Hoop-Dee-Doo Hooplah

[momeja]

Wizzard, your comments assume the law is so discretionary as to be meaningless. It's not that discretionary. As I said before, a judge is going to look at 35 years of usage and ask counsel why they didn't bring this suit forward before. In such a scenario, an immediate injunction is unlikely. In fact, tossing the suit out as a nuisance suit is more likely. This isn't a David and Goliath scenario. these aren't innocent parties. These are sophisticated parties with years of experience writing and signing contracts. On the basis of these facts (and in the absence of other facts that we don't know about), I honestly don't think the lyricist has much of a chance.

[mindflipper]

As for LG lawsuit against Sony over PS3, the injunction was a legal manuever to get Sony to the table. To me, it's just like this publisher but on a much higher level.

As for "the nutcase and a normal litigant" was to give an example of unlike things (like "apples and oranges").

But not every "crazy bastard" get things passed with the right wording and judge. A few years back where one man sued a chinese family dry cleaner over a pair of pants for millions. They tried to settle out of court, but he refused. It went to court, and got picked up by the national news. In the end, the case was kicked out and it ruined his life. He was the extreme, but there are some people who sue not for a reasonable resolution to a legal dispute but to settle some deeper reason or need.

I think the publisher is seeking a reasonable resolution from Disney (or the deep pockets in this case), but I do not think they will go to the extreme. It's too costly and could make it look like they have a frivolous lawsuit.

[Wizzard419]

The US legal system, can't comment totally on all countries, is heavily discretionary when it comes to non criminal cases (though some judges may try to set themselves apart as being harsher on criminal offenses as well). As long as criteria is met for an argument, there is it's reasonable (unless you're Clarance Thomas, then it's all about the dishwashers and white women ) Can you honestly deny that it is feasable that a the claimant may not have visited that show in the last 35 years? We're talking a single location on earth, not something widespread and promoted. Just like it took 20 years for the IOC to realize the gymnastics place was using their logo, eventually they found out and took action and got their way.

If I recall, it wasn't just a man, it was a judge, the supposed pinacle of legal process, sued a dry cleaner for 65 million over clothing.

[mindflipper]

If I recall, it wasn't just a man, it was a judge, the supposed pinacle of legal process, sued a dry cleaner for 65 million over clothing.

Yes, he was, which shows a judge is capable of nutty decision making, which tends to be what we hear about the most in the media. But not all, and many of the normally adjudicated cases never make the press.

If I remember correctly, the litigants in this case are the publishers that have control, not the original composer or lyricist. The original composer had known and did not pursue any legal actions against Disney before now.

[momeja]

Wizzard, if there is one principle I've learned in law school, it's that law only appears discretionary to nonlawyers.

You can raise the spectre of tort reform all you want (hey, I'm from Canada. We already have tort reform), but I can easily distinguish that case in two ways:
1. It was a tort negligence claim. This isn't.
2. A judge isn't necessarily a sophisticated party when dealing with a dry cleaner. A professional lyricist is considered a sophisticated party when dealing with IP issues and Disney.

And that isn't even considering the merits of the case, since you have consent in this case by the party whose song is actually used in the show. The claimant's suit is based his property rights within that song, which arguably were extinguished by the creation of the new lyrics. Does he retain property rights in the tune of a song which he did not compose, which usage the composer has consented to, for which he wrote lyrics when those lyrics aren't even used in the show?

Doubtful.

[momeja]

If I remember correctly, the litigants in this case are the publishers that have control, not the original composer or lyricist. The original composer had known and did not pursue any legal actions against Disney before now.

Good point. I'd forgotten that. In that case, they're not seeking an injunction. They're seeking royalties.

[Wizzard419]

That's kind of the point the suit, they felt they are entitled to a cut for the usage. Again, we don't have all the info, and probably never will, for all we know he is fully within his rights.

Ever since that lady burned her vagoo with a hot cup of coffee the claimants in any lawsuit are always looked upon as "scumbags out to make a buck". Many may very well be, but just imagine something like the ford pinto issue. A company knowingly did something wrong and took a gamble that cost them more than the fix.

Either way, we all know Disney won't lose they will either win at trial, settle out, or pull a Sony (not sure if Disney has done it) and just keep at it until the other guy gives in or they get what they want.

[mindflipper]

...we all know Disney won't lose they will either win at trial, settle out, or pull a Sony (not sure if Disney has done it) and just keep at it until the other guy gives in or they get what they want.

That's true for any major american corporation...

[DIAC1987]

This lawsuit is unnecessary, and should get thrown out altogether. All these decades later and NOW there is a lawsuit? Silly and stupid.

[momeja]

Thinking about it again today, the publisher probably can assert some IP interest in the song and ask Disney to pay royalties for it on a go forward basis. I'm not sure a court will agree with it, although the music industry has been pretty assertive in this area. Guess we'll have to wait and see. (or not. Tell you all what: we're going to Hoop in May for my graduation trip. I'll report back to you whether the song is still there.)

And of course, all this discussion and now that darn song is stuck in my head: "Hoop dee doo, hoop dee doo, we've got a show for you..."

[Wizzard419]

Woo, never saw the show and no plans to means I have no idea what the song is. BTW, I do apologize in advance for "Friday", I just found out she is a local.

[momeja]

Woo, never saw the show and no plans to means I have no idea what the song is. BTW, I do apologize in advance for "Friday", I just found out she is a local.

Darn you, Man! You're the reason it's stuck in my head and you don't even know the song? For shame!

[Wizzard419]

Here, try this to clear it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0

[Soarin08]

Never saw the show itself, though I did work right next door to it and heard snatches of it piped in the breakroom. It's just kind of amusing that the show has been running for close to 40 years and someone know decides to bring this up in court. And we all know Disney will win.

[ExDisneyTech]

Utterly frivolous. The music department of Creative Entertainment has always had to submit every piece through legal to clear copyrights. Including all park and parade shows and background music. Some are covered through a blanket license, others are individually negotiated. (Most are completely owned by Disney, with no residuals. That's the reason that most orchestral pieces are recorded with the Czech State Orchestra, no ongoing residuals). Sounds to me like there was an agreement, the composers sold their interest to a publishing house and their lawyers are looking to negate that agreement and make a buck. I'm sure implied consent for 35 years will weigh heavily.