Clams wrote:

John A Arkansawyer wrote:
I don't love him, so maybe I don't know him that well, but he seems southwestern to me. He makes me think of east Texas and south Oklahoma, scrub and brush. The Jayhawks make me think of wide open empty spaces, winter wheat, and cold.

He pretty much covers (with distinction) that middle swath of the country from Texas up to Montana.

Absolutely. Complicated Game went deep on the northern plains with South Dakota and Copper Canteen. Out Here In The Middle covers everything from Canada to Mexico between the River and the Rockies.

McMurtry sets a lot of his songs in the NE as well. I'd say he's got half of America covered.

5) What is the legal explanation for "SEE YOU IN COURT"?

Swamp wrote:5) What is the legal explanation for "SEE YOU IN COURT"?

Can you rephrase, your honor? I understand each of the words but I don't understand the question.

Smile

Now I demand satisfaction too!

Swamp wrote:Now I demand satisfaction too!

Satisfaction is totally illegal. Not even Mick Jagger could get any.

Have I been misinformed about "abatement ab initio"?

Swamp wrote:Have I been misinformed about "abatement ab initio"?

Who among us has not?

Swamp wrote:Have I been misinformed about "abatement ab initio"?

Nope. As usual you're way ahead of me. I was not aware the doctrine applied.

But Hernandez's conviction was not overturned, it is voided. Subtle but real distinction. For those of you reaching for the advil, Massachusetts follows the "abatement ab initio" rule, which means that if a convicted felon dies before exhausting all appeals, his conviction is voided "ab initio," from the beginning, as if it never happened. Doesn't mean an appeals court found him not guilty or even that the guilty verdict was in doubt because of material mistakes or misconduct at trial. Frankly I'm not sure what the purpose of the rule is. And having just looked at the recent reports, I very seriously doubt that voiding the judgment will entitle Hernandez's heirs to any money the Patriots refused to pay - their actions weren't based on the conviction but on his arrest, which occurred way before the conviction and would not have been reversed had he been found not guilty. No doubt a lawyer will convince the family otherwise and a lawsuit will follow, but filing doesn't mean winning.

FWIW, I think MAB was offerning prayers to counsel handling the appeal because they now have nothing to appeal so will not generate any more fees from Mr. Hernandez.

When abatement ab initio began appearing in articles about Hernandez last week I immediately thought of

Question 3 made me laugh way more than it probably should have.

beantownbubba wrote:Frankly I'm not sure what the purpose of the rule is.

I bet that's a question best answered by a legal historian. But I see kind of how it's fairish. You can't punish a man after he's dead, so giving him the benefit of the doubt is more appropriate than when he's alive. It's not like he's getting away with anything once he's dead. If it means his family comes out ahead of people he'd damaged? Well, his family isn't guilty. Just him.

beantownbubba wrote:

Swamp wrote:Have I been misinformed about "abatement ab initio"?

Nope. As usual you're way ahead of me. I was not aware the doctrine applied.

But Hernandez's conviction was not overturned, it is voided. Subtle but real distinction. For those of you reaching for the advil, Massachusetts follows the "abatement ab initio" rule, which means that if a convicted felon dies before exhausting all appeals, his conviction is voided "ab initio," from the beginning, as if it never happened. Doesn't mean an appeals court found him not guilty or even that the guilty verdict was in doubt because of material mistakes or misconduct at trial. Frankly I'm not sure what the purpose of the rule is. And having just looked at the recent reports, I very seriously doubt that voiding the judgment will entitle Hernandez's heirs to any money the Patriots refused to pay - their actions weren't based on the conviction but on his arrest, which occurred way before the conviction and would not have been reversed had he been found not guilty. No doubt a lawyer will convince the family otherwise and a lawsuit will follow, but filing doesn't mean winning.

FWIW, I think MAB was offerning prayers to counsel handling the appeal because they now have nothing to appeal so will not generate any more fees from Mr. Hernandez.

I picture his lawyers madly entering fraudulent billing entries to deplete any remaining retainer. That was a joke, Mr. Hernandez's attorneys--besides you are public figures so you would have to prove actual malice in the defamation lawsuit. Please direct all future correspondence to my attorney, Mr. Bean T. Bubba, Esq. of the firm Dewey, Cheetum & Howe LLC.

Cole Younger wrote:Question 3 made me laugh way more than it probably should have.

Thank you.(drops mic and walks away for ever)

Bubba, here's a hypothetical:

I am a fan of a band and have become friends with the singer/songwriter. She dies, sadly, but before she died, she gave me a sheet of paper with handwritten lyrics to a song she was working on. Just as a "thank you, friend" gesture. Years later, the band becomes more popular than when they were around - kinda like the Ramones. I send the lyrics to someone, they write music to it, and it becomes a hit.

Who owns the song, royalties, etc. to the new hit song? She had a publishing deal when she was alive - her various bands put out over 15 albums - but the lyrics to the song (poem?) she gave me were never published as far as I can tell. At least no published songs contained the lyrics.

Thanks!

ramonz wrote:Bubba, here's a hypothetical:

I am a fan of a band and have become friends with the singer/songwriter. She dies, sadly, but before she died, she gave me a sheet of paper with handwritten lyrics to a song she was working on. Just as a "thank you, friend" gesture. Years later, the band becomes more popular than when they were around - kinda like the Ramones. I send the lyrics to someone, they write music to it, and it becomes a hit.

Who owns the song, royalties, etc. to the new hit song? She had a publishing deal when she was alive - her various bands put out over 15 albums - but the lyrics to the song (poem?) she gave me were never published as far as I can tell. At least no published songs contained the lyrics.

Thanks!

It depends a little on how truthful you are.

John A Arkansawyer wrote:

ramonz wrote:Bubba, here's a hypothetical:

I am a fan of a band and have become friends with the singer/songwriter. She dies, sadly, but before she died, she gave me a sheet of paper with handwritten lyrics to a song she was working on. Just as a "thank you, friend" gesture. Years later, the band becomes more popular than when they were around - kinda like the Ramones. I send the lyrics to someone, they write music to it, and it becomes a hit.

Who owns the song, royalties, etc. to the new hit song? She had a publishing deal when she was alive - her various bands put out over 15 albums - but the lyrics to the song (poem?) she gave me were never published as far as I can tell. At least no published songs contained the lyrics.

Thanks!

It depends a little on how truthful you are.

Interesting. Well, it likely becomes a hit only because of the novelty factor of a new Patsy Cline (for example only) song. So I guess you're saying if it's finally published, Patsy Cline's estate (or the owner of the rights) and the music writer share in the royalties?

ramonz wrote:

John A Arkansawyer wrote:

ramonz wrote:Bubba, here's a hypothetical:

I am a fan of a band and have become friends with the singer/songwriter. She dies, sadly, but before she died, she gave me a sheet of paper with handwritten lyrics to a song she was working on. Just as a "thank you, friend" gesture. Years later, the band becomes more popular than when they were around - kinda like the Ramones. I send the lyrics to someone, they write music to it, and it becomes a hit.

Who owns the song, royalties, etc. to the new hit song? She had a publishing deal when she was alive - her various bands put out over 15 albums - but the lyrics to the song (poem?) she gave me were never published as far as I can tell. At least no published songs contained the lyrics.

Thanks!

It depends a little on how truthful you are.

Interesting. Well, it likely becomes a hit only because of the novelty factor of a new Patsy Cline (for example only) song. So I guess you're saying if it's finally published, Patsy Cline's estate (or the owner of the rights) and the music writer share in the royalties?

I'm not keeping up with copyright like I used to, and I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is this: The copyright exists the moment the work is instantiated. Giving you a copy of the lyrics doesn't in and of itself convey the copyright. If there's no copyright notice on the copy you got, then you're only liable for actual damages; if there is such notice, I think it's treble* damages.

So your best move is to remember that you own the physical copy and it would be very hard--maybe impossible--to get it from you legally so that the estate or whoever could extract the content and exercise their rights. So negotiate for the ten percent that agents and pimps and YouTube and AT&T and Cisco and other Scum Like YOU! steal from the righteous owners of...did I ever tell you about meeting David Lowery**?

All hypothetically speaking, of course.

*It's triple damages for non-musical works
**I mentioned it to Patterson the night he gave me a lyric sheet. He had another copy, so he doesn't have to worry about my descendants screwing over his descendants, and besides, it's on a record*** now.
***One I don't own, I might add, bitterly.

Congratulations, Ramonz, you have a future as a law school exam question writer.

Yes, a cynic might say it depends on how truthful you are, but being as I always assume the best in people let's say that's not an issue.

Let's start w/ the easiest piece: You own the piece of paper w/ the lyrics written on it. To the extent there's any historical or collector value there, it's yours.

The music composer gets whatever share of the royalties the music composer gets (presumably half the songwriting royalty) unless you make a deal to get part of his/her share in exchange for giving the composer a crack at setting the lyrics to music. To the extent that the lyric writer owns the lyrics, her estate would get her share and could try to make a deal w/ a music publisher on whatever terms the market will bear. How much freedom the estate has to do that will depend on how much of the songwriting & publishing royalties belong to the writer's music publisher, which depends on 3 things: the actual terms of her contract (which might or might not cover songs unpublished at death, songs published after death, etc), the estate's ability to negotiate in the absence of contractual clarity (real or alleged), and your negotiating ability. Since the song will only have commercial value to the extent you allow it into the public sphere (staying away from legal terms like publish for purposes of discussion), if you played your cards right you would have negotiating leverage to try to get some of the other pieces, whether owned by the estate or the music publisher.

You also say they were lyrics to a song "she was working on." To the extent that the lyrics were incomplete and you (or the music composer or someone else) completes them, you (or that other person) would have partial rights to whatever songwriting/publishing royalties are determined to belong to the original writer. Also, to the extent that another writer is in the picture, that might affect the contractual rights of the original writer's music publisher, again depending on the terms of her contract w/ them.

If the music composer has his/her own music publisher, that would add another complicating factor to the mix.

As you know just from pop culture, music publishing and the division of royalties is an absolute greed pit so a lot will depend on the specifics of the situation and how many people try to grab a piece of the action, but this is the broad outline. OTOH, I have no idea what grade I'd get for this answer.

John A Arkansawyer wrote:I'm not keeping up with copyright like I used to, and I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is this: The copyright exists the moment the work is instantiated. Giving you a copy of the lyrics doesn't in and of itself convey the copyright. If there's no copyright notice on the copy you got, then you're only liable for actual damages; if there is such notice, I think it's treble* damages.

So your best move is to remember that you own the physical copy and it would be very hard--maybe impossible--to get it from you legally so that the estate or whoever could extract the content and exercise their rights. So negotiate for the ten percent that agents and pimps and YouTube and AT&T and Cisco and other Scum Like YOU! steal from the righteous owners of...did I ever tell you about meeting David Lowery**?

All hypothetically speaking, of course.

*It's triple damages for non-musical works
**I mentioned it to Patterson the night he gave me a lyric sheet. He had another copy, so he doesn't have to worry about my descendants screwing over his descendants, and besides, it's on a record*** now.
***One I don't own, I might add, bitterly.

Thanks John. So did Lowery or PH give you the lyric sheet? I couldn't quite follow.

beantownbubba wrote:Congratulations, Ramonz, you have a future as a law school exam question writer.

Yes, a cynic might say it depends on how truthful you are, but being as I always assume the best in people let's say that's not an issue.

Let's start w/ the easiest piece: You own the piece of paper w/ the lyrics written on it. To the extent there's any historical or collector value there, it's yours.

The music composer gets whatever share of the royalties the music composer gets (presumably half the songwriting royalty) unless you make a deal to get part of his/her share in exchange for giving the composer a crack at setting the lyrics to music. To the extent that the lyric writer owns the lyrics, her estate would get her share and could try to make a deal w/ a music publisher on whatever terms the market will bear. How much freedom the estate has to do that will depend on how much of the songwriting & publishing royalties belong to the writer's music publisher, which depends on 3 things: the actual terms of her contract (which might or might not cover songs unpublished at death, songs published after death, etc), the estate's ability to negotiate in the absence of contractual clarity (real or alleged), and your negotiating ability. Since the song will only have commercial value to the extent you allow it into the public sphere (staying away from legal terms like publish for purposes of discussion), if you played your cards right you would have negotiating leverage to try to get some of the other pieces, whether owned by the estate or the music publisher.

You also say they were lyrics to a song "she was working on." To the extent that the lyrics were incomplete and you (or the music composer or someone else) completes them, you (or that other person) would have partial rights to whatever songwriting/publishing royalties are determined to belong to the original writer. Also, to the extent that another writer is in the picture, that might affect the contractual rights of the original writer's music publisher, again depending on the terms of her contract w/ them.

If the music composer has his/her own music publisher, that would add another complicating factor to the mix.

As you know just from pop culture, music publishing and the division of royalties is an absolute greed pit so a lot will depend on the specifics of the situation and how many people try to grab a piece of the action, but this is the broad outline. OTOH, I have no idea what grade I'd get for this answer.

Thanks Bubba, that is a seriously thorough answer - and I almost feel guilty not being charged for it. But that's great info for anyone who runs into that situation.

Truth is, I recently purchased on ebay a signed gig poster and handwritten lyrics from the fan described above. It's a band most of us know, and the lyricist's early death was a real tragedy. I learned of the band from 3DD, and have rabidly consumed any and all of their recorded output since being shown the light maybe 5 years ago. I have no interest whatsoever in making money on my purchase - I collect things because they are meaningful to me in some way. In this case, the joy of being smacked in the face by absurdly good "new" music at the age of 40 from a band/lyricist I'd never heard of at the time. I'd never resell anything I've gotten in person or (very rarely) purchased on ebay - I do it for the joy of being connected in some small way to something/someone that impacted my life in a positive way.

I asked the question because I know other bands appreciated their music too. Would one of them like to take a stab at writing the music if the lyrics inspired? No idea, and it sounds like it's a bit of a long and winding road - with some ditches and sharp curves added - to even daydream about such a possibility. But, again, thank you for the information.

ramonz wrote:I asked the question because I know other bands appreciated their music too. Would one of them like to take a stab at writing the music if the lyrics inspired?

Our very own Jay Gonzalez once had a gofundme reward that he would set to music lyrics the contributor provided. Just sayin'.

beantownbubba wrote:

ramonz wrote:I asked the question because I know other bands appreciated their music too. Would one of them like to take a stab at writing the music if the lyrics inspired?

Our very own Jay Gonzalez once had a gofundme reward that he would set to music lyrics the contributor provided. Just sayin'.

Whoa. Wheels turning....

beantownbubba wrote:Yes, a cynic might say it depends on how truthful you are, but being as I always assume the best in people let's say that's not an issue.

Assuming the best in me and calling me a cynic are roughly the same thing.

beantownbubba wrote:(staying away from legal terms like publish for purposes of discussion)

That missing piece is where I went wrong in my amateur answer, isn't it? One summer school course in Con Law forty years back and some time working in a law office does not a lawyer make. Unless you know how to forge a diploma. But if I could do that, I'd forge diplomas, not practice law. Everybody needs a trade and I have my standards.

ramonz wrote:Thanks John. So did Lowery or PH give you the lyric sheet? I couldn't quite follow.

So my writing style has remained consistent over the years?

Patterson gave me the lyric sheet off the stage. We chatted a bit after the show when I got him to sign it. I mentioned to him that I'd met David Lowery and that Lowery might not remember me but would surely remember the circumstances. (Spoiler: We didn't die.) (Clarification: We being me and Lowery and some other folks.)

The connections among those events? Just my flow of consciousness as I wrote. Or maybe bullshit. It's hard to tell the difference sometimes.

beantownbubba wrote:I have no idea what grade I'd get for this answer.

Would I have failed, or would my tenacity gotten a gentleman's D?

I thought your answer was very good, JohnA. Lacking a bit in nuance, perhaps, but you got the 2 main points right (the hypothetical Ramonz would own the actual copy; rights to the copyright in the song are not conveyed by giving/selling that piece of paper or cardboard). A solid B, nothing gentlemanly about it.

beantownbubba wrote:I thought your answer was very good, JohnA. Lacking a bit in nuance, perhaps, but you got the 2 main points right (the hypothetical Ramonz would own the actual copy; rights to the copyright in the song are not conveyed by giving/selling that piece of paper or cardboard). A solid B, nothing gentlemanly about it.

I say it's a B minus, because no one got the joke in the first footnote, or if they did, it wasn't funny. But thank you! Like Bachman Turner Overdrive, I'll take what I can get.

whatwouldcooleydo? wrote:When abatement ab initio began appearing in articles about Hernandez last week I immediately thought of

That is what most people think lawyers really are!

Hypothetically of course. If I were sitting at a bar, say Athens in couple of weeks, having drinks with stangers, could I still tell my stories? (from the book) I know nothing of copy right laws.

Swamp wrote:Hypothetically of course. If I were sitting at a bar, say Athens in couple of weeks, having drinks with stangers, could I still tell my stories? (from the book) I know nothing of copy right laws.

Hypothetically, in a couple of weeks, there will be no strangers in Athens bars...