<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The MC5 star in &quot;Contract Law&quot; &#8211; the most exciting film of the summer&#8230;not</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html</link>
	<description>Music in Seven Days from Seven Writers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:32:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ramon Medina - LP4</title>
		<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3543</link>
		<dc:creator>Ramon Medina - LP4</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 22:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3543</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not following &quot;In their right mind&quot; but here is an excerpt to answer your question in as best as I can condense it...The full article is here [&lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/mc5/&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/mc5/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;On February 27 Future/Now and Rebecca Derminer filed a motion in Los Angeles federal bankruptcy court to reopen Kramer&#039;s Chapter Seven. According to Thomas they hoped to &quot;determine if in fact [Kramer] had any publishing rights for the music of the MC5.&quot; Neither he nor Legler made clear what they planned to do with the information. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In his original filing, Kramer did not list, or &quot;schedule,&quot; future royalties from record sales or publishing as assets. That&#039;s the technical grounds for Future/Now&#039;s motion, which adds that potential income from the documentary project should also have been included. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It goes on to argue that the case should be reopened so that a trustee can be appointed to determine the value of the assets and whether Kramer should be forced to liquidate them &quot;for the benefit of creditors,&quot; including Derminer. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;....&lt;br/&gt;Kramer&#039;s opposition response claims the omission of his future royalties was an honest mistake and requests that the file be reopened so he can amend it.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;...&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;After a hearing on April 6 in Los Angeles, where Kramer lives, the judge ordered that the Chapter Seven case be reopened &quot;for the sole purpose of permitting&quot; a trustee &quot;to review and determine the necessity and extent of any investigation regarding potential assets in this estate. If no action is taken by the trustee by August 6, 2004, the Clerk shall re-close the case without further notice or order of the court.&#039;&quot;&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not following &#8220;In their right mind&#8221; but here is an excerpt to answer your question in as best as I can condense it&#8230;The full article is here [<a HREF="http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/mc5/" REL="nofollow">http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/mc5/</a></p>
<p><i>On February 27 Future/Now and Rebecca Derminer filed a motion in Los Angeles federal bankruptcy court to reopen Kramer's Chapter Seven. According to Thomas they hoped to "determine if in fact [Kramer] had any publishing rights for the music of the MC5.&#8221; Neither he nor Legler made clear what they planned to do with the information. </p>
<p>In his original filing, Kramer did not list, or &#8220;schedule,&#8221; future royalties from record sales or publishing as assets. That&#8217;s the technical grounds for Future/Now&#8217;s motion, which adds that potential income from the documentary project should also have been included. </p>
<p>It goes on to argue that the case should be reopened so that a trustee can be appointed to determine the value of the assets and whether Kramer should be forced to liquidate them &#8220;for the benefit of creditors,&#8221; including Derminer. </p>
<p>&#8230;.<br />Kramer&#8217;s opposition response claims the omission of his future royalties was an honest mistake and requests that the file be reopened so he can amend it.</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>After a hearing on April 6 in Los Angeles, where Kramer lives, the judge ordered that the Chapter Seven case be reopened &#8220;for the sole purpose of permitting&#8221; a trustee &#8220;to review and determine the necessity and extent of any investigation regarding potential assets in this estate. If no action is taken by the trustee by August 6, 2004, the Clerk shall re-close the case without further notice or order of the court.&#8217;&#8221;</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3542</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 21:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3542</guid>
		<description>What filmmaker in their right mind sues a songwriter IN BANKRUPTCY COURT to secure song rights?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What filmmaker in their right mind sues a songwriter IN BANKRUPTCY COURT to secure song rights?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin</title>
		<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3529</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 13:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3529</guid>
		<description>The lawsuit in the Sinclair article is the first lawsuit and not any of the subsequent lawsuits.  Yes, the filmmakers sued to secure the rights to use the songs in the movie.  No, they aren&#039;t trying to take Kramer&#039;s songs away from him.  Where do you get that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The lawsuit in the Sinclair article is the first lawsuit and not any of the subsequent lawsuits.  Yes, the filmmakers sued to secure the rights to use the songs in the movie.  No, they aren&#8217;t trying to take Kramer&#8217;s songs away from him.  Where do you get that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ramon Medina - LP4</title>
		<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3516</link>
		<dc:creator>Ramon Medina - LP4</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 04:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3516</guid>
		<description>Interesting article but it&#039;s odd that Kramer is referred to as the songwriter when most songs were credited to the MC5.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;A few key points made by the judge in what we are discussing:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;7.  The renewal copyright interests of co-authors Robert Derminer and Fred &quot;Sonic&quot; Smith in fourteen of the fifteen compositions are co-owned by their widows and heirs pursuant to section 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909, former 17 U.S.C. section 24, in that Deminer and Smith died before the commencement of the renewal term. (Order on Summary Judgment Motions.)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;8.  Over the years, there has not been a clear record kept of ownership rights to copyright claims for MC5 music, with confusion resulting from distraction, indifference, and other matters.  Non-party witnesses such as Angela Davis and Michael Davis identified this confusion. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;30.  Much of this case rests upon the credibility of witnesses, and the Court finds that Thomas and Legler were far more credible than Kramer on key issues concerning alleged promises, representations and commitments.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;33.  The Court concludes that there is insufficient factual basis to establish that a contract was formed that any of the Plaintiffs could enforce.  Contract terms were never certain, and there was no meeting of the minds.  The burden of proof on any contract claim was not met by any of the Plaintiffs.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting article but it&#8217;s odd that Kramer is referred to as the songwriter when most songs were credited to the MC5.</p>
<p>A few key points made by the judge in what we are discussing:</p>
<p><i></p>
<p>7.  The renewal copyright interests of co-authors Robert Derminer and Fred &#8220;Sonic&#8221; Smith in fourteen of the fifteen compositions are co-owned by their widows and heirs pursuant to section 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909, former 17 U.S.C. section 24, in that Deminer and Smith died before the commencement of the renewal term. (Order on Summary Judgment Motions.)</p>
<p>8.  Over the years, there has not been a clear record kept of ownership rights to copyright claims for MC5 music, with confusion resulting from distraction, indifference, and other matters.  Non-party witnesses such as Angela Davis and Michael Davis identified this confusion. </p>
<p>30.  Much of this case rests upon the credibility of witnesses, and the Court finds that Thomas and Legler were far more credible than Kramer on key issues concerning alleged promises, representations and commitments.</p>
<p>33.  The Court concludes that there is insufficient factual basis to establish that a contract was formed that any of the Plaintiffs could enforce.  Contract terms were never certain, and there was no meeting of the minds.  The burden of proof on any contract claim was not met by any of the Plaintiffs.<br /></i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ramon Medina - LP4</title>
		<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3515</link>
		<dc:creator>Ramon Medina - LP4</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 03:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3515</guid>
		<description>Yeah,anon, I&#039;m not quite following your argument.  You are mixing two different issues and lawsuits and lumping it all together as one.  Additionally, the film was getting played at festivals which is usually is about trying to secure distribution for the film and creating buzz not about ticket revenues for those screenings.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The judge in the lawsuit in question, the one that involves the filmmakers,wrote a judgment that was pretty damning of Kramer not being able to satisfy the burden of proof.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah,anon, I&#8217;m not quite following your argument.  You are mixing two different issues and lawsuits and lumping it all together as one.  Additionally, the film was getting played at festivals which is usually is about trying to secure distribution for the film and creating buzz not about ticket revenues for those screenings.  </p>
<p>The judge in the lawsuit in question, the one that involves the filmmakers,wrote a judgment that was pretty damning of Kramer not being able to satisfy the burden of proof.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3514</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 03:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3514</guid>
		<description>Right here, in an excellent article penned by John Sinclair. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt; Evidently convinced that Kramer would not cooperate, Future/Now and Becky Derminer teamed up to file a motion in Los Angeles on Feb. 27, 2004, to reopen Kramer’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case from 1999. &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The entire accurate account can be read in full here http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6324 .&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;And here as well, from Kramer&#039;s open letter explaining why the film was stopped.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt; Last month Dave Thomas, Laurel Legler and Rebecca Derminer (Tyner) entered a motion in court to strip me of my MC5 songs. Now, I must now defend myself both in federal court and in the court of public opinion. This is an effort on their part to coerce me to relinquish my rights to my work and my story. &lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right here, in an excellent article penned by John Sinclair. </p>
<p><i> Evidently convinced that Kramer would not cooperate, Future/Now and Becky Derminer teamed up to file a motion in Los Angeles on Feb. 27, 2004, to reopen Kramer’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case from 1999. </i></p>
<p>The entire accurate account can be read in full here <a href="http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6324" rel="nofollow">http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6324</a> .</p>
<p>And here as well, from Kramer&#8217;s open letter explaining why the film was stopped.</p>
<p><i> Last month Dave Thomas, Laurel Legler and Rebecca Derminer (Tyner) entered a motion in court to strip me of my MC5 songs. Now, I must now defend myself both in federal court and in the court of public opinion. This is an effort on their part to coerce me to relinquish my rights to my work and my story. </i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin</title>
		<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3511</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 02:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3511</guid>
		<description>Where does it say that the filmmakers were involved in any of those other lawsuits?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where does it say that the filmmakers were involved in any of those other lawsuits?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3510</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 00:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3510</guid>
		<description>Correct. After the 1st lawsuit filed and lost by Tyner, she filed a 2nd one. She lost that one because the judge said she has &quot;unclean hands&quot;. Then she filed a 3rd one against him. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The idea that Kramer would finally make the decision to get proactive in the defense of his songs makes perfect sense. Tyner and the filmmakers conspire in 3 lawsuits against him and he files 1 in california to protect his investment in the movie that he made a reality and to protect the misuse of his songs. He loses it because the families of the dead guys gave away his songs for free after the songs were stolen and put into a movie that made a profit. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The band members got no money from the ticket sales in all those cities where that movie played. &lt;br/&gt;You do the math. Decent movie. Bad people.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Here&#039;s more from the band&#039;s own web site.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;November 28, 2005&lt;br/&gt;MC5 MEMBERS WIN LAWSUIT WAGED BY LATE SINGER&#039;S WIDOW&lt;br/&gt; &lt;br/&gt;FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;DETROIT, MICH&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;SURVIVING MEMBERS OF INFLUENTIAL DETROIT ROCK BAND MC5 WIN LAWSUIT WAGED BY LATE SINGER&#039;S WIDOW &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;United States District Court Judge John J. Feikens of the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed a federal lawsuit filed by the widow and children of the late Rob Tyner (aka Robert Derminer), former lead singer of the MC5, against the band&#039;s surviving members and managers. Mr. Tyner died in 1991. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The judge&#039;s ruling is a victory for the group&#039;s surviving members Michael Davis, Wayne Kramer and Dennis Thompson as well as their managers and respective companies. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Ms. Derminer claimed the MC5&#039;s surviving members had infringed copyrights, and the MC5 trademark, which is jointly owned by Ms. Derminer and the surviving members. He ruled that Ms. Derminer failed to prove her ownership interest in the alleged copyrighted works. He also determined that Ms. Derminer could not bring trademark infringement claims against the co-owners Davis, Kramer and Thompson. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Judge Feikens&#039; ruling follows the July 2005 denial by Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub of Ms. Derminer&#039;s request for a preliminary injunction against the group. Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a 24-page opinion stating, among other things, that Ms. Derminer possessed &quot;unclean hands&quot; with respect to her claims of exploitation of the group&#039;s copyrights, trademark and accounting revenues, and that, as a result, Ms. Derminer and her family were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their case. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&quot;We are pleased with the judge&#039;s decision. Becky Derminer&#039;s repeated harassment of our clients is tiresome and disingenuous,&quot; said Margaret Saadi Kramer, Wayne Kramer&#039;s long-time manager. &quot;Angela Davis and I will continue to defend our clients&#039; right to work.&quot; &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the MC5 composed and recorded three full-length albums, but are best known for their controversial hit &quot;Kick Out The Jams.&quot; The last performance of the original lineup was in December 1972. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In recent years, the surviving members of this influential band have reunited to perform concerts throughout the world. They also periodically release recordings of their work, most recently last year&#039;s successful DVD &quot;Sonic Revolution: A Celebration of the MC5.&quot; &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&quot;This is a vindication of our clients&#039; position. Their intellectual property rights have been upheld,&quot; said J. Michael Huget of Butzel Long, the Detroit-based firm which represents the surviving members.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correct. After the 1st lawsuit filed and lost by Tyner, she filed a 2nd one. She lost that one because the judge said she has &#8220;unclean hands&#8221;. Then she filed a 3rd one against him. </p>
<p>The idea that Kramer would finally make the decision to get proactive in the defense of his songs makes perfect sense. Tyner and the filmmakers conspire in 3 lawsuits against him and he files 1 in california to protect his investment in the movie that he made a reality and to protect the misuse of his songs. He loses it because the families of the dead guys gave away his songs for free after the songs were stolen and put into a movie that made a profit. </p>
<p>The band members got no money from the ticket sales in all those cities where that movie played. <br />You do the math. Decent movie. Bad people.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s more from the band&#8217;s own web site.</p>
<p>November 28, 2005<br />MC5 MEMBERS WIN LAWSUIT WAGED BY LATE SINGER&#8217;S WIDOW</p>
<p>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</p>
<p>DETROIT, MICH</p>
<p>SURVIVING MEMBERS OF INFLUENTIAL DETROIT ROCK BAND MC5 WIN LAWSUIT WAGED BY LATE SINGER&#8217;S WIDOW </p>
<p>United States District Court Judge John J. Feikens of the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed a federal lawsuit filed by the widow and children of the late Rob Tyner (aka Robert Derminer), former lead singer of the MC5, against the band&#8217;s surviving members and managers. Mr. Tyner died in 1991. </p>
<p>The judge&#8217;s ruling is a victory for the group&#8217;s surviving members Michael Davis, Wayne Kramer and Dennis Thompson as well as their managers and respective companies. </p>
<p>Ms. Derminer claimed the MC5&#8217;s surviving members had infringed copyrights, and the MC5 trademark, which is jointly owned by Ms. Derminer and the surviving members. He ruled that Ms. Derminer failed to prove her ownership interest in the alleged copyrighted works. He also determined that Ms. Derminer could not bring trademark infringement claims against the co-owners Davis, Kramer and Thompson. </p>
<p>Judge Feikens&#8217; ruling follows the July 2005 denial by Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub of Ms. Derminer&#8217;s request for a preliminary injunction against the group. Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a 24-page opinion stating, among other things, that Ms. Derminer possessed &#8220;unclean hands&#8221; with respect to her claims of exploitation of the group&#8217;s copyrights, trademark and accounting revenues, and that, as a result, Ms. Derminer and her family were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their case. </p>
<p>&#8220;We are pleased with the judge&#8217;s decision. Becky Derminer&#8217;s repeated harassment of our clients is tiresome and disingenuous,&#8221; said Margaret Saadi Kramer, Wayne Kramer&#8217;s long-time manager. &#8220;Angela Davis and I will continue to defend our clients&#8217; right to work.&#8221; </p>
<p>During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the MC5 composed and recorded three full-length albums, but are best known for their controversial hit &#8220;Kick Out The Jams.&#8221; The last performance of the original lineup was in December 1972. </p>
<p>In recent years, the surviving members of this influential band have reunited to perform concerts throughout the world. They also periodically release recordings of their work, most recently last year&#8217;s successful DVD &#8220;Sonic Revolution: A Celebration of the MC5.&#8221; </p>
<p>&#8220;This is a vindication of our clients&#8217; position. Their intellectual property rights have been upheld,&#8221; said J. Michael Huget of Butzel Long, the Detroit-based firm which represents the surviving members.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin</title>
		<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3509</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 23:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3509</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;...a second lawsuit started in the midst of all this about who had rights to the band name and who had rights to use Rob Tyner&#039;s image and Rob Tyner&#039;s family wanted more money and sued Wayne Kramer and it all got out of control&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It doesn&#039;t say anywhere there that the filmmakers are involved in that second lawsuit.  And why would they be?  I&#039;m sure they have no interest in taking away Kramer&#039;s publishing rights.  All they did was license the songs for use in the movie, for which--get this--Kramer would have been paid, since presumably he has a share of the publishing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8230;a second lawsuit started in the midst of all this about who had rights to the band name and who had rights to use Rob Tyner&#8217;s image and Rob Tyner&#8217;s family wanted more money and sued Wayne Kramer and it all got out of control</i></p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t say anywhere there that the filmmakers are involved in that second lawsuit.  And why would they be?  I&#8217;m sure they have no interest in taking away Kramer&#8217;s publishing rights.  All they did was license the songs for use in the movie, for which&#8211;get this&#8211;Kramer would have been paid, since presumably he has a share of the publishing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ramon Medina - LP4</title>
		<link>http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3507</link>
		<dc:creator>Ramon Medina - LP4</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 17:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3507</guid>
		<description>If you read Windy&#039;s reply you would see that there are two lawsuits going around.  i think you are referring to the later one.  In the one I am talking about where Kramer is battling the film-makers for a supposed breach of contract the judge was quite clear and the main issue was that the Kramer didn&#039;t have sole rights to the songs but that it belonged to all of the members and their estates.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I don&#039;t know what the outcome if any was related to the other.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you read Windy&#8217;s reply you would see that there are two lawsuits going around.  i think you are referring to the later one.  In the one I am talking about where Kramer is battling the film-makers for a supposed breach of contract the judge was quite clear and the main issue was that the Kramer didn&#8217;t have sole rights to the songs but that it belonged to all of the members and their estates.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know what the outcome if any was related to the other.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
