ginandcigarettes Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 This seems weird: "...15% of the income generated by sales and performances of the group's recordings of the song earned during each non-owning members term" and the very next line is: ...continual and perpetual". Don't those two things seem opposed? No. Jay's not asking to be paid for things written while he wasn't in the band, but when Summerteeth sells another copy next year, he wants to be paid for that, too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Complaints do not present a full picture because (1) they are one-sided, and (2) they intentionally present facts in the best possible light for the plaintiff (e.g., "THE" producer instead of "A" producer). Without knowing what the contract actually says, and without knowing what sort of performance can be implied from prior actions, and without knowing how the contract could be amended or terminated, everyone is speculating. And they are speculating on marginally more information than they had before they saw the complaint. I know this won't stop another 6 pages of speculation, but no one knows anything. At all. Be careful where you let your head take you. You don't know anything. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 This seems weird: "...15% of the income generated by sales and performances of the group's recordings of the song earned during each non-owning members term" and the very next line is: ...continual and perpetual". Don't those two things seem opposed? "continuing" What I read is that a) he is owed 'x' as a result of his term; and b ) Wilco's act of compensation continues (read: they have not paid him). As for perpetual, I guess he's referring to royalties for performances he recorded/produced? He should be able to get a titanium hip based on Chipotle alone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Nice find, Norbs. I thought Crow knocked it out of the park, along with many others. I must say I went back and reread that thread and could still feel my indignation at the willingness of some who posted in that thread to reject the artistry of Jeff Tweedy for supposedly borrowing of a handful of phrases from imaginary poets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 one other option - and i'd personally like to see this done - is remove every backing track and piano/organ/tambourine/etc... performed by him off of all the albums he played on and let the old version go out of print. it would mean we'd get 2 versions of these albums, summerteeth would sound a million times better, and Jay would have to learn how to get hip by some other means. or . . . go on judge judy, perhaps? that'd be interesting also. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 It's going to be a bummer when Jay loses, and the only way he can pay Tweedy's legal fees by having his royalties garnished. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 "Sounds like Jeff might need a jolly banker." Credit goes to my buddy Still Be Around at the Farrar board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Maybe Scottie Pippen couldn't hold Jordan's jockstrap, but how many titles would Jordan have without him?It gives me a migraine just thinking about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Without knowing what the contract actually says, and without knowing what sort of performance can be implied from prior actions, and without knowing how the contract could be amended or terminated, everyone is speculating. And they are speculating on marginally more information than they had before they saw the complaint.Yeah, I'd really like to see that "Exhibit B". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/05/Wilco.pdfAt least Bennett didn't reveal the location of The Loft in his filing. Boy would that have started a shitstorm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SGL Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Depends. Is there a documentary film crew following Jay through this process? hahaha he is a bit full of himself so i wouldn't be suprised if there was a crew following him filming in black and white... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bedbug Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Shouldn't that kid who eats a corn dog during one of the sound checks also get residuals? I think he has a pretty strong case, personally. Not to get nitpicky, but I'm pretty sure it was corn on the cob. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Not to get nitpicky, but I'm pretty sure it was corn on the cob.God, I love VC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 #1 post ever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
So Long Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 At least we live in this great nation where these matters can be handled fairly and effectively. Am I right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Elixir Sue Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Yeah, I'd really like to see that "Exhibit B".I'd really like to see Jeff's/Josh Grier's answer. I'm a big Tweedy fan, and I definitely hope this whole ordeal isn't stressing him out, but it's pretty interesting stuff. ( Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigshoulders Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 That's a helluva first post. I think you'll fit right in on VC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rhino4evr Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Jeff's response is on Paste. "I know exactly as much as everyone else does. I've read the news and I honestly have no idea what these claims are based on. It was such a long time ago. Aside from everything else, I'm being sued for not paying someone for appearing in a movie I didn't produce. Go figure. I am truly sad it has come to this. I am equally convinced, however, that I have done nothing wrong and that this will be handled fairly and swiftly." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Here's the Paste link. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 "Wilco (the beef)" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Here's the Paste link. This: Furthermore, the suit states that Bennett was paid for his time in Wilco, but that the "infrequent partial payments" only amounted to 15% of the band's income. seems to be a pretty sloppy analysis of the claim. The article also seems to suggest (through poor editing, rather than intent, I'm sure) that Jay is suing Jeff because he was portrayed badly in IATTBYH. edit: it does seem very odd to me that he's suing Jeff and not the label or management. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 So much conflicting information, if this goes to jury I'm guessing they will wind up dreadlocked. Sorry about that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.