| YourValentine 21.10.2004 03:52 |
This is not a joke: Queen lost a law suit in Cologne, Germany because they failed to prove they are British and can file the law suit in Germany as EU citizens! Queen filed the law suit against a company that illegally licensed another company to publish a live recording of We Will Rock You from a 1977 concert in New York. Queen argued that the company has no right to give this license and asked for recompensation for lost revenues. However, the law suit failed because Queen did not prove their nationality to the court. They provided some internet printouts describing the birth places of John Deacon, Brian May and Roger Taylor but the court did not accept these as a prove of nationality. Here is the official press issue: link |
| Regor 21.10.2004 04:31 |
German dispensation of justice - utter nonsense. Really laughable ! By the way I never understood why there is nothing officially available from Madison Square Garden, as it is one of the most prestigous venues worldwide... |
| Mr. Scully 21.10.2004 04:46 |
Why the hell am I worried about MP3 files then? If Queen can't prove for German law that they're from Britain, then I think for Czech law they won't be even able to prove that they actually existed. |
| Sonia Doris 21.10.2004 05:12 |
just imagine if they were french... |
| Penis - Vagina 21.10.2004 11:18 |
Heh! "incoming goods wants to skirt you" I love translators! In English: In one of the members of the group of skirts of "Queen" claimant copyright controversy the OLG Cologne had to be concerned with the question of the nationality of the volume members. The plaintiffs are the three members of "Queen", remaining after the death of Freddie Mercury, the deplored ones are one on the clay/tone carrier market active GmbH and their managing director. The deplored GmbH gave other companies licenses for the publication of a Mitschnitts of the title "incoming goods wants to skirt you", which had developed on the occasion of an Live appearance of "Queen" in the year 1977 in New York. The plaintiffs deny the authorization of the GmbH for licensing on third. They take both deplored ones on omission of the production, spreading and Lizenzierung of clay/tone carriers with the title "incoming goods want to skirt up you" as well as on giving information and statement of the obligation to pay damages. Over the fortune of the deplored GmbH in the meantime the insolvency procedure was opened. The complaint against the deplored managing director rejected the LG Cologne. The appointment of the plaintiffs arranged here did not have a success (OLG Cologne, judgement v. 22. 9. 2004 - 6 U 50/04, not validly): As exercising artists inland protection can be entitled to the plaintiffs in accordance with condition of German copyright, if they are member of an European Union member state. For their of them - of the deplored ones denied - British nationality maintained it meanwhile no suited proof would have begun. It is neither obvious nor court well-known that the plaintiffs are the British. The celebrity of "Queen" of references above all their musical work. The fact that also a as special status question admits as the nationality of the volume members in Germany of general interest and the nationality therefore generally is cannot be accepted. An InterNet excerpt with data to their places of birth, submitted by the plaintiffs, is without realization value. If the places specified therein should lie in Great Britain, it does not follow alone from the fact inevitably that the plaintiffs are at all or anyhow today still the British. In the civil proceedings the court cannot be referred also to own searches in Biographien or not InterNet information designated more near. The "expert opinion" offered by the plaintiffs is not an evidence suitable for the proof of a certain nationality. To further protection regulations the plaintiffs could appoint themselves, independently of the nationality, not with success. Ruediger Pamp Departmental head for pressing and public work |
| deleted user 21.10.2004 13:09 |
WTF? Utter bullshit and much more! This EU crap is really something else, huh? |
| jamesfrancistaylor 21.10.2004 15:27 |
Nice one Mr. Scully !!!! LOL |
| Sonia Doris 21.10.2004 15:50 |
Mr. Scully wrote: Why the hell am I worried about MP3 files then? If Queen can't prove for German law that they're from Britain, then I think for Czech law they won't be even able to prove that they actually existed.what´s an mp3? prove it exists! asks the German court |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 21.10.2004 15:56 |
Krouts 'pffft' |
| joeyjojo 21.10.2004 20:56 |
While we can all laugh, I honestly don't see how an internet printout is really proof in *any* court of law. Didn't they bring their passports? |
| high-flying-adored 21.10.2004 22:06 |
Mr. Scully wrote: Why the hell am I worried about MP3 files then? If Queen can't prove for German law that they're from Britain, then I think for Czech law they won't be even able to prove that they actually existed.Well then, how the hell can they prove that they exist themselves, if lack of a country is enough to set off the jury as to a change in idea of actual existence? WAUGH!!!! Sometimes Germans can be rather stupid. But then, if Queen wouldn't tell them ... there you go. |
| Penis - Vagina 21.10.2004 22:42 |
They shoulda brought a tape of the 1981 Killer Queen video instead. That woulda told the court all they needed to know. |
| Schlipsi 22.10.2004 05:50 |
Hi,
I just read the complete court decision and I must say that the only stupid people in this case are queen and their laywers.
It's quite simple: In order to "use" the copyright law, you have to be a german citizen or a citizen of an other european country. I dont't know the system in other countrys, but in Germany, you have to prove certain things when your in court. In this case, one important thing was to prove to be a german citizen or citizen of another european country.
The court says in his decsion, that of course Queen are a well known and famous band. But they are famous for their music. Even if you know that the members are born in England (except Freddie) that does not mean that they are still british citizens today.
By the way, this was already the "appeal court" (I don't know if this is the correct english word. It means that this was already the second court case). They lost the first court case in 2003 because of the same reasons. Obviously their laywers asked the court to use an expert opinion (!) to prove their british. Now that's what I call stupid. You cannot ask a court to use (and pay) a consultant in order to figure out the citizenship of the complainant. And you certainly cannot expect, that a german court will accept a printed website as a proof for their citizenship. THAT is quite ridiculous.
Schlipsi
Sometimes Germans can be rather stupid. But then, if Queen wouldn't tell them ... there you go. |
| [StArMaN] 22.10.2004 08:22 |
So,they aren't english anymore ? Maybe John is French now ;-) |
| S@turn 22.10.2004 11:20 |
thought it is simple An internet document is not a prove that you excist (or however you write that word) Not *that* strange that a court is not impressed about a digital print and in fact asks for official documents |
| Penis - Vagina 22.10.2004 11:54 |
Okay then, that makes the Queen folks even dumber indeed. First they lost, and their 'proof' for the appeal was this print-out from the internet.. brilliant! Would it be so difficult to obtain some legal proof from the guys before going to court? Well, John maybe :-P |
| Mr Mercury 23.10.2004 08:10 |
Brian has since said that this is rubbish. Check out his soapbox link |
| The Fairy King 23.10.2004 08:44 |
Didn't they move their business to Munich(or woz it Switzerland)sometime in the late 70's? Because of the tax in the UK? Maybe that's what this is all about...Or woz that only about the studio's? Somebody else know more about this? |
| Sebastian 23.10.2004 08:53 |
They evaded taxes by living outside the UK 300 days of the year or something like that. That's why they recorded all their albums from Jazz to The Works (and the first part of Magic sessions) in either France, Switzerland, (West) Germany or the States. Except for the Flash Soundtrack but I have no idea why. John commented that when Fred came back to live in London (during A Kind Of Magic sessions) the band recorded again there (at Townhouse Studios). It seems that Fred was pretty important in those decisions then |
| Schlipsi 23.10.2004 10:36 |
Hi,
what Brian writes on his soapboax, that is rubbish. I did not only read the press release of the court, i read the official court decision itself (8 pages). And forgive me, when a german court (and this was the "Oberlandesgericht", a higher regional court) says, that they were not willing or to stupid to prove their citizenship, than I believe this court. You can all read it here in the court descision (if you can understand german).
link
Maybe Brian does not know the whole story. If I was his laywer and I was so stupid not to prove their citizenship and as a consequence I lost the case, then I probably wouldn't tell that to QP...;-))
To make it clear: They lost this case because they could not prove that they are british. That's a fact. It's there in the court decision. If Brian says something different, he is either lying or he does not know what he is talking about.
Mr Mercury wrote: Brian has since said that this is rubbish. Check out his soapbox link |
| deleted user 28.10.2004 14:06 |
Here's the explanation of it all, as it appeared on Bri's site today. (By the way: I find it to be rather irritating that many people prefer to indulge in jingoist Kraut/EU-bashing and randomly labelling others stupid instead of admitting to themselves that they have no insight into the matter of law and thus just keep quiet...) REPORTS IN GERMANY OF LOST LITIGATION BY QUEEN Brian received reports from a fan about lost litigation by Queen in Germany; and lost because the lawyer in charge could not prove that the individual artists were British (i.e. European and therefore elgible to litigate in a German court). Researching what happened gave rise to the following explanation: The background is the unauthorized use of the track "We Will Rock You" taken from a 1977 QUEEN radio (live) session in US (King Biscuit Flower Hour). This track had been exploited on a multi artist compilation without consent and EMI Germany began proceedings against the defendant company claiming that they act on behalf of the band Queen (which they have the right to do in this instance in their territory). Although this is pirated product the case was lost because the court needed proof that Queen, the artists, are British (or EU) citizens otherwise the US live recording would not have copyright protection in Germany. In the hearing the court asked for certified copies of the passports which surprised the lawyers of EMI Germany who argued that the British nationality of the artists is a clear and obvious fact, known to the public. The court, however, rejected this argument and so the case was lost. The judgment was made by the court of appeal and there is no further appeal possible. The lawyers of EMI Germany were obviously taken by surprise because this point of law would only actually apply for live recordings made by artists outside of the EU and Rome Convention member states, so in most cases limited to US live recordings. EMI have vowed not to be caught with the same trick the next time they are commencing similar proceedings. Various proceedings of illegal releases of Queen recordings take place around the world by EMI (and Hollywood Records in the US) as well as the IFPI in order to protect their rights, and we are not always aware of it. This one just hit the newspapers in a silly way and was picked up by the ever vigilant fans because the wording of the judgement refers to Queen members rather than the record company EMI. Anne Meyer MFS |
| YourValentine 28.10.2004 14:20 |
That's a bit more than just "rubbish" :) |
| deleted user 28.10.2004 14:26 |
True ;) The question is in how far Bri is informed about EMI Germany's proceedings. Looking at what he wrote in his soapbox I doubt he even was referring to exactly the same thing, as he was talking about other artists covering Bohemian Rhapsody, not the unauthorized use of WWRY as a Queen-owned recording. |
| Mr Mercury 30.10.2004 06:52 |
YourValentine wrote: That's a bit more than just "rubbish" :)It appears your are correct after all Barbera. Just checked Brians soapbox today link |