http://www.contactmusic.c...ue_1009774

SIR PAUL AWAITING BEATLES BACK CATALOGUE

Rock veteran SIR PAUL MCCARTNEY is hopeful he will regain the rights to THE BEATLES hits in 10 years, because copyright laws mean he will regain what is rightfully his. MCCartney, 64, was outbid by former friend MICHAEL JACKSON for the rights to the songs in 1985, who reportedly sold them on to Sony Records in recent years in a bid to get out of debt. Currently, MCCartney has to pay outsiders every time he wants to play Beatles tracks he wrote himself with former bandmate JOHN LENNON. He says, "In about the 10 years, a lot of it returns to me, just legally. "Some of the important rights are about to return, which I didn't realise. "You know what doesn't feel very good, is going on tour and paying to sing all my songs. Every time I sing HEY JUDE, I've got to pay someone."

Finally

Shoulda coughed up in the first place. It's not like he couldn't afford it.

And I'm with Yoko on this one. She was much happier with Michael having control because as she pointed out, someone else would've exploited the catalogue to no end. She was happier that it was in the hands of a friend. Funny how McCartney always overlooks this just so can have another bitching session.

And apparently only some of the rights are returned.

I wonder if this quote is really from him. Do you really have to pay for a song performed live? ESPECIALLY when your the composer? Did Prince hae to pay for the little Love Rollercoaster snippet he did on the ONA tour? Doubtful.

calldapplwondery83 said:

Yeah, it is. He's mentioned it a few times.

Cool for Paul, but he also own the right from other artist himself.
So he would be cooler when he gave those songs back to these artist.

calldapplwondery83 said:

you don't have to pay to perform the song live. however, if you record the performance for a commercial release you do have to pay royalties.

Contact Music is like the shittiest place to get ANY entertainment news. It's all either old and recylcled or an almost completely fabricated "story" around one possibly fake or taken out of context quote.

Anyway, 10 years... woooo Mr. McCartney, you'll be laughing then hobbling around on your zimmerframe.

Paul would've bought them before, but he wanted Yoko to buy them with him & she wouldn't

I used to care, but not anymore. It's not like he's pawning his car so he can play Hey Jude.

Sir Paul is already getting paid along with the other Beatles (their estates). The songwriter has a 50/50 deal with the publisher, that means that Paul and John Lennon estates get 25% each (that's still a lot of money), and the publisher has the other fifty. Plus, nobody should feel sorry for Paul as far as being ripped off, this guy owns Buddy Holly plus other blues recordings, and I don't think Buddy Holly's family is seeing a dime of that money he's making off of him.
[Edited 10/2/06 15:48pm]
[Edited 10/2/06 15:49pm]

Thriller81 said:

good point.

ElectricBlue said:

This should be a lesson to all the young cats breaking into the music business. You have to be on top of the business aspect of it, Otherwise this will happen to you too. Steven Tyler of Aerosmith said the same thing that McCartney did. He has to pay somebody everytime he sings "Walk This Way" And he and the band have NO say so on how they use the song. It's not fair that you bust your butt to create the best music possible, Just so some pencil pusher with a degree can take it and do whatever he wants with it.

ThePunisher said:

AFAIC, the copyright for songs like "Walk This Way" and "Hey Jude" should've run out years ago and they should be in the public domain.

Paul acutally never bided on his catlog... makes you wonder why Paul was so upset that his "friend" Michael won instead of the coperatiosn who where the bidders behind Jackson.

Cloudbuster said:

APPLAUSE!!! Thank you for saying exactly what should be said. I am so sick of Paul whining about the Beatles catalogue. He was too lazy and cheap to cough up the money and he has no one to blame but himself. Michael bought that catalogue fair and square. CBS offered $43.5 million, Paul offered ONLY $20 million for his OWN catalogue(expecting Yoko to cough up the other half), Michael offered $47.5 million. Now who do you think should have gotten the catalogue? Of course, the person who offered the most money, Michael. It is time for people to realize that it is Paul's own fault for not bidding more money to get his catalogue. I guess he thought that he should have just been given the catalogue since his name is Paul McCartney. He has always been arrogant;especially, since John is dead, Paul thinks that HIS name should be "first" on the compositions that they wrote together. I can see why Yoko doesn't want him to have control of anything.

AlexdeParis said:

don't know what AFAIC is, but copyrights last something like 50 years after the artists' death

YAY!!!!!

UCantHavaDaMango said:

[list]OT: Can I just say I love your username?

Ellie said:

Thank you! It is true...

NDRU said:

"AFAIC" = As far as I'm concerned

Yes, copyright has been abused and extended, but it wasn't always that way.

skyecute said:

You're right in saying that Paul should come up with the dough the first time around. But I don't know what that bitter diatribe you wrapped it in is all about.

Sue me but i don't think he desrves it...
i think Yoko should get em.
or George's Son Dani
i don't think paul should get him...
him and his ego is the reason they broke up anyway

Tessa said:

That bitter diatribe is also incorrect. Paul only wants his name to go first on the songs that he chiefly wrote (like "Hey Jude"). Personally, I don't see what's so unreasonable about that... especially since John is dead.

AlexdeParis said:

just because he's dead doesn't mean his name and estate shouldnt have the rights
that was an ignorant thing to say...

EmbattledWarrior said:

they should have rights & control. but for the songs Paul wrote, Paul should have more rights control, instead of Yoko having all of the control, just because they decided 40+ years ago that they'd just list all of their compositions together and seperately as "Lennon/McCartney" songs.

Tessa said:

well if thats the case it should be a joint ownership between the benefactor of Lennons Estate and Paul,
Paul should get the rights for the songs he wrote, but he shouldn't get FULL control, which is what im saying

EmbattledWarrior said:

that isn't how it work. they would still have joint control, but for the songs Paul wrote, he'd have primary control.

Tessa said:

ahh i gotcha now

EmbattledWarrior said:

What's ignorant about it? I don't think either of them should have any more rights to 40-year-old songs than the rest of us do. Then again, that wasn't my point. If it's common knowledge that Paul was the principle songwriter on some "Lennon/McCartney" songs, where is the harm in calling them "McCartney/Lennon" songs? Yes, Paul agreed to calling them all "Lennon/McCartney" way back when, but the other person who made the agreement is dead; I doubt he cares. Even if John does, he can't do anything about it.

AlexdeParis said:

common knowledge? by his word, Lennon is not here to disbute it,
just because the mans dead, i don't believe that he should be exploited, by a former colleague egotisticle desires
but so be it

Cloudbuster said:

The fact that you just defended that whore knocked you down 10 levels on my respect scale