TMZ.com reports:
Two members of The Smashing Pumpkins are suing Virgin Records America, claiming the label has screwed them out of ringtone fees and other stuff.

James Yoshinobu Iha and D'Arcy Wretzky-Brown claims in 2005, five years after the band broke up, Virgin negotiated a deal solely with frontman Billy Corgan for electronic transmissions (ringtones, download computer files, etc), without ever getting the consent of Iha or Wretzky-Brown.

In the suit, filed today in L.A. County Superior Court, the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages.
www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0724_pumpkins.pdf

what a trip, that they would do this and yet no contact with billy whatsoever.
and the fact that Jimmy isnt mentioned anywhere is really messed up too.
Could this be just a bunch of hogwash??

i'm sure its true, but it is weird that jimmy isn't mentioned. and that's the first time i've heard news of darcy in a long time.

Think of how much EXTRA money they could've made if they'd kept the band together...

well it there loss and Billy's gain. Also maybe Jimmy isn't listed because he is a part of the first lawsuit?
I wonder if James called D'arcy to fill her in on his suit?

so they didn't get any money, or they didn't get as much money?

bulletwoutbutterflywings wrote:
so they didn't get any money, or they didn't get as much money?

Apparently they didn't get any, it was all sent to Billy.

As for Jimmy, maybe Billy wrote him a check for 50%?

I'd love to hear what Billy has to say about all this. That would be interesting.

Depending on the contract they had with Virgin, I wouldn't think they'd get anything anyway. From what I have read, usually it is just the actual songwriters that get the royalties, unless he or she agrees to share with the other band members in the contract.

well, then james might be entitled to some of it, since he is credited on some songs. but wouldn't it be mostly billy anyways?

Ah, this is very interesting. Yeah, I didnt think James awould get anything, unless everyones buying mayonaise ringtones (actually I wouldnt mind one of those). But maybe, they're still credited for the name "smashing pumpkins" rather than individual songs???

Taken from Live105 Music and Entertainment Page:


Former Pumpkins are Suing

Two founding members of the Smashing Pumpkins are suing Virgin Records, saying they haven't been paid for the band's digitally delivered music. Guitarist James Iha and bassist D'Arcy Wretzky-Brown claim Virgin shut them out of the band's profits after signing a deal with Billy Corgan. The suit says that five years after the band first broke up in 2000 Virgin cut a deal with Corgan to begin licensing Smashing Pumpkins music via various electronic outlets, but the pact made no provisions for James and D’Arcy. This is the second Pumpkins suit against Virgin, In March, the band sued Virgin Records over a promotional campaign with Pepsi and Amazon, claiming it damaged its image and reputation.

www.live105.com/Ravey--039-s-Music-and-E...inment-Report/671445

So yeah, pretty much what Pete said up there.

James and D'Arcy are taking advantage of this new, unenforceable law (can't remember the name of it, and it's not really a law but a technicality) where ALL performers on a song (not just the writer and the publisher) would be compensated with royalties for new media usage (ringtones, internet play, etc.) Their suit won't be a successful one, unfortunately for them.

Although, I think everyone's kind of looking at this wrong and sounding very accusatory toward James and D'Arcy. I don't think they're out to exploit Billy (if they were, they'd be suing HIM and not Virgin,) they're seeking what they deserve.

I would say the reason why Jimmy wasn't involved is because he wasn't part of the band when Iha, Wretzky, and Corgan signed the agreement in 1998.

As for whose fault the monetary distribution is, I would blame it solely on Virgin Records. While Billy may have received most or all of the money, it is likely because Iha and Wretzky failed to sign an agreement before the time of the actual monetary distribution. However, we do know that they weren't informed of this by the label itself, which is again its own fault.

I also wonder what the outcome of Billy's case was against Virgin, or if it's still in process? I find it interesting that the courts see the "Smashing Pumpkins" as still including James, Billy, and D'arcy, even while the reformed Pumpkins only include Billy and Jimmy!

Trillian wrote:
James and D'Arcy are taking advantage of this new, unenforceable law (can't remember the name of it, and it's not really a law but a technicality) where ALL performers on a song (not just the writer and the publisher) would be compensated with royalties for new media usage (ringtones, internet play, etc.) Their suit won't be a successful one, unfortunately for them.

Although, I think everyone's kind of looking at this wrong and sounding very accusatory toward James and D'Arcy. I don't think they're out to exploit Billy (if they were, they'd be suing HIM and not Virgin,) they're seeking what they deserve.
I agree. If they really blamed Billy, they would have had both him and Virgin Records as co-defendants in the suit probably.

Eye wrote:
I agree. If they really blamed Billy, they would have had both him and Virgin Records as co-defendants in the suit probably.

that would be a trip- Billy and Virgin on the same side of the courtroom.

blueczarina wrote:
Eye wrote:
I agree. If they really blamed Billy, they would have had both him and Virgin Records as co-defendants in the suit probably.

that would be a trip- Billy and Virgin on the same side of the courtroom.

that would be a trip- Billy and James and D'arcy in the same room.

Does this mean James and Darcy are still in touch with another?

that would have to be considering they're filing the same suit.

i wouldn't see why they wouldn't still be friends. they always were.

Seems to me, that Billy dislikes both of them so much that he even didn't ask them for rejoining...and that's tragic!
Maybe they'll get in touch again now...
I want and back .