Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TTY)

mcrickson

Reckless Endangerment
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

You don't as a rule get writer credit for the drum patterns on a song, or for the bass line.

The song is normally defined by the chord progression, vocal melody and lyrics. That's what you get writing credits for.

Otherwise every session musician that ever worked on any recording would be demanding a writing credit.
When did this come about? Seems rather unfair, dunnit? :blushing:
 

Biggoof009

Junior Member
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Bloody hell....... do you know anything about the legal system? You say ''they were to believe they'd received 10% of earnings.....''
I know you currently live in Vegas..... but have no idea how old you are. Can I ask how old you were in 1982 and where you were living then (if alive, of course). How do you know ''they were to believe that they'd receive 10%.'' I'd love to know because Morrissey & Marr and their legal team couldn't convince two British judges that that was the case. But obviously you have vital evidence that you should contact Morrissey's legal eagles with immediately.:rolleyes:

Jukebox Jury
Bloody hell, the question is: DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LAW? it's CLEARLY stated in the court case that both Joyce & Rourke were supposed to(or believed to) receive 10% of any royalties/monies from records, here you go:

It was Mr Joyce’s case that apart from the agreement that he should not be entitled to share in the profits resulting from songwriting and publishing there was no other agreement which disentitled him from sharing equally in the capital and profits of the business.

It was the defendants’ case that it was a term of the partnership that profits would be shared in the proportions Mr Morrissey 40%, Mr Marr 40%, Mr Joyce 10% and Mr Rourke 10%.They did not assert or seek to establish an express agreement to that effect but alleged that the same was to be inferred from conduct, relying on various matters including certain alleged discussions between the parties. They in the alternative alleged that the same conduct and/or discussions gave rise to an estoppel by convention by which it was alleged that Mr Joyce was estopped from asserting a partnership other than one which shared the profits 40%, 40%, 10% and 10%

My advice to you would be to maybe look @ the court case again? Seems as if you're clueless, as I initially thought.

Here's said court case for you to read:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html&query=joyce

Now, please...f*** off!
 
Last edited:

Jukebox Jury

Retired
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Bloody hell, the question is: DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LAW? it's CLEARLY stated in the court case that both Joyce & Rourke were supposed to(or believed to) receive 10% of any royalties/monies from records, here you go:

It was Mr Joyce’s case that apart from the agreement that he should not be entitled to share in the profits resulting from songwriting and publishing there was no other agreement which disentitled him from sharing equally in the capital and profits of the business.

It was the defendants’ case that it was a term of the partnership that profits would be shared in the proportions Mr Morrissey 40%, Mr Marr 40%, Mr Joyce 10% and Mr Rourke 10%.They did not assert or seek to establish an express agreement to that effect but alleged that the same was to be inferred from conduct, relying on various matters including certain alleged discussions between the parties. They in the alternative alleged that the same conduct and/or discussions gave rise to an estoppel by convention by which it was alleged that Mr Joyce was estopped from asserting a partnership other than one which shared the profits 40%, 40%, 10% and 10%

My advice to you would be to maybe look @ the court case again? Seems as if you're clueless, as I initially thought.

Here's said court case for you to read:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html&query=joyce

Now, please...f*** off!
Er, all you have done is provided ''quotes'' from Morrissey's defence stating that M&M said they would get 40% each and Mike & Andy 10% each.
Unfortunately M&M, nor his defence, could back this evidence up with hard proof..... or surely they would have won the case?
Mike & Andy didn't have to prove they knew they were only entitled to 10%.... M&M had to prove they were not entitled to 25%......... they tried and they failed. Morrissey twice.
All I can suggest is if you are so convinced that M&M were so wronged and you can prove it..... stop trying to convince me......contact Morrissey and his team of lawyers...... I'm sure they will be very grateful for your new found evidence and as a mark of thanks for overturning this great injustice, you'll get your name on the next album cover and maybe even replacing Julia as the new 'namechecked' person at gigs:rolleyes:
My advice to you, is look at the notes again..... and JUST BECAUSE Morrissey's lawyer states Morrissey's point of view in court, that does not mean that is EVIDENCE....... but just Morrissey's point of view, which was described by the judge as devious, truculent and unreliable...... or something like that

Jukebox 'not f***ing off' Jury
 
Last edited:

Stoned

Oh well...enough said
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

By the way, the reissues are already up for pre order on EIL.COM and Recordstore. Vinyls plus 3 CD Set. I still think it is far too early to reissue Moz materials, they want to cash in now that he is popular than ever, you may not know what it's around the corner in regards to Moz career.....
Cheers Moz
 

Biggoof009

Junior Member
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Er, all you have done is provided ''quotes'' from Morrissey's defence stating that M&M said they would get 40% each and Mike & Andy 10% each.
Unfortunately M&M, nor his defence, could back this evidence up with hard proof..... or surely they would have won the case?
Mike & Andy didn't have to prove they knew they were only entitled to 10%.... M&M had to prove they were not entitled to 25%......... they tried and they failed. Morrissey twice.
All I can suggest is if you are so convinced that M&M were so wronged and you can prove it..... stop trying to convince me......contact Morrissey and his team of lawyers...... I'm sure they will be very grateful for your new found evidence and as a mark of thanks for overturning this great injustice, you'll get your name on the next album cover and maybe even replacing Julia as the new 'namechecked' person at gigs:rolleyes:
My advice to you, is look at the notes again..... and JUST BECAUSE Morrissey's lawyer states Morrissey's point of view in court, that does not mean that is EVIDENCE....... but just Morrissey's point of view, which was described by the judge as devious, truculent and unreliable...... or something like that

Jukebox 'not f***ing off' Jury

Er, "all youve done" is drag this on and on and on. I couldn't really care less what you think of Morrissey/Marr, or anyone else. You have yet to show any proof or respond with any sort of concrete evidence stating your opinion as well on the case? Show us where they werent supposed to receive 10% of the royalties, and they were supposed to get an equal share?

I also couldnt care less about how Morrissey/Marr presented their case, or if they won or lost.

IMO, I do feel they did deserve an 80% share, and Joyce and Rourke should've received the aforementioned 10% each.

I'd be glad to listen, or read anything that you can post to back up your statements? you're basing it on your opinions, and as they say "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one". WE beg to differ on J&R's contrinutions to the Smiths, as Morrissey and Marr do as well?

I wouldn't buy anything w/Joyce on it post Smiths, why? I just dont think he was very good. Not to mention, his greed, has driven an even BIGGER rift between the band, and probably the sole reason for them to never reform. So, by all means, continue liking whoever you want. I'll remain loyal to Morrissey, the ONLY Smith that matters to me.
 
Last edited:

lainey

Active Member
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Er, "all youve done" is drag this on and on and on. I couldn't really care less what you think of Morrissey/Marr, or anyone else. You have yet to show any proof or respond with any sort of concrete evidence stating your opinion as well on the case? Show us where they werent supposed to receive 10% of the royalties, and they were supposed to get an equal share?

I also couldnt care less about how Morrissey/Marr presented their case, or if they won or lost.

IMO, I do feel they did deserve an 80% share, and Joyce and Rourke should've received the aforementioned 10% each.

I'd be glad to listen, or read anything that you can post to back up your statements? you're basing it on your opinions, and as they say "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one". WE beg to differ on J&R's contrinutions to the Smiths, as Morrissey and Marr do as well?

I wouldn't buy anything w/Joyce on it post Smiths, why? I just dont think he was very good. Not to mention, his greed, has driven an even BIGGER rift between the band, and probably the sole reason for them to never reform. So, by all means, continue liking whoever you want. I'll remain loyal to Morrissey, the ONLY Smith that matters to me.
well said, I too will remain loyal to the only one who matters.
 

dizzywhore_1804

A big-nose who knows...
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

well said, I too will remain loyal to the only one who matters.
JJ, I think we've just solved why there is a common sense traffic jam in this discussion.

I'll actually probably buy them all.
The vinyl for the gorgeous art - and the CDs so I can play them in my car.
 

billybu69

Junior Member
Subscriber
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

There not cheap are they recordstore are taking pre orders at £43.99 each boxset play want £49 anyone seen any cheaper/giveaways, a cd for first 200 like smiths box would be nice. I have no choice i'll have to buy them just where from.:rolleyes:
 

Jukebox Jury

Retired
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Er, "all youve done" is drag this on and on and on. I couldn't really care less what you think of Morrissey/Marr, or anyone else. You have yet to show any proof or respond with any sort of concrete evidence stating your opinion as well on the case? Show us where they werent supposed to receive 10% of the royalties, and they were supposed to get an equal share?

I also couldnt care less about how Morrissey/Marr presented their case, or if they won or lost.

I'd be glad to listen, or read anything that you can post to back up your statements? you're basing it on your opinions, and as they say "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one". WE beg to differ on J&R's contrinutions to the Smiths, as Morrissey and Marr do as well?

QUOTE]

That's correct...... I've dragged this on and on talking to myself obviously:rolleyes:
I cannot prove that M&A were entitled to anything because..... (wait for it.....) there was NO contract of anything saying any of them was entitled to any particular percentage....... otherwise one of the four (or more of them) Would have said, in court.... ''HEY PRESTO!!!! Here is a contract.'' but none of them did as such evidence didn't exist.

Jukebox Jury
 

Kewpie

Member
Moderator
Subscriber
hmmmm

It's totally irrelevant, but needs to be addressed that some people's inability of using quote function / c & p.

Make sure to use 'Preview post' and check the brakets are in the right places before click 'submit reply'.
 

bored

Lust a prima vista
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

well said, I too will remain loyal to the only one who matters.
bored said:
lainey.. when I asked you to give me 3 criticisms of Morrissey you said you could not because you don't know him. You called Mike Joyce greedy. That sounds like a criticism to me. Do you know Mike Joyce?

You keep dodging the questions I ask about opinions and keep asking me to give facts about things that I've stated as opinions such as me thinking Morrissey might be a greedy bastard.

So which is it? Do you know Mike Joyce and therefore were able to make an opinion based on his greed towards you or are you just being a hypocrite and a someone who blindly loves Morrissey so much that he can do no wrong and you couldn't possibly form a negative opinion about him?
Still avoiding this question and throwing around your blind love.
 

lainey

Active Member
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Still avoiding this question and throwing around your blind love.
you are so in love with JJ, you've even copied the fact he didn't use the quotes correctly so he wouldn't feel bad, what with Kewpie having to show him how.
talk about blind love:love:
 

lainey

Active Member
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Er, "all youve done" is drag this on and on and on. I couldn't really care less what you think of Morrissey/Marr, or anyone else. You have yet to show any proof or respond with any sort of concrete evidence stating your opinion as well on the case? Show us where they werent supposed to receive 10% of the royalties, and they were supposed to get an equal share?

I also couldnt care less about how Morrissey/Marr presented their case, or if they won or lost.

IMO, I do feel they did deserve an 80% share, and Joyce and Rourke should've received the aforementioned 10% each.

I'd be glad to listen, or read anything that you can post to back up your statements? you're basing it on your opinions, and as they say "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one". WE beg to differ on J&R's contrinutions to the Smiths, as Morrissey and Marr do as well?

I wouldn't buy anything w/Joyce on it post Smiths, why? I just dont think he was very good. Not to mention, his greed, has driven an even BIGGER rift between the band, and probably the sole reason for them to never reform. So, by all means, continue liking whoever you want. I'll remain loyal to Morrissey, the ONLY Smith that matters to me.
isn't it strange Biggoof009 that JJ's bitches don't comment on anything you have said? I just agreed with you and they're provoked and defensive.
 

bored

Lust a prima vista
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

you are so in love with JJ, you've even copied the fact he didn't use the quotes correctly so he wouldn't feel bad, what with Kewpie having to show him how.
talk about blind love:love:
Avoiding the question again.

You can make assumptions about what I think about JJ but that would be hijacking this subject. I'll start another thread. Here it is: http://forums.morrissey-solo.com/showthread.php?p=1214475#post1214475

Why won't you give me three criticisms of Morrissey since you are capable of criticizing Joyce?

You already admitted that your loyalty is to who is important, not to who is right.
 

mcrickson

Reckless Endangerment
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

It's totally irrelevant, but needs to be addressed that some people's inability of using quote function / c & p.

Make sure to use 'Preview post' and check the brakets are in the right places before click 'submit reply'.
Don't blow your own horn :rolleyes:
 

Biggoof009

Junior Member
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

That's correct...... I've dragged this on and on talking to myself obviously:rolleyes:
I cannot prove that M&A were entitled to anything because..... (wait for it.....) there was NO contract of anything saying any of them was entitled to any particular percentage....... otherwise one of the four (or more of them) Would have said, in court.... ''HEY PRESTO!!!! Here is a contract.'' but none of them did as such evidence didn't exist.


Jukebox Jury
How do you know this? were you in the room when all 4 signed the contracts, or didn't? Where is your proof they didnt have some sort of agreement w/M&M on what their payouts would be? I still haven't seen anything, other than your "opinion" posted in response.

I find it hard to believe that a judge, any judge, would award someone a monetary amount based on one's word? You claim "there was no contract, as one didnt exist". Then, why would a judge give Joyce any money, based on what he said, unless there was some sort of proof? Either, you're fulla shit, or the judge is a complete idiot,(I go with both) as I find it extremely difficult to believe that any sane judge that practices actual law, would award someone something, based on someone's word? Thats apparently what you're claiming. Joyce claims M&M agreed to pay them x amount of dollars correct? thats his word, correct? w/o proof, how could he be able to collect a cent from either Morrissey or Marr w/o some sort of proof(contract/note/etc) to back him up? he couldn't.

If I told you that so and so killed someone, does that man he did it? I dont have any proof, but I say he did it. Nice defense.(rollseyes)

Nice!!! Next time I need to sue, I'll just say"so and so said this", not bring any proof, and expect a payday? great.
 
Last edited:

Biggoof009

Junior Member
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

isn't it strange Biggoof009 that JJ's bitches don't comment on anything you have said? I just agreed with you and they're provoked and defensive.
I noticed that too.:thumb:
 

Irregular Regular

Forget my fate.
Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

How do you know this? were you in the room when all 4 signed the contracts, or didn't? Where is your proof they didnt have some sort of agreement w/M&M on what their payouts would be? I still haven't seen anything, other than your "opinion" posted in response.

I find it hard to believe that a judge, any judge, would award someone a monetary amount based on one's word? You claim "there was no contract, as one didnt exist". Then, why would a judge give Joyce any money, based on what he said, unless there was some sort of proof? Either, you're fulla shit, or the judge is a complete idiot,(I go with both) as I find it extremely difficult to believe that any sane judge that practices actual law, would award someone something, based on someone's word? Thats apparently what you're claiming. Joyce claims M&M agreed to pay them x amount of dollars correct? thats his word, correct? w/o proof, how could he be able to collect a cent from either Morrissey or Marr w/o some sort of proof(contract/note/etc) to back him up? he couldn't.

If I told you that so and so killed someone, does that man he did it? I dont have any proof, but I say he did it. Nice defense.(rollseyes)

Nice!!! Next time I need to sue, I'll just say"so and so said this", not bring any proof, and expect a payday? great.
Partnership legislation in the UK states that all partners are assumed to have an equal share of profits (or liabilities) unless there is a contract or similar evidence to the contrary.
Morrissey & Marr could not produce a contract or alternative legal evidence to prove The Smiths partnership was not equal, therefore the judge ruled in Joyce's favour.
 

Flax

Active Member
Re: hmmmm

It's totally irrelevant, but needs to be addressed that some people's inability of using quote function / c & p.

Make sure to use 'Preview post' and check the brakets are in the right places before click 'submit reply'./QUOTE]

What do you mean?
 
Tags
devious truculent unreliable
Top Bottom