the strange case of Peter hook

Judging by his Twitter and his various teams of solicitors/lawyers he appears to have won a judgment in high court

From what I can gather it's just so he can continue his court case about the copyright of the name 'New order'

What does he actually want?

Does he want the band to stop using the name?

Does he want to use the name himself?

Or is he after a cut of all gig takings and from the album?

I'm baffled how he's won anything to be honest surely when he left the band and announced they'd split that has to be him done?

Sorry but can you post the exact details of this successful law case?

no details as of yet

but i'm sure mr blabbermouth is preparing statements and doing interviews right now!

just look at this twitter page and bounce around the different people tagged

https://twitter.com/Manleys\_law

Hmmm...

[twitter]670321989438070784[/twitter] [twitter]670286113790103553[/twitter] Continue trade mark? That doesn't sound like anything new will happen.

Basically, it appears that the band wanted the case against them thrown out and the judge has decided that, no, Hooky's case can be heard.

To be honest, I think it might have been better for him to have lost this one; he's run his mouth so much in the press and on his blog that he's bound to have compromised the case. For example, his badmouthing of Tom is ridiculously inconsistent; one minute he's miming to Hooky's pre-recorded bass, the next minute he's merely copying him, the next minute he's completely awful and incapable of even playing the bass. Which one is it? They'll cross examine every single thing he's said in the past nine years and he isn't going to come out of this looking particularly great. He's inconsistent at best and contrary at worst.

It's rather telling Hooky hasn't said anything about Music Complete. His lawyers must have been screaming at him to keep his mouth shut. Slagging off a consistently well-reviewed album wouldn't be a particularly good reflection on his integrity.

This whole Hooky v New Order is something akin to stepping in something soft in the yard that on a hot day has an awful smell. Once again the lawyers win. Peter let it go while we still love you.

An acrimonious divorce after 38 years of marriage - many of which were fraught with tension and times apart with other partners - is not the easiest thing to just let go.

Particularly for the one who announced they were walking away for good, only to see their first love flourishing without you.

Particularly if you realise that you made a terrible mistake and still secretly yearn for the good times back.

Investing so much vitriol towards those who have effortlessly moved on without you will never end well.

The best thing for Hooky would be to find a new partner, make a barnstorming album, and come to an amicable agreement with his ex regarding who has the cat and who gets to keep the sofa.

Pyrtwist wrote: Once again the lawyers win. Peter let it go while we still love you.

B-b-but, I've never loved him. How could you love someone that looks like Noel Edmonds in leather trousers.

Just seen his showbiz legal team too, oof.

lee wrote:

From what I can gather it's just so he can continue his court case about the copyright of the name 'New order'

What does he actually want?

Does he want the band to stop using the name?

Does he want to use the name himself?

Or is he after a cut of all gig takings and from the album?

I'm baffled how he's won anything to be honest surely when he left the band and announced they'd split that has to be him done?

lee wrote:

Or is he after a cut of all gig takings and from the album?

I guess this is the closest; some monies (not necessarily from gigs/the new album) already accrue to him through intellectual copyright as a founder member of the "brand" New Order, over and above back-catalogue sales. But he doesn't accept that his remuneration is sufficient.

Hence...

Hooky, 2012 wrote:

I’m not against them playing, but what I’m rallying against is the business dealings they’ve done to secure the New Order trademark, which is oppression of a minority, which is illegal. They’ve taken the New Order name and the trademark and basically thrown me 50p and said ‘That’s all your worth twatface. That’s what you get for playing Joy Division music’. It’s a business thing. They are in a position of strength because there’s three of them, but what they’re saying is that the New Order name has got nothing to do with me and that’s what I dispute.”

... and hence Bernard saying in a recent interview words to the effect of "we pay him to use the name, but he doesn't pay us to play our songs".

Evidently at some level Hooky has had to accept that the existing band have the right to use the name - and so most of us now possess Music Complete-era music and merchandise with the name New Order on it, rather than New New Order or Slaves of Venus or whatever. And hence Hooky's talk about "oppressed minorities" and other fulminations against the supposedly underhand things the band did to get a controlling majority (Gillian coming back in?).

But I suppose there might be a point to his ongoing insistence that the current lineup are impostors, calling them New Odour and so on - apart from the continued hilarity of the joke, for which we're all grateful of course. He can't be heard publicly acknowledging that they are, in fact, New Order until or unless he gets the compensation he believes he's due.

Nobody wins but the lawyers.

At best, Hook is entitled to 25% of songs written 1977-2005, in terms of performance royalties and writing royalties, up to the date of departure. Fuck all from songs written post 2007, and for live performances post 2007- apart from the pittance you might get from co-writing songs a band performs live, as long as he pays BS / GG / SM / IC their share for the songs of theirs he performs live at the moment.

T-shirts? At best, at best, a 20% cut for designs first publically available before 2007 as the band had five members. I'm no expert on T-shirts though. Any attempt to claim any money for anything the band do after he leaves will be unsuccessful. Only for a retrospective fix of a percentage of royalties up to 2006.

He left the group, and resigned his position. He thought this would split the band, but the band made clear in a statement at the time of his departure that New Order had not split.

What New Order do post his departure isn't much of his business. As long as he gets paid his fair share for the 1977-2007 contribution (at best 12.5%-ish writing, 12.5% performance on the records). We also have to consider the agreement that BS didn't get paid approx £1m in Electronic royalties to fund Revenge's commercial failure and the agreements that may have been made at the time.

Ooooh. Messy. Let's get an out of court settlement and get on with our lives.