Talk:Songshark

An editorial was attached to this article earlier this date. I removed it because it was hardly related to the book definition of a "songshark", and loaded with personal opinion, POV ("And now for the REAL definition", and comparing publishers to pedophiles?!), and information irrelevant to the subject matter (such as the entire history of movie copyright infringement). The additions really belong in their own (non-POV and rewritten to Wiki standards) article; perhaps not on Wikipedia. Zephyrad 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

References

The references section is absolutely awful. The text should be removed, a simple link will suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dk pdx (talk • contribs) 00:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

SongShark

• Note: The definition above is completely false. Precedence: Frankie Lymon vs Morris Levy, Estate of Robert Johnson vs Columbia Records, American Record Company, and Executrix Annye for the estate of Carrie Johnson, Willie Nelson vs the Nashville record companies and Patsy Cline. All of these are collectively known as the real songsharking, putting your name on someone else's song. To further emphasize this, all publishers and record companies charge songwriters to publish and record songs; they give an advance and then recoup it directly from the songwriter's royalty payments. Whether they put their own name on it, or leave the original author's name on it and then charge back for all recording and pressing costs, nonetheless, all publishers and record companies charge for publishing and recording a song. The examples given in the paragraphs above this one are fictitious examples from television. The cases stated in this paragraph are from real life involving real court decisions and the term used by the courts is "songshark" for these activities.

It is suggested that the author pick up a few law books and study the real court cases in the real world and not depend on television shows to define the term songshark.

And thereafter to stop deleting the real definition through false claims that corrections to this article are personal opinions.

Check your facts and stop pretending that television shows are a source of factual and evidentiary encyclopaedic entries.

You're definition is the fabricated definition of hearsay.

The actual definition that I posted was accurate from actual Music Industry experience and numerous Federal Law suits and court cases.

Every publisher and record company charges to publish and record a song, it's called recoupment of advances. The fairie tale that you have posted as the definition comes from the very people who charge such sums, often $250,000.00 to over $1,000,000.00 for recording an album's worth of material and then charges this all back to the songwriter.

You are perpetuating a myth.

You obviously have never worked anywhere near the music business, otherwise you'd know all of this.

I will stand by the definitions given in the Frankie Lymon case, the Willie Nelson case, the Robert Johnson case, and many others; a songshark is someone who puts their name on a song which they have not authored.

This definition stands: http://www.musics.com/SMF/index.php?topic=97.0

It stands up to the scrutiny of every Copyright Infringement case, including those sealed by agreement, such as was the case with Patrick Moore vs Elmer Bernstein ["Ghostbusters"]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and do not know the legal definitions of a SongShark.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberSongs (talk • contribs)

Reply to above (cited)

*Note: The definition above is completely false.

You have not proven this. Please provide proof of its (complete) falsity; a mere statement/accusation changes nothing.

Precedence: Frankie Lymon vs Morris Levy, Estate of Robert Johnson vs Columbia Records, American Record Company, and Executrix Annye for the estate of Carrie Johnson, Willie Nelson vs the Nashville record companies and Patsy Cline.

Please cite specific details, preferably with case numbers and years, the relevance of each case to the article, and indexed links after.

All of these are collectively known as the real songsharking, putting your name on someone else's song.

This is more accurately defined as copyright piracy. While it may be an alternate or additional definition of songsharking, I can find no examples of such a usage. Please provide one or more references, that are not links to YOUR OWN WORK (as you did above). The definition provided is as presented in the annual Songwriters Market from Writers Digest Books. (If this is "the real" songsharking, then what is the present article about? "The pseudo" songsharking?)

To further emphasize this, all publishers and record companies charge songwriters to publish and record songs; they give an advance and then recoup it directly from the songwriter's royalty payments.

Again, please cite specific examples. A songwriter is not specifically involved in the commercial recording of songs, and to charge a songwriter upfront to have his song recorded by a popular artist is improper, not to mention ridiculous. As a rule, any out-of-pocket expense expected of a songwriter by a publisher is considered unethical, and to be avoided, by the trade. Advances paid to a songwriter by a publisher are another matter, and would be considered recoupable.

Whether they put their own name on it, or leave the original author's name on it

Neither of which is "songsharking" by the article's definition, and thus irrelevant to it.

and then charge back for all recording and pressing costs,

Which again is not the songwriter's concern.

nonetheless, all publishers and record companies charge for publishing and recording a song.

Which is defined by contract. The article concerns itself with crooked publishers who charge or pad fees for dubious or nonexistent services, not with the legitimate costs of business set against songwriter royalties.

The examples given in the paragraphs above this one are fictitious examples from television.

The word would be "fictional"... and the two fictional examples are cited as such.

The cases stated in this paragraph are from real life involving real court decisions and the term used by the courts is "songshark" for these activities.

Again, this is perhaps an alternate definition of the term. You still have not disproven the existing article in ANY WAY, or shown the harm in giving said examples.

It is suggested that the author pick up a few law books and study the real court cases in the real world and not depend on television shows to define the term songshark.

This is a personal attack, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. How was the definition limited to what was presented on television? Can you produce transcripts of the shows, to cite what was directly used or influenced?

And thereafter to stop deleting the real definition through false claims that corrections to this article are personal opinions.

You have proven none of this. I cited examples of POV and editorialising, which again don't belong in Wikipedia articles... and appear again in your latest posts.

Check your facts and stop pretending that television shows are a source of factual and evidentiary encyclopaedic entries.

Please demonstrate how this was done, and how facts were not checked.

You're definition is the fabricated definition of hearsay.

Please explain this statement. (And fix the grammar?)

The actual definition that I posted was accurate from actual Music Industry experience and numerous Federal Law suits and court cases.

Whose experience? Your personal experience would likely be considered original research, and thus not allowed on Wikipedia. No specific cases or suits were cited in your post, though you tossed out several names of songwriters who had publishing problems.

Every publisher and record company charges to publish and record a song, it's called recoupment of advances.

What a record company does is not the focus of the article. Publishers have the right to recoup their expenses, and songwriters are not necessarily paid any advance. The article again discusses OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES TO THE SONGWRITER, not the legitimate recovery of costs.

The fairie tale that you have posted as the definition

Another POV example, and arguably another personal attack. What exactly are the fairyish aspects to the existing article?

comes from the very people who charge such sums, often $250,000.00 to over $1,000,000.00 for recording an album's worth of material and then charges this all back to the songwriter.

Again, recording costs are NOT THE CONCERN OF THE SONGWRITER, UNLESS DEFINED BY CONTRACT. Can you give an example of a first-time or unpublished songwriter who has paid $250,000 - $1 million to have their songs recorded by anyone, or would be willing to do so?

You are perpetuating a myth.

What myth is this? Are you saying that there are no such "publishers", who set any submitted lyrics, poetry, laundry lists, etc. to music and charge inflated prices to do so, and then never actually market the songs? Can you prove that companies such as those discussed at the Song-Poem Archive do not exist, and/or never existed?

You obviously have never worked anywhere near the music business, otherwise you'd know all of this.

Where I work is not important to this article, and I would set my experience against yours, IF IT MATTERED HERE. Personal attacks do not prove (or improve) your argument. Your earlier assertion in your previous editorial, that all a songwriter need do to be forever protected from "songsharking" was to preregister copyright in their song(s), is erroneous. This action assures some legal protections, but does NOTHING to protect a songwriter from a fast-talking publisher (or so-called publisher) who can persuade them to sign away their rights, or not review a contract (preferably with a lawyer's help) before signing. It actually plays DIRECTLY into the hands of the disreputable persons discussed in the article, whose main source of "potential clients" is mailing lists of recent copyright registrants. Thus, I must question your own claims of "music business" knowledge and experience.

I will stand by the definitions given in the Frankie Lymon case, the Willie Nelson case, the Robert Johnson case, and many others; a songshark is someone who puts their name on a song which they have not authored.

My sources define that action as piracy, not "songsharking", when it is not a term of the songwriting contract. Again, please give SPECIFIC DETAILS on each example you have cited, and name the guilty parties, with references if possible.

This definition stands: http://www.musics.com/SMF/index.php?topic=97.0

This "definition" links to YOUR OWN WORK; specifically, a DUPLICATE of the same POV piece that was removed from this article previously. Which I'm sure violates at least a couple Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

It stands up to the scrutiny of every Copyright Infringement case, including those sealed by agreement, such as was the case with Patrick Moore vs Elmer Bernstein ["Ghostbusters"]

This article is not about copyright infringement, either. Please stay with the topic.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and do not know the legal definitions of a SongShark.

Yet another personal attack, and you have still not disproven the existing definition, or proven your case. Zephyrad 11:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

As it is, this article is an unsourced attack on Songshark. It probably needs a complete rewrite, or very major revision at the least. -Elmer Clark 07:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify your statements, "attack" in particular. While the article does not source chapter and verse from its reference(s) on the term, references are provided. What exactly do you find unsatisfactory about the article, how would you rewrite it, and what would you have it say? The intention is to inform and warn persons about songsharks (who don't call themselves such, so I have qualified the use of the term) and songsharking.

Are you a musician, and have you ever answered an advertisement for "new songwriting talent" or "your poems set to music", or registered music for copyright? A music registration is often the source of solicitations from just such publishers, who operate in the fashion described in the article. Most songwriters, well-known or not, will have at least one story about their encounters or dealings with a songshark.

The point is, such publishers and companies do exist, and make their profits from "fees" and "services" reputable music publishers would never charge, while they perform little if any of the actual services of a music publisher. The writers who engage them end up with little more than an overpriced recording, or a token royalty check for a few pennies that doesn't begin to offset what they paid to the publisher. (Rule #1 in songwriting guides is usually "NEVER pay to have your songs published." Bonafide publishers will not charge a fee to take on a song they have faith in.)

Songsharking is legal (under the letter of the law), but unethical. This (and the article) is not an "attack"; it is the plain truth. (I have never been burned by such a publisher, but I have been approached – and annoyed – by them.) I would suggest you speak with some songwriters, contact a songwriting society, or at least check the sources mentioned for yourself, before you dismiss the article as it stands. Zephyrad 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also check the vanity press article (vanity publishers operate in a similar fashion to songsharks), and tell me if you think that article is also an "attack" or needs "a complete rewrite". If one article is, it follows the other must be... but I don't think so. Zephyrad 08:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My two cents

I added a couple of references that were directly on topic. (The existing reference were a bit off the point.) The article still needs to be tied directly to sources: for example, the discussion of the Monkey's episode needs a source -- the Monkey's are not discussed in any of these new references, or in the old references, at least as far as I could tell. --- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)