Matt Pelissier Suing Eyeball Records and MCR

what's with the hating Matt questions? No one has said they hate him. I saw him drumming for MCR quite a few times, and when I fell in love with MCR he was part of it. If he is owed money he deserves every last penny. No one here has said anything about hating Matt....

...yes.

everything mona had.:

i've never said that i hate matt. like i said, if he is owned money, then he should have it, but i think he should had come when he left the band and not 5 years after. he has every right to get the money, but why after so many years?

Maybe he has been chasing up eyeball records for a while for it, and has now decided to go down the law suit route. And then maybe spending the time preparing, making sure he had evidence for a claim. Otherwise it could end up being an expensive mistake for him. My old employer owes me money, but I'm going through my old manager to chase it up, not jumping into a lawsuit. Although, they probably don't owe me quite as much as Matt is owed!! lol

my sweet mistake:

is this real?

it's a legit site, how would it not be?

matt will get royalties for the songs he performed on in bullets and 3 cheers, while in the band and after the fact. these are mechanical royalties as he was the one doing the labour for the songs. if he hasnt been paid the royalties and his name is stated in the copyright then he deserves the money, if not then obviously he will have a hard time proving that the money is his.
even if the lawsuit is only starting 5 years after the fact, this can be due to matt repeatedly contacting eyeball records and my chem to claim the money without any positive result, whether he is in the band or not. there will always be a written contract between band members and their manager and record label stating the terms conditions and warranties between the people stated within the agreement. if there was a 20% royalty pay out for each member on the masters, and this was stated in the contract, then matt deserves that money even if its 5 years after the fact. theres no time limit on a contractual lawsuit, so good luck to him if the claim is true...
this is in no way an attack at my chemical romance, just the facts pertaining to the information stated at the beginning of this thread. i honestly doubt my chem knew matt was trying to get into contact with them as he was probably contacting their manager, and when the article says matt is suing My Chemical Romance and Eyeball records, he is merely suing my chem as a business not each individual.
the name My Chem is there business name and since each member is stated under the partnership agreement, the whole band as a business gets sued..
hopefully this clears things up and makes sense..

I am not sure anyone was really that unclear.

Has this case already been settled or decided? If not, please provide the authority you have relied upon. Have you based this on the law applied in the forum state?

Three Cheers is not included in the suit, in fact this particular suit was limited to Bullets. Further, Three Cheers was not produced under Eyeball Records, and Warner does not appear to be joined in this matter.

Further, upon what are you basing the comment that theres no time limit "on a contractual lawsuit" as this is incorrect. In fact, the norm is 3-6 years. However, there are good faith and public policy issues which can be raised to overcome such a limit.

Further, there are specific points of reference within the contract pertaining to limitations and restrictions. Matt signed this contract.

Finally, this lawsuit is based on a separation agreement from 2004 which invalidates earlier contracts/agreements unless the terms are included in the same.

i dont know if the case has been settled or not, i just based my response upon the information given at the beginning of this thread. and the information ive given is from what ive learnt from my music management course im doing at uni.

three cheers isnt part of this dispute but people were asking why hes only asking for bullets money and not 3 cheers when he was part of that album also, and i just stated that he would be getting money from reprise but since that album was released under a different label, things would be handled differently under different contracts.

maybe i did confuse the time limit between a contractual lawsuit and something else, but matt still has a chance to prove the money is owed to him. if he signed a contract with the knowledge he could not view any records then that is on himself, however if he is owed money he should be paid this money..

double post sorry.

1) Anyone can file a lawsuit on anything, but just because it was filed doesn't necessarily mean there is a valid claim. Responses, Motions for Summary Judgment and Summary Disposition and other pleadings are yet to be filed. There are various points at which the case can be dismissed before it even gets off the ground. There are various points at which the case can be dismissed after evidence is presented. A matter can also settle at any point or go to arbitration or mediation or trial.

2) The Court will determine whether the case falls under statutory limitations based on the law in the forum state.

3) Again, this lawsuit is based on a separation agreement from 2004 which invalidates earlier contracts/agreements unless the terms are included in the same. This agreement could invalidate any earlier royalties.

4) In the US, royalties are based on a statutory rate, right now it is $.08 for songs five minutes or less in length or $.0155 per minute for songs that are over five minutes long.

5) Mechanical royalties are a royalty paid to a songwriter whenever a copy of one of their songs is made. The federal law requires the payment for every copy manufactured. I don't know of many record companies that will actually pay the full mechanical rate, but rather most will go for a three-quarter reduced payment or will negotiate to pay for copies sold.


Again, this matter hasn't been resolved and it is too early to make such blanket conclusionary statements. You are basing your "opinion" on an incorrect or misunderstood interpretation of the law. You are also attempting to argue irrelevant points of law on issues that were not addressed in the inital pleadings.

If this is true, it's strange. And I agree with what most of you have written, so I don't have to write it again. But anyhow, 5 years later? Why, Matt?

Imnotaghost:

If this is true, it's strange.

It's true. The legal papers were leaked online.

Imnotaghost:

If this is true, it's strange. And I agree with what most of you have written, so I don't have to write it again. But anyhow, 5 years later? Why, Matt?

Because it takes 5 years to realize you aren't ever going to get your money. Plus going through the whole legal system.

Right... I didn't think of that. But I think he deserve his money if he got the rights to them. Or how do you say it? Sorry, my english sucks sometimes. I mean, he did a great drumwork while being a part of MCR.

You know they mean srs bizniz when they call the whole band by their full names ... with the exception of Gerarld of course.

MCR being sued again..*sighs* anyway, I kinda feel bad for Matt P. I think he deserves the shares that he should get.

I think this happened to other bands not just mcr, i heard the former PATD member also sued his ex bandmates because of royalties just like this issue.

Ken Hidaka:

MCR being sued again..*sighs* .

Again?

Ken Hidaka:

MCR being sued again..*sighs*

For what now?

anonym:

For what now?

Read the topic of and then through the rest of the thread for that answer