Rank: Candidate
Groups: Registered
Joined: 23/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 16
Location: Warrington
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 16 post(s)
|
|
 2 users thanked Alex_Loyal for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Candidate
Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/08/2015(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: sweden
Was thanked: 32 time(s) in 22 post(s)
|
Judge Cooke wrote:
“I strongly urge the parties to seek to resolve the issues between them by entering into some commercial negotiations so that they do not incur the expense of pursuing this matter to trial”.
And I think I speak for the affected parties and all the fans when I say "Shut up, wighead! Let's have seven more years of this shit. Happy Christmas." Edited by user 30 November 2015 05:43:02(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
1 user thanked Tony Casanova for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Dead Soul
Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 2,050
Location: here n there
Thanks: 485 times
Was thanked: 3000 time(s) in 2072 post(s)
|
Does anyone else here use Firefox and find that it just doesn't get on with the MEN website? I had to use I.E. ffs!
|
1 user thanked Debaser for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Brotherhood
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 448
Location: Xiberia
Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 611 time(s) in 456 post(s)
|
|
2 users thanked Coops for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Republic
Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 218
Thanks: 37142 times
Was thanked: 226 time(s) in 125 post(s)
|
Yes Debased si I had to use Chrome! What a sad state of affairs...reminds. Me of two divorces...but I LOST! 
|
1 user thanked ROCKET MICK for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Moderators, Administrators, Registered
Joined: 24/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 651
Location: London, UK
Thanks: 175 times
Was thanked: 1035 time(s) in 653 post(s)
|
At least we now know how fans of The Smiths felt back in 1996.
|
1 user thanked NotAMod for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
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)
|
Originally Posted by: Alex_Loyal  "The value of the New Order name, he said, was “evident” from the band’s continuing success when compared to Mr Hook’s new group." You don't say One is a group that has been around since the beginning and making new music (with or without Gillian or Peter). The other is a tribute band. This now reminds me of the ongoing saga of Ross and Rachel "WE WERE ON A BREAK!" 
|
3 users thanked Get Ready for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Brotherhood
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 260
Location: Salford
Thanks: 578 times
Was thanked: 369 time(s) in 258 post(s)
|
"The value of the Bernard Sumner's talent*, he said, was “evident” from the band’s continuing success when compared to Mr Hook’s depleted Riff Bank & fear of pirates."
* & Steve, Gillian, Phil & Tom. But mainly Barney.
|
1 user thanked Rorschach for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Young Offender
Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/10/2014(UTC)
Posts: 43
Location: Belfast
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 68 time(s) in 43 post(s)
|
At the very least, we can see what his problem is. Thanks to the industrial amount of shite that has come from his mouth, I was uncertain what his legal issue was. I initially got the impression that he wanted them to stop using the name 'New Order', but I'm assuming legal heads have told him it's not possible.
I can't see this ending well: if this goes to court, everything will be out in the open. And he could find his credibility severely diminished (if that's possible giving his low standing amongst fans at the moment). Look at the Lol Tolhurst vs Robert Smith case as an example.
|
2 users thanked The Ruts for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Brotherhood
Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/04/2012(UTC) Posts: 346  Location: Rio de Janeiro Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 403 time(s) in 355 post(s)
|
Hooky's logic: "Barney, you can even change back the name of the band to Joy Division... ...if you pay me the proper amount of cash".  |
Peter Who?  |
2 users thanked Aracri for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Dead Soul
Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/04/2012(UTC) Posts: 2,123 Location: Seaside, California Thanks: 1431 times
Was thanked: 3069 time(s) in 2142 post(s)
|
I like how in the lawyer's Beatles comparison, Hooky is both Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono.
|
2 users thanked Andy for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Village
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 76
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanks: 55 times
Was thanked: 112 time(s) in 75 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Andy I like how in the lawyer's Beatles comparison, Hooky is both Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono. at best, he's ringo's left ass cheek.
|
2 users thanked ersatz01 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Dead Soul
Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/04/2012(UTC) Posts: 2,123 Location: Seaside, California Thanks: 1431 times
Was thanked: 3069 time(s) in 2142 post(s)
|
New Order release statement in response: EntertainmentWeekly
|
2 users thanked Andy for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Brotherhood
Groups: Registered
Joined: 29/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 439
Location: UK
Was thanked: 954 time(s) in 439 post(s)
|
Quote:Obviously the band are disappointed that Peter is pursuing this claim in this particular way.
The reports so far take a number of things out of context. Peter still, for instance, receives his full share of all back catalogue royalties.
This dispute relates only to the share of income he takes from our work without him since 2011.
Not much more we can say as nothing has been decided by the Court on the facts other than he has a right to proceed with the claim, so this matter is still in play.
We’re getting on with life and concentrating on touring and promoting our new album.
|
2 users thanked Johnny James for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
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)
|
Originally Posted by: Andy The defendants need to pay Hooky's legal costs? Must be looking better for him than I first thought. Certainly looking better for the lawyers, as this could drag on for a very long time - nowhere near as cut and dried as: "You left. Deal with it. I find in favour of the defendants" If I was the judge, I would command Hook to pay 1.5% royalties to the surviving members of Hot Chocolate for nicking the baseline off Emmaline for Thieves Like Us - and then using every possible variant of that sound for 99% of every track thereafter. Perhaps Tony Wilson cut some sort of a deal with Brown and Co. You know, a proper deal in blood on a napkin that would stand up in any court in the land. 
|
2 users thanked Get Ready for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Brotherhood
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 448
Location: Xiberia
Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 611 time(s) in 456 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: The Ruts At the very least, we can see what his problem is. Thanks to the industrial amount of shite that has come from his mouth, I was uncertain what his legal issue was. I initially got the impression that he wanted them to stop using the name 'New Order', but I'm assuming legal heads have told him it's not possible.
I can't see this ending well: if this goes to court, everything will be out in the open. And he could find his credibility severely diminished (if that's possible giving his low standing amongst fans at the moment). Look at the Lol Tolhurst vs Robert Smith case as an example. I think we all wanted to know what the issue really was and what with all the name calling and wearing desperate T-shirts it hasn't always been clear what is was. I'll be honest in that the nosey bastard in me is looking forward to the ensuing punch-up in the courts, it could make for great reading. Of course, it all went wrong for Morrissey back in the 90s and like-for-like its New Order in the Morrissey position so maybe Hooky has a good chance of doing a Mike Joyce.
|
1 user thanked Coops for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Village
Groups: Registered
Joined: 08/05/2012(UTC)
Posts: 51
Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 72 time(s) in 51 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Andy I like how in the lawyer's Beatles comparison, Hooky is both Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono. I guess that's the version of the band texture he told his lawyers. Clueless as they probably are, they heavily lean towards his ramblings. I remember reading that royalties have always been a crucial point between Hooky and Bernard. With the founding of Vitalturn in 1992 Hooky had to reduce his percentage in New Order in favour of Barney, to cover for the complete loss of Electronics royalties from album sales due to the bankruptcy of Factory, while the Revenge album was incredibly expensive in its production for Factory with nearly no sales. Must have been a sting in Hooky's tail all those years. Edited by user 01 December 2015 01:27:09(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
1 user thanked the_blank_from_hell for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Brotherhood
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 313
Thanks: 137 times
Was thanked: 553 time(s) in 312 post(s)
|
I’m not Hooky’s biggest fan, but I do have some sympathy here – and I also have a sneaking suspicion that he will win if this goes all the way to court. This has “out of court settlement” written all over it.
Taking all emotion out of it, he ought to be due more than 1.25% of the money New Order make on the back of “being New Order” as he played an essential part in creating what that band name means and crucially still owns his part of it. I keep seeing the comments online saying “why would he expect any money from stuff he hasn’t played on?” which is totally missing the point. It’s about the money being paid to license the name “New Order”.
If I was Hooky’s lawyer exhibit A would be the album sales and tour receipts from Bad Lieutenant in comparison to what they’ve earned gigging as New Order and sales of Music Complete. (Certainly better than his godawful Beatles analogy!)
They’ve also admitted that he is due “something” from the licensing of the New Order name by giving him 1.25%, so they are on shaky ground. I think it said Hooky is after 12.5% - which is still only an eighth – not like he’s asking for an equal share.
I wonder if the two “new blokes” get anything from the licensing deal? I’d be surprised if they do, but if that assumption is correct then it means the other three would still be getting the lion’s share of the deal even if they gave Hooky 12.5%.
Let’s hope they do the decent thing and sort it out before the lawyers end up richer than all of them
|
2 users thanked GotBlueEyes for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Village
Groups: Registered
Joined: 08/05/2012(UTC)
Posts: 51
Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 72 time(s) in 51 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: GotBlueEyes I’m not Hooky’s biggest fan, but I do have some sympathy here – and I also have a sneaking suspicion that he will win if this goes all the way to court. This has “out of court settlement” written all over it.
Taking all emotion out of it, he ought to be due more than 1.25% of the money New Order make on the back of “being New Order” as he played an essential part in creating what that band name means and crucially still owns his part of it. I keep seeing the comments online saying “why would he expect any money from stuff he hasn’t played on?” which is totally missing the point. It’s about the money being paid to license the name “New Order”.
If I was Hooky’s lawyer exhibit A would be the album sales and tour receipts from Bad Lieutenant in comparison to what they’ve earned gigging as New Order and sales of Music Complete. (Certainly better than his godawful Beatles analogy!)
They’ve also admitted that he is due “something” from the licensing of the New Order name by giving him 1.25%, so they are on shaky ground. I think it said Hooky is after 12.5% - which is still only an eighth – not like he’s asking for an equal share.
I wonder if the two “new blokes” get anything from the licensing deal? I’d be surprised if they do, but if that assumption is correct then it means the other three would still be getting the lion’s share of the deal even if they gave Hooky 12.5%.
Let’s hope they do the decent thing and sort it out before the lawyers end up richer than all of them
I agree that 1.25% is low, on the other hand he deliberately tried to damage the brand "New Order", which he still co-owns. He did damage to business.
|
2 users thanked the_blank_from_hell for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Republic
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/08/2015(UTC)
Posts: 124
Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 165 time(s) in 124 post(s)
|
What I don't understand is… Why is Hook not paying the other 3 for trading on the New Order name at his gigs? While it is true to say that there is far more money to be made touring as New Order than as BadL, it is also true that touring the New Order back catalogue, with posters covered in the New Order name and associated imagery, is far more lucrative than using the Monaco name and music. Now, I went to, and loved, both the BadL and Monaco gigs, but the truth is that most other people are drawn into both the New Order and The Light gigs by the New Order (and Joy Division) name, legacy and music. What is Hook really doing that the others are not? Why are they paying him, and him not paying them? They are all trading on the name and legacy they built up together, are they not? In fact, you could argue that he more so, as at least they are writing and recording new material, and not just selling past glories. Edited by user 01 December 2015 01:58:37(UTC)
| Reason: Everybody makes mistakes…
|
2 users thanked Spittingcat for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Young Offender
Groups: Registered
Joined: 27/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 31
Location: Huddersfield
Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 31 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Coops Of course, it all went wrong for Morrissey back in the 90s and like-for-like its New Order in the Morrissey position so maybe Hooky has a good chance of doing a Mike Joyce. Do you really think so? To me it appears that Hooky is more representative of the "truculent and unreliable" Morrissey in this situation. From memory though, neither of the parties came out of that court case smelling of roses and I don't see why this one would be any different. Also, I'm pretty sure that nobody has suggested that Hooky was anything less than a full member of New Order up until the time that he left/they split whereas Joyce and Rourke felt that they had been treated like session musicians throughout their career with The Smiths, a position for which I have a great deal of sympathy.
|
2 users thanked edspess for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Dead Soul
Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 2,050
Location: here n there
Thanks: 485 times
Was thanked: 3000 time(s) in 2072 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: GotBlueEyes Taking all emotion out of it, he ought to be due more than 1.25% of the money New Order make on the back of “being New Order” as he played an essential part in creating what that band name means and crucially still owns his part of it. I keep seeing the comments online saying “why would he expect any money from stuff he hasn’t played on?” which is totally missing the point. It’s about the money being paid to license the name “New Order”. You may have a good point here. I have a horrible feeling that the forum is going to be filled with discussions (leading to arguments) about this for some time to come.
|
2 users thanked Debaser for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Republic
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/08/2015(UTC)
Posts: 124
Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 165 time(s) in 124 post(s)
|
I understand why he is (and should) be paid for them trading on the New Order name and legacy they built together, and I can see why he thinks he should be paid a bigger share… but I still don't get why he doesn't have to pay them for doing the same? Look at the posters for his gigs… They owe him for their current career, for sure, but he owes them for his as well.
|
2 users thanked Spittingcat for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Village
Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/04/2012(UTC) Posts: 81  Location: Scotland Thanks: 48 times
Was thanked: 88 time(s) in 81 post(s)
|
I find it difficult to believe this now - if it's all so clear cut, and he's been spectacularly ripped off, why didn't he say so in the first place years ago? Why all the guff about use of the name, "I split the band" and the personal insults etc? What they say on those police interceptors - you should not fail to mention something you later rely on in court.
Re Yoko, is he implying Deborah Curtis is also involved?
The lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee.
|
2 users thanked rosygale for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member of the Brotherhood
Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 313
Thanks: 137 times
Was thanked: 553 time(s) in 312 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Spittingcat I understand why he is (and should) be paid for them trading on the New Order name and legacy they built together, and I can see why he thinks he should be paid a bigger share… but I still don't get why he doesn't have to pay them for doing the same? Look at the posters for his gigs… They owe him for their current career, for sure, but he owes them for his as well. That's a good point - are you sure that he doesn't, or are you making an assumption? If he doesn't then it's a fair point that maybe it ought to work both ways - albeit I guess the others will be less interested in his considerably smaller income than he is in theirs! Don't forget that they will be getting PRS payments for every New Order/Joy Division song that he ever plays live though
|
2 users thanked GotBlueEyes for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
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.
