The Beatles' original contract

[fakeologist]

via Willard

Beatles Epstein contract 3.pdf

(7.43 MiB) Downloaded 100 times

Hello Ab,please try this file. It is the one I sent Chris Kendal in 2014. The relevant clause is on page 3 where it mentions hiring artists to perform as part of the Beatles.

[SaiGirl]

Has everyone in this thread spent time over at "Sage of Quay" examining Mike Williams' preoccupation with who really wrote the Beatles' music; and who replaced the original Paul McCartney?


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtimXp ... 4lHSYNgfvg

[dirtybenny]

viewtopic.php?p=3517&hilit=beatles#p3517

I do not embrace Mike's model of Tavistock and Adorno, but he has done terrific work to dismantle the official narrative. Examination of the music itself is inconsistent with musicianship and composition. You don't go from playing Chuck Berry and Little Richard covers to "A Day in the Life" and "For the Benefit of Mr. Kite." Any musician would easily recognize the inconsistency. Bizarre mystical lyrics and music.



[Verse 1: John Lennon]
For the benefit of Mr. Kite
There will be a show tonight on trampoline
The Hendersons will all be there
Late of Pablo Fanque's Fair, what a scene
Over men and horses hoops and garters
Lastly through a hogshead of real fire!
In his way Mr. K. will challenge the world!

[Verse 2: John Lennon]
The celebrated Mr. K
Performs his feat on Saturday at Bishops gate
The Hendersons will dance and sing
As Mr. Kite flies through the ring don't be late
Messrs. K. and H. assure the public
Their production will be second to none
And of course Henry The Horse dances the waltz!

[Verse 3: John Lennon]
The band begins at ten to six
When Mr. K. performs his tricks without a sound
And Mr. H. will demonstrate
Ten somersets he'll undertake on solid ground
Having been some days in preparation
A splendid time is guaranteed for all
And tonight Mr. Kite is topping the bill

[antipodean]

At the start of their career the Beatles appear to have had difficulty in getting a Record contract.
It was shortly after this event that they fired their drummer Pete Best.
https://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Talk:The ... a_audition

Back in the 80s I met a guy called SHULMAN LIVESEY who is an accountant, born 1927.

He claimed that he was on the Decca Board and when the discussion was held which group to sign, the music directors votes were split 50/50. So the accountant was asked for his opinion and purely on business criteria his deciding vote went against the Beatles. He emphasised that he himself was not knowledgeable in pop music to take such a decision but that he solely made up his mind on the business advice provided by the other board members.

Now this may just have been some silly ploy to impress me and get my attention, on the other hand, SHULMAN LIVESEY is an accountant and a successful business man.

If somebody could confirm whether he was with the Decca Corporation in 1962, then I would say that this story be most likely true

[rachel]

I'm not bothered either way, but in my research on PID, I've watched enough Paul McCartney interviews to know he wrote the songs he claims he wrote. As soon as he gets on the subject of contracts, you can sense his utter contempt for talentless knobs who got rich off the back of his sweat labour. It's actually one of the reasons I think he's a woman, it's that aggression, he litigates against anyone when it comes to his back catalogue.

I've looked up the original business setup on Company's House, from the document, The Beatles were created with 100 shares. But from one of Paul McCartney's interviews, he let slip he was a wage slave, so not one of the shareholders. And that would be the same for the other band members. They wrote the songs, but they didn't own them. This makes sense if you've ever read, 'The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists', which is exactly on the subject on how the working class are fleeced by the gentry in the UK.

The court actions and settlements say Paul McCartney wrote the songs. This is the final one where he regained AUTHOR'S COPYRIGHT from Sony. Would he have likely started the legal case if they were someone else's songs? He's rich enough not to care if they were never his in the first place, but the fact he wanted them back at a cost to him in legal bills means it's something a lot more precious to him than money. But i realise it doesn't matter what the evidence actually points to, because Paul McCartney is a never-ending churn.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... 3813c90b27

US Copyright Act is not applicable to contracts under British Law British band Duran Duran previously tried to regain copyright on its songs through legal means; however, in that case, the British courts ruled the inapplicability of American law on contracts made under British law. There is no comparable provision for copyright termination under British law, which could be the reason that McCartney is turning his case to an American judge.

McCartney is now invoking the US Copyright Act to regain copyright on his songs. The Act states that songs made before 1978 are bound to a term of 56 years after which the rights can be regained. McCartney and Lennon’s songs were written between 1962 and 1971, which means that the copyright on The Beatles’ first song ‘Love Me Do’ would have to be retransferred to the original authors in 2018. McCartney is also hoping to get a declaratory judgement that states he is not committing any breach of contract by exercising termination rights.

Sony/ATV has publicly voiced its disappointment in McCartney’s legal action, stating “Sony/ATV has the highest respect for Sir Paul McCartney with whom we have enjoyed a long and mutually rewarding relationship with respect to the treasured Lennon & McCartney song catalog. We have collaborated closely with both Sir Paul and the late John Lennon’s Estate for decades to protect, preserve and promote the catalog’s long-term value. We are disappointed that they have filed this lawsuit, which we believe is both unnecessary and premature.”

We will have to wait and see what the judgment of the American courts will be, along with the consequences the judgement will have on the music industry. We will keep you updated on the progress of this case.

https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/paul- ... ights-win/

The U.S. Copyright Act of 1967 was passed as a means to let songwriters regain the rights to their songs — the law states that for songs published before 1978, rights can be reverted back to the original author after 56 years (or for songs published in or after 1978, the song’s rights can be recaptured after 35 years). In 2015, McCartney began the process of reclaiming the rights to some of his music under the act, filing to reclaim the rights to 32 songs, as a number of titles from the highly coveted Lennon-McCartney catalog are on the eve of hitting the 56-year mark, with the first Beatles single, “Love Me Do,” coming up on its 56th anniversary after being released in 1962. While this process was underway, a British court ruled that the U.S. Copyright Act did not apply in Great Britain, making it significantly harder for McCartney to legally secure the rights to his music globally.

Thus, the news over the weekend that Paul McCartney secured the rights to his music in a private settlement was a big win for the former Beatle, who has been on this journey to secure the rights to his own music for nearly fifty years. While few details about the settlement have been disclosed, McCartney’s lawyer, Michael Jacobs, announced, that Sony and McCartney “have resolved this matter by entering into a confidential settlement agreement” at the end of last week and that McCartney’s lawsuit over the catalog had been dismissed. Congratulations to Sir Paul McCartney for this big win over the weekend!

EDIT: One final thing. When Paul was in Wings (the PID narrative never mentions Wings) he would never play Beatles tracks, and there were all sorts of stories written about rifts. I can't remember if I got this directly from his mouth, else it was so apparent, that's what he meant. But basically he refused to pay the music label a fee each time he played a Beatles song, so he never played Beatles songs. Again, it's absolutely understandable his annoyance if he wrote the songs in the first place.

[Sunshineuk]

Has everyone in this thread spent time over at "Sage of Quay" examining Mike Williams' preoccupation with who really wrote the Beatles' music; and who replaced the original Paul McCartney?


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtimXp ... 4lHSYNgfvg

Yes, Sage aka Mike is THE authority on all things Faul... is you havent listened to his entire series on Billy the Beatles you have but skimmed the surface.