Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
it's always the expensive lawyers that win isn't it?
If you're wrong then no lawyer, however expensive, can make you right. Generally if David is quite clearly in the right the lawyers for Goliath will settle early to avoid bad publicity and a protracted legal battle, like when Devo sued McDonalds.
but I'd have to bill you.
something closer to home
but it's about the principle really
As someone said above, where they are so obviously liable that they have no real chance of winning they will settle out of court. So if it goes to court it indicates that the "rightness" is not a foregone conclusion the better lawyers win (y)
everyone's strivin to attain te law, pretty kafkan.
I'll try though
let's say someone you know wrote a song but they thought their lyrics were terrible so they asked you to help out
you, being the kind soul that you are, said OK and actually ended up rewriting the lyrics to a whole album upon which it was agreed that you would, for your efforts be 25% of the credited writing and royalties
let's say then that a year or so passes and your friend rings up and says 'hey, I found this really great producer who wants to record my tracks. He wants a % though'
to which you reply 'Well you'll have to give him some of your % then cos, as I don't get a say in it, none of my % goes AWOL'
- he begrudgingly agrees.
4 years go by
Then you hear one of the songs on the radio. You laugh because you really thought his hairbrained ambitions would land nowhere. You think nothing more of it.
4 months pass
You're in a car, you hear the song again. 'Odd' you think. You borrow your girlfriends iPhone and google the song. You are AMAZED to see that the song has been recorded by a world famous artist and has been 16 weeks in the charts - the album has been at No.1. You google the songwriting credits - it's credited to the individual members of the band and the aforementioned 'great producer'.
Your name is not there.
The name of the person you know who wrote the song is not there.
The 'great producer' is very famous and sits on the Idol jury by the way (among other things) and the song is released on (and thus owned by) a major label.
that's as much of the situation as I can explain without prejudicing any possible legal claims
the producer has a massive public image to protect, it's just that the guy who wrote the song in the first place is such a chump that I think it will end up being him who gets shafted :(
No clues then, sorry, not done that one yet.
I'd keep that a secret.
dangerous driving or driving under the influence (of own rage induced by perceived breach of intellectual property rights and related offences) in which case the maxim "crime must not pay" will be used by the Expen$ive Lawyer$ and their argument will be that you would not have seeked any legal advice had you not felt any $en$e of (angry) injustice.
Aw man I'm going to be minted. Kerching.
in conjunction with the radio station's records and any speed cameras. I would get rid of any such tracking devices before your lawyers contact theirs. You can't be charged with perverting the course of justice if you haven't been arrested for the driving offence yet but are only doing so with a view to pending civil proceedings. Good luck x
who said anything about driving?
Apart from that you just have to prove they had been able to see what you had written (hense publishers not accepting unsolicited demos)
Got proof of writing
You still have the exact same problem - still having to establish who breached what duty, if any, and by how much and if they should be jointly/severably liable. This would by extension mean any extent of "rightness" of each party was still not a foregone conclusion; the proceedings would not only elucidate it but *determine* it. So saying one party is definitively "right" or "wrong" is then just a truism predicated on an outcome we don't know yet or else wrongly an "a priori"-ising of something that is subject to the legal arguments yet to manifest within "prima facie" grounds (the experience of the court) (see cat-g's encylolpedia of legal philolsophy)
Dunno. Good luck, though.