then I would.
If I cared to have a picture taken in such an unholy state, then I would.
If I then recorded them for public release and found they were, it wouldn't surprise me much.

The sad fact is, none of the above applied and believe me, mine was far more damaging than an unreleased song by a band of folk who make music for a living will ever be.

Anyway, if you don't understand the difference, there is no point in me trying to explain.

I just prefer to forge it. If that's ok with you.
 
Oh yes, I work for a big organisation, not a one man band and well never mind eh. Goodnight.
 
Back
Top Bottom