Mozza vs Joyce

anotherordinaryboy

Cheeky Scamp
Now before anybody criticises me for bringing up a subject which I'm guessing as been talked about many many times before, I'm asking this question to fellow fans out of curiosity and ignorance.

I understand that Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke sued Morrissey and Marr in 1989 for 25% of The Smiths recording royalties. I understand that they did they because they believd they were entitled to this, and not to the 10% that they received.

I'm aware that the case went to court in 1996. I know that Rourke settled out of court, and that Joyce has since pursued Morrissey and Marr for the money he is owed.

I've known this for ages, and not really been fussed. The music is what is important to me. But I came across The smiths wikipedia page, which directed me to this True To You statement from Morrissey from 2005:

http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_051130_01

If anyone could explain this whole thing to me, i'd appreciate it. By 'recording royalties' - what exactly does this mean? 25% of the rights to all sales of Smiths music? Is he ACTUALLY entitled to this, seeing as he wasn't one of the MAIN creative forces behind The Smiths. Is Morrissey being screwed like he says.

I'm not interested in opinions or idiots slagging off Morrissey or Joyce, but if anyone has actual knowledge of the situation, or has a legal understanding of what went on, I'd love to know a bit more.

Thanks in advance,

anotherordinaryboy
 
The distinction is between publishing royalties and performance royalties.

The main argument was about performance royalties (though it seems like in the early days Joyce tried to claim some publishing royalties too).

Marr and Morrissey argued that the agreement was always that Joyce and Rourke would only get 10% because they didn't contribute to anything other than playing whereas M&M had to deal with record companies, finance, management, press, and all the other things that go on in the background when you run a band.

Joyce and Rourke claimed that they never knew about this arrangement. They always assumed they were getting 25%.

As, stupidly, nothing was ever written down, the case hung on whether Joyce knew he was getting 10% or thought he was getting 25%. It could have been proved that he always knew the figure was 10% he would have lost his case because by staying in the band he would have accepted that contract.

Morrissey and Marr claim to this day he always knew and that he lied about it in court. The judge believed Joyce when he said he didn't know what he was getting paid.
 
cmon
we all know mJoyce is a liar, cheat and thief
also, the court was biased against Morrissey
the idea that he could he recieve justice from such a group of vile evil judging scum is preposterous
looking back at it all now!
 
cmon
we all know mJoyce is a liar, cheat and thief
also, the court was biased against Morrissey
the idea that he could he recieve justice from such a group of vile evil judging scum is preposterous
looking back at it all now!

Morrissey had a trial in the high court. He has sufficient resources to employ counsel. So, your assumptions are wide of the mark. Morrissey lost on points of law, nothing to do with the judge or legal system.
 
cmon
we all know mJoyce is a liar, cheat and thief
also, the court was biased against Morrissey
the idea that he could he recieve justice from such a group of vile evil judging scum is preposterous
looking back at it all now!

In English Law usually the judges give favarouble verdict to people less well-off.
Morrissey has better opprotunities to earn money in future, but Joyce's chance is slimer.
 
Back
Top Bottom