logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error
the strange case of Peter hook
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
lee  
#1 Posted : 27 November 2015 23:39:52(UTC)
lee

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 19/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 211
Location: the middle of nowhere

Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 331 time(s) in 212 post(s)
Judging by his Twitter and his various teams of solicitors/lawyers he appears to have won a judgment in high court

From what I can gather it's just so he can continue his court case about the copyright of the name 'New order'

What does he actually want?

Does he want the band to stop using the name?

Does he want to use the name himself?

Or is he after a cut of all gig takings and from the album?

I'm baffled how he's won anything to be honest surely when he left the band and announced they'd split that has to be him done?
Back to top
thanks 1 user thanked lee for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 29/11/2015(UTC)
Sponsor
Back to top  
Sage_  
#2 Posted : 28 November 2015 01:30:22(UTC)
Sage_

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 159
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Thanks: 105 times
Was thanked: 220 time(s) in 164 post(s)
Sorry but can you post the exact details of this successful law case?
Back to top
thanks 2 users thanked Sage_ for this useful post.
Baggie Boiler on 28/11/2015(UTC), ROCKET MICK on 29/11/2015(UTC)
lee  
#3 Posted : 28 November 2015 01:38:18(UTC)
lee

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 19/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 211
Location: the middle of nowhere

Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 331 time(s) in 212 post(s)
no details as of yet

but i'm sure mr blabbermouth is preparing statements and doing interviews right now!

just look at this twitter page and bounce around the different people tagged

https://twitter.com/Manleys_law
Back to top
thanks 2 users thanked lee for this useful post.
Baggie Boiler on 28/11/2015(UTC), ROCKET MICK on 29/11/2015(UTC)
Sage_  
#4 Posted : 28 November 2015 02:53:44(UTC)
Sage_

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 159
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Thanks: 105 times
Was thanked: 220 time(s) in 164 post(s)
Hmmm...

Continue trade mark? That doesn't sound like anything new will happen.
Back to top
thanks 1 user thanked Sage_ for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 29/11/2015(UTC)
Burai  
#5 Posted : 29 November 2015 15:31:36(UTC)
Burai

Rank: Candidate

Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/08/2015(UTC)
Posts: 5
Location: Poole

Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Basically, it appears that the band wanted the case against them thrown out and the judge has decided that, no, Hooky's case can be heard.

To be honest, I think it might have been better for him to have lost this one; he's run his mouth so much in the press and on his blog that he's bound to have compromised the case. For example, his badmouthing of Tom is ridiculously inconsistent; one minute he's miming to Hooky's pre-recorded bass, the next minute he's merely copying him, the next minute he's completely awful and incapable of even playing the bass. Which one is it? They'll cross examine every single thing he's said in the past nine years and he isn't going to come out of this looking particularly great. He's inconsistent at best and contrary at worst.

It's rather telling Hooky hasn't said anything about Music Complete. His lawyers must have been screaming at him to keep his mouth shut. Slagging off a consistently well-reviewed album wouldn't be a particularly good reflection on his integrity.
Back to top
thanks 1 user thanked Burai for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 29/11/2015(UTC)
Pyrtwist  
#6 Posted : 29 November 2015 15:52:13(UTC)
Pyrtwist

Rank: Member of the Brotherhood

Groups: Registered
Joined: 29/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 402
Location: Iowa

Thanks: 312 times
Was thanked: 490 time(s) in 413 post(s)
This whole Hooky v New Order is something akin to stepping in something soft in the yard that on a hot day has an awful smell. Once again the lawyers win. Peter let it go while we still love you.

Edited by user 29 November 2015 15:53:00(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified
Back to top
BLOG
thanks 2 users thanked Pyrtwist for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 29/11/2015(UTC), Get Ready on 30/11/2015(UTC)
Get Ready  
#7 Posted : 30 November 2015 01:36:43(UTC)
Get Ready

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 07/07/2015(UTC)
Posts: 110
Location: Birmingham

Thanks: 37 times
Was thanked: 144 time(s) in 110 post(s)
An acrimonious divorce after 38 years of marriage - many of which were fraught with tension and times apart with other partners - is not the easiest thing to just let go.

Particularly for the one who announced they were walking away for good, only to see their first love flourishing without you.

Particularly if you realise that you made a terrible mistake and still secretly yearn for the good times back.

Investing so much vitriol towards those who have effortlessly moved on without you will never end well.

The best thing for Hooky would be to find a new partner, make a barnstorming album, and come to an amicable agreement with his ex regarding who has the cat and who gets to keep the sofa.
Back to top
thanks 1 user thanked Get Ready for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 30/11/2015(UTC)
tapebias  
#8 Posted : 30 November 2015 03:44:37(UTC)
tapebias

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 176
Location: UK

Thanks: 36 times
Was thanked: 320 time(s) in 176 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Pyrtwist Go to Quoted Post
Once again the lawyers win. Peter let it go while we still love you.


B-b-but, I've never loved him. How could you love someone that looks like Noel Edmonds in leather trousers.

Just seen his showbiz legal team too, oof.


UserPostedImage

Edited by user 30 November 2015 04:08:42(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified
Back to top
thanks 1 user thanked tapebias for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 30/11/2015(UTC)
Tony Casanova  
#9 Posted : 30 November 2015 04:26:26(UTC)
Tony Casanova

Rank: Candidate

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/08/2015(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: sweden

Was thanked: 32 time(s) in 22 post(s)
Originally Posted by: lee Go to Quoted Post

From what I can gather it's just so he can continue his court case about the copyright of the name 'New order'

What does he actually want?

Does he want the band to stop using the name?

Does he want to use the name himself?

Or is he after a cut of all gig takings and from the album?

I'm baffled how he's won anything to be honest surely when he left the band and announced they'd split that has to be him done?



Originally Posted by: lee Go to Quoted Post

Or is he after a cut of all gig takings and from the album?


I guess this is the closest; some monies (not necessarily from gigs/the new album) already accrue to him through intellectual copyright as a founder member of the "brand" New Order, over and above back-catalogue sales. But he doesn't accept that his remuneration is sufficient.

Hence...

Hooky, 2012 wrote:

I’m not against them playing, but what I’m rallying against is the business dealings they’ve done to secure the New Order trademark, which is oppression of a minority, which is illegal. They’ve taken the New Order name and the trademark and basically thrown me 50p and said ‘That’s all your worth twatface. That’s what you get for playing Joy Division music’. It’s a business thing. They are in a position of strength because there’s three of them, but what they’re saying is that the New Order name has got nothing to do with me and that’s what I dispute.”


... and hence Bernard saying in a recent interview words to the effect of "we pay him to use the name, but he doesn't pay us to play our songs".

Evidently at some level Hooky has had to accept that the existing band have the right to use the name - and so most of us now possess Music Complete-era music and merchandise with the name New Order on it, rather than New New Order or Slaves of Venus or whatever. And hence Hooky's talk about "oppressed minorities" and other fulminations against the supposedly underhand things the band did to get a controlling majority (Gillian coming back in?).

But I suppose there might be a point to his ongoing insistence that the current lineup are impostors, calling them New Odour and so on - apart from the continued hilarity of the joke, for which we're all grateful of course. He can't be heard publicly acknowledging that they are, in fact, New Order until or unless he gets the compensation he believes he's due.
Back to top
thanks 1 user thanked Tony Casanova for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 30/11/2015(UTC)
markreed  
#10 Posted : 30 November 2015 08:36:25(UTC)
markreed

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/05/2012(UTC)
Posts: 229
Location: Somewhere, GB

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 353 time(s) in 229 post(s)
Nobody wins but the lawyers.

At best, Hook is entitled to 25% of songs written 1977-2005, in terms of performance royalties and writing royalties, up to the date of departure. Fuck all from songs written post 2007, and for live performances post 2007- apart from the pittance you might get from co-writing songs a band performs live, as long as he pays BS / GG / SM / IC their share for the songs of theirs he performs live at the moment.

T-shirts? At best, at best, a 20% cut for designs first publically available before 2007 as the band had five members. I'm no expert on T-shirts though. Any attempt to claim any money for anything the band do after he leaves will be unsuccessful. Only for a retrospective fix of a percentage of royalties up to 2006.

He left the group, and resigned his position. He thought this would split the band, but the band made clear in a statement at the time of his departure that New Order had not split.

What New Order do post his departure isn't much of his business. As long as he gets paid his fair share for the 1977-2007 contribution (at best 12.5%-ish writing, 12.5% performance on the records). We also have to consider the agreement that BS didn't get paid approx £1m in Electronic royalties to fund Revenge's commercial failure and the agreements that may have been made at the time.

Ooooh. Messy. Let's get an out of court settlement and get on with our lives.




Back to top
WWW
thanks 1 user thanked markreed for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 30/11/2015(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.1 | YAF © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 1.134 seconds.