The Joyce - Morrissey court case

[eh?]

> Without Johnny Marr, what do you get?? Stuff like Kill Uncle, Southpaw,
> Maladjusted, Quarry. Yeah, Morrissey's lyrics in the Smiths were great,
> but JOHNNY was the music, and without music, you don't have a band: you
> have Morrissey at open mic night reading his poetry to coffee-drinking
> college kids. Johnny Marr does not deserve a less share than Morrissey.

Well, I think he deserves slightly less, simply for the fact that the singer (front man) is the mainstay of any band. Lennon and McCartney were on equal parring as both wrote and sung. Anyway that's my opinion, he's still getting twice as much a the other two. To draw an analogy with football once more, people pay to see the guy who puts the ball in the back of the net, not the goalie.

 

[The Devil's Reject]

> Can someone fill me in on it.
> I understand it was about royalties; that Joyce felt he wasn't getting his
> fair share.

> But is it typical for royalties to be split equally among all members? I
> can see that if all contributed equally but that isn't the case.

> Marr did the music, Morrissey the lyrics.

> Joyce and Rourke didn't do songwriting. They only recorded as far as I
> know.

That's why Joyce said from the start that Morrissey and Marr were the songwriters and he had no right to the songwriting royalties. Joyce's suit only concerned the recordings and performances.

> Why would they be deserving of an equal take when they didn't do equal
> work.

Because the law presumes equality in such a parternship (Smithdom Ltd.*, I believe it was called). Unless the parties agree otherwise. This is proper because there is no clear way for a court to measure how valuable each partner was. Think about something like an artistic music act. How can a court look at that and say, this person is worth this much, that person is worth that much? No one on the outside can know with any accuracy.

*The first strategy Morrissey's lawyers used was to try and deny that Joyce was a partner in Smithdom Ltd. at all. Along the way they eventually conceded otherwise and attempted their next strategy, which was to say that Joyce was not an important member and he knew he was only getting 10%. The evidence and the law were not on their side.

 

[SOLOTILLIDIE]

yes

> That's why Joyce said from the start that Morrissey and Marr were the
> songwriters and he had no right to the songwriting royalties. Joyce's suit
> only concerned the recordings and performances.

> Because the law presumes equality in such a parternship (Smithdom Ltd.*, I
> believe it was called). Unless the parties agree otherwise. This is proper
> because there is no clear way for a court to measure how valuable each
> partner was. Think about something like an artistic music act. How can a
> court look at that and say, this person is worth this much, that person is
> worth that much? No one on the outside can know with any accuracy.

> *The first strategy Morrissey's lawyers used was to try and deny that
> Joyce was a partner in Smithdom Ltd. at all. Along the way they eventually
> conceded otherwise and attempted their next strategy, which was to say
> that Joyce was not an important member and he knew he was only getting
> 10%. The evidence and the law were not on their side.

Yes, that is the law. And as applied to this case, it is clearly unfair.

Just because something is the law, doesn't necessarily make it right.

Here the law clearly led to the wrong result.