Legal issues regarding the DT/Portnoy split - Setting the record straight

[bosk1]

Nope.  Just the Internet.

[Zook]

Music is an art form created and used for entertainment.

Used for entertainment /= entertainment.

Music entertains me, therefore it is entertainment.

[GasparXR]

Music is an art form created and used for entertainment.

Used for entertainment /= entertainment.

Music entertains me, therefore it is entertainment.

If music entertained everyone, it is entertainment.

[Zook]

Music is an art form created and used for entertainment.

Used for entertainment /= entertainment.

Music entertains me, therefore it is entertainment.

If music entertained everyone, it is entertainment.

I.... What? Your failure has rendered me speechless.

[Perpetual Change]

Ok, now I'm gonna sue DTF. Zook, all your base belong to me.

[GasparXR]

Music is an art form created and used for entertainment.

Used for entertainment /= entertainment.

Music entertains me, therefore it is entertainment.

If music entertained everyone, it is entertainment.

I.... What? Your failure has rendered me speechless.

Your misinterpretation has rendered me... actually I have an explanation. You said it entertained YOU, therefore it's entertainment. But that can only mean it's entertainment to you, which is why you had a slight grammatical/logical fail on your part. That being said I agree it's entertainment

[Zook]

slught grammatical/logical fail

I see.

[GasparXR]

slught grammatical/logical fail

I see.

Fuck me >.>

[Nick]

So Bosk, maybe I read your post wrong............but what you seem to be saying is that MP is currently suing DT for their name because he feels he is the band, right?

  No, not at all.  What gave you that impression?

I just read between the lines, I judged your message based off tone and and my knowledge of you as a person and just ignored the words you wrote.


Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing here?

I love you right now.

[chknptpie]

Sooo basically we know nothing new? 

[bosk1]

Sooo basically we know nothing new? 

Gotta give a girl credit for being able to come in and sum up two pages worth of text from me in one simple little sentence. 

[chknptpie]

Sooo basically we know nothing new? 

Gotta give a girl credit for being able to come in and sum up two pages worth of text from me in one simple little sentence. 

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all day.

[renegate]

I did not post in the precedent thread, but I find it funny people actually believed Dream Theater's songs with MP lyrics could not be played in concert because of legal concerns. If this really was the case, DT would not have the right to play songs he also wrote music for, meaning pretty much their entire catalog.

The setlist would have looked something like this:

On the Backs of Angels
Wither
Outcry
Regression
This is the Life
The Silent Man
Lost Not Forgotten
Through My Words
Beneath the Surface
Far from Heaven
Build Me Up, Break Me Down
Wait for Sleep
Bridges in the Sky
---
Breaking All Illusions

[Bertielee]

I did not post in the precedent thread, but I find it funny people actually believed Dream Theater's songs with MP lyrics could not be played in concert because of legal concerns. If this really was the case, DT would not have the right to play songs he also wrote music for, meaning pretty much their entire catalog.

The setlist would have looked something like this:

On the Backs of Angels
Wither
Outcry
Regression
This is the Life
The Silent Man
Lost Not Forgotten
Through My Words
Beneath the Surface
Far from Heaven
Build Me Up, Break Me Down
Wait for Sleep
Bridges in the Sky
---
Breaking All Illusions

No, I don't think it's the case : MP wrote music as part of Dream Theater (since the music is always signed Dream Theater) and the name belongs to the band, hence, IMO, the right to play the music. Now, with the lyrics, it's different, since each writer, including MP,  is mentioned by name, hence the legal difficulty, if there is any.

B.Lee

[ZirconBlue]

No, I don't think it's the case : MP wrote music as part of Dream Theater (since the music is always signed Dream Theater) and the name belongs to the band, hence, IMO, the right to play the music. Now, with the lyrics, it's different, since each writer, including MP,  is mentioned by name, hence the legal difficulty, if there is any.

B.Lee

On some albums the individual songwriters are also credited by name, so i don't think that's a valid inference.

Further, JP (or was it JLB?) have already said that it's just coincidence that they're not playing songs with MP lyrics.

Finally, we've seen DT play plenty of songs with KM lyrics, and even songs written by KM over the years.  Why would it be different with MP?

[bosk1]

Zirc, I think you're probably right.  But just to play devil's advocate, there are any number of reasons this situation could be different songs where KM wrote lyrics.  For example, if hypothetically Mike is raising the issue of the band not playing some songs where he wrote lyrics [and, again, this is just a hypothetical], the difference is that he is fighting over it whereas KM didn't care. 

[Orion1967]

Well, being fresh out of a Cyberlaw class for my master's degree <sarcasm> I am UNIQUELY qualified to comment (LMAO). </sarcasm>
The copyright would be issued to the entity that registered for it, if that was "Dream Theater", and not "Mike Portnoy" then I don't think there would be an issue.  Not wanting to split hairs because yes I suppose Mike could sue for a judgement either preventing them from playing or to pay him royalties for playing songs that he co-authored but when I go to the US Copyright office website and search for "Mike Portnoy" the only returns listed to Mike Portnoy music are the LTE songs (URL)https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Mike+Portnoy&Search_Code=NALL&PID=t5ZalObShaPdns1qxA4-K3oHkI5Dc&SEQ=20110830150748&CNT=25&HIST=1
but Michael Portnoy appears on a lot more things when you do a Search for Dream Theater along with John Petrucci, Jordan Rudess, John Myung, etc....

Interesting stuff but not sure if it's really relevant or not.

[ReaPsTA]

Off-topic but semi-related fact.  The phrase "Let's get read to rumble!" is actually trademarked by Michael Buffer.  This is amusing enough, but the legalese is even more unintentionally comedic:

C 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: advertising and promoting the goods and services of others rendered by live announcements and via pre-recorded audio, video and electronic media, namely, radio, television, motion picture films, motion picture trailers, videotapes, CD's, the global computer network, computer software and other electronic disks, namely, laser, CD-ROM, DIVX, and DVD, at or in connection or association with sporting, entertainment and cultural events. FIRST USE: 19840000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840000

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment in the nature of a live announcer and in the nature of pre-recorded announcements recorded on audio, video and electronic media, namely, radio, television, motion picture trailers, videotapes, CD's, the global computer network, computer software and other electronic disks, namely, laser, CD-ROM, DIVX, and DVD, and performed or broadcasted at sporting, entertainment and cultural events. FIRST USE: 19840000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840000

https://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:g3bfvg.7.2

[Samsara]

So...was my post so long that it ended up killing all discussion?  

You do have a tendency to do that, bosker.  

In other news, I was wondering if I walked into bosk1's humble abode and had issues with the way the Star Wars legos are being handled, if I'd find an invisible hand choking the life out of me.

Just askin'.  

/off topic.

[bosk1]

All I'm saying is, I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[GasparXR]

All I'm saying is, I find your lack of faith disturbing.

I have a bad feeling about this.

[Zook]

Some guy: Are you seriously taking DT to court over keeping their name??? Really?

Ugh...don't believe everything you read....

[ReaPsTA]

Some guy: Are you seriously taking DT to court over keeping their name??? Really?

Ugh...don't believe everything you read....

Well, that's a relief.

[bosk1]

Reap, I don't mean to insult or be condescending, but honestly, based on only the facts we have, someone would have to be an absolute dolt to think that Portnoy was suing DT over use of the band's name.  

Either that, or I just really wanted to use the word "dolt" in a post.  Because, seriously, who uses that word anymore, right?  It's completely fallen out of fashion, despite the fact that it is a perfectly utilitarian word.  And when it comes right down to it, it's probably a better word than most.  I mean, it's just a tad bit condescending and insulting, but not overly.  And it's got the British thing going for it as well, know what I mean?  Like how a British person can curse up a storm, or bandy insults about, and somehow still not have it sound offensive, and even sound like they are complimenting you in a backhanded way, except you're not really sure, which makes you a bit uneasy, but not quite enough to dislike them or anything.  So, yes...er...whatever my original point was, I'm sure it still stands, even though I can't really remember what it was.  

[Orbert]

Further, JP (or was it JLB?) have already said that it's just coincidence that they're not playing songs with MP lyrics.

It was JR.

[bosk1]

Further, JP (or was it JLB?) have already said that it's just coincidence that they're not playing songs with MP lyrics.

It was JR.

[ariich]

Wait... JR shot JR?

*brainsplode*

[Adami]

Wait... JR shot JR?

*brainsplode*

Speculation, all we know at this point is that someone, somewhere was shot. Please don't fill this thread with baseless ramblings.

[hefdaddy42]

[Blazinarps]

It is common knowledge that you can play other people's music live without having to worry about legal issues. I don't get why the idea of whether or not they are "allowed" to play "MP" songs is even being discussed. I would guess either A) They really didn't think about who wrote lyrics to the songs they are playing, or B) They did intentionally leave out MP lyrics because they wanted to. Releasing a version of someone else's music is different than just playing it. That WOULD require rights/licenses etc...

[Nel_Annette]

Wait... JR shot JR?

*brainsplode*

His spell backfired.

[millahh]

Here's what I'm starting to think (and lawyerly types can correct me if I'm off-base):  There's obviously some legal wrangling going on over something.  However, all parties haven't explicitly said it's not over the name, even when given the opportunity.  My thinking is that they don't want to set off even more speculation and general madness...because once they start saying what it isn't about, that makes it easier to use process of elimination to figure out what it is about.  It would focus/intensify the speculation further, and it would be more unpleasant crap for the band members (current and former), along with everyone close to them, to deal with.

[Perpetual Change]

Sooo basically we know nothing new? 

Gotta give a girl credit for being a girl at DTF 

FTFY

[ReaPsTA]

Reap, I don't mean to insult or be condescending, but honestly, based on only the facts we have, someone would have to be an absolute dolt to think that Portnoy was suing DT over use of the band's name.

Either that, or I just really wanted to use the word "dolt" in a post.  Because, seriously, who uses that word anymore, right?  It's completely fallen out of fashion, despite the fact that it is a perfectly utilitarian word.  And when it comes right down to it, it's probably a better word than most.  I mean, it's just a tad bit condescending and insulting, but not overly.  And it's got the British thing going for it as well, know what I mean?  Like how a British person can curse up a storm, or bandy insults about, and somehow still not have it sound offensive, and even sound like they are complimenting you in a backhanded way, except you're not really sure, which makes you a bit uneasy, but not quite enough to dislike them or anything.  So, yes...er...whatever my original point was, I'm sure it still stands, even though I can't really remember what it was.  

Hahaha.  I love the nuances of the English language.

Maybe I'm not quite seeing it right, but so far it seems to me like being optimistic about the Portnoy/DT situation has never panned out.  First he's classy about leaving DT, then he posts the FB article about whether or not they'll have heart.  Then he's trying to be calm and thoughtful about it in the media, which turns into the explosion of anger in the classic rock prog interview.  And it just went on and on.  If it hit the news tomorrow that he was filing a lawsuit against DT to gain a share of the copyright of the band's name, I would be saddened and nervous, but not surprised.  Obviously, this says a lot about what I think of Portnoy, but it's the way it is.  If I told me from a year ago any of this would have happened, I would have been scared that somewhere down the line I picked up an LSD addiction.

If you had used dolt there BTW, I think it would have been more effective.  

[ConstantMotion]

I'm glad to hear that there's no dispute over the name of DT, or over DT's past songs.

That's better than what other artists have done.