PEER AT CUBA: THE CUBAN CONNECTION (EXTRACTS)
From articles about the Peer International lawsuit against cuban composer heirs.

Background: After the huge success of the record and dvd "Buena Vista Social Club" Peer suddenly acquires an interest and files a lawsuit in Great Britain for reclaiming the ownership of the songs of cuban composers, after decades of allegedly not paying royalties to the impoverished heirs of the Cuban composers. A news souce has stated that Peer admits it has not replied to the Cuban heir's royalty payment inquiries. Here we present some related news, our comments and questions. The author (Guillermo Venegas Lloveras Inc.) has a lawsuit against Peer in Puerto Rico.

But the decent thing for Peer to do was...
It would be interesting to know (Questions)...

The decent thing...
Why doesn't Peer International (Peermusic) does the decent thing, tell the Cuban composer heirs this:
Since we cannot pay you because of the embargo our country has on you, we will return any rights we may have back to you, so that you can exploit the songs as you wish. After all, the assignments made to us no longer make any sense to you, that we exploit the songs and we benefit while you do not. After all, you are and have always been the beneficial owners and the main idea of the assignments was to make money and if we cannot pay you, the assignments deal makes no sense at all. Sorry if we never told you that you were the beneficial owners and what rights beneficial owners have. We do not want you to think that we Americans are bad. Anyway we did little or nothing with the songs for many years. We wish you success in exploiting the songs.

El Tiempo.com
http://eltiempo.terra.com.co
September 29, 2005
Two record labels take up to the musical scene the traditional US-Cuba dispute
Said Cuban composer Evelio Landa Martínez, at 83 years of age while deposing (abut his contracts): "To me it was all promises. My interst was to get my works known", said Landa, while claiming that he was not properly paid for his musical creations.

briffa.com
http://www.briffa.com/news/art175buenavista.htm
May, 2005
Writers of the Buena Vista Social Club Songs Got a Rum Deal

PIC (Peer International Corporation) claim that they had paid royalties to the composers until the Cuban revolution in 1959 when a US embargo stopped payments to Cuba.

The Miami Herald
http://www.miami.com
10-5-05
Aging Cuban musicians fight for royalty rights
By Frances Robles

"The case is over only 14 songs, but potentially at stake are thousands of compositions by songwriters who went unpaid for years because of the U.S. embargo.".

Among the issues: Did Peer breach the contract by obeying the U.S. embargo and failing to pay? And, even if it did pay, was it enough?

Peer attorney Marisa Berardi said:
''Peer has a long history of promoting Latin American music.''

Guardian Unlimited
http://www.guardian.co.uk
Buena Vista case flies to Cuba
By David Ward
Thursday May 26, 2005

"EMC (Editora Musical de Cuba) in turn claims it is trying to salvage royalties from songs it suggests have never made a penny for their impoverished authors."

Mr Prescott (lawyer for Cuban composers) said:
- Peer's claims to the music of more than 600 Cuban composers were all invalid.
- "These contracts were so cunningly contrived as to allow the publishers to get away with paying the composers practically nothing. "The composers received nothing or, at most, a few pesos and a drink of rum."

About the Peermusic man in Havana, per Miguel Comas, director of the Asociacion Cubano de  Derechos de Autores Musicales (Cuban Association of Composers' Rights):
"His presence has since become the stuff of legend.
"A  representative of Peer came here back in '58, '59,"
"He  set up in the doorway of the Hotel  Inglaterra and he bought the musicians a beer and paid them a dollar for their songs."

About Peter Jaegerman, a vice president of Peer:
says he knows nothing of  such an unsavory history.
Jaegerman insists Peer never gave writers a one-time fee for their songs
composers who signed with Peer were all given lucrative contracts
Since 1961, he says, those moneys have been kept in  escrow accounts because of the  embargo.

But, Per Treasury Department spokeswoman Weaver:
"the Berman Amendment freed  music publishing companies to pay Cuban composers in 1988."

El Tiempo.com
September 29, 2005

Dice Marcos González, creador de Buena Vista, junto con el guitarrista estadounidense Ry Cooder:
"Muchos de nuestros grandes compositores del siglo pasado eran alcohólicos, bohemios, locos, entonces le daban una botella de ron y tres pesos, y firmaban cualquier cosa".

Translation:
Many of our great cpomposers of the past century were alcoholics, bohemians, crazy, then they were given a bottle of rum and three dollars, and they would sign anything.

It would be interesting to know (Questions):

- Were the Peer conracts as described, "unconscionable bargains" and "were so cunningly contrived as to allow the publishers to get away with paying the composers practically nothing. ?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Yes, the contracts signed by Guillermo Venegas were in fact cunningly contrived and allowed Peer to pay little or nothing. For example, some very beautiful and extraordinary songs of Guillermo Venegas never earned a single cent in royalties per Peer's own data. The 19 songs that GVL assigned to Peer earned less that $1,000 in about 51 years, or one dollar per year per song on average. Then the tiny royalties were then not paid at all to the heirs. This for the songs from a composer that Peer's own internal letter (before going after Venegas) said was the only composer to compare favorably with the great Agustin Lara, the most sucessful Latin American composer. The contract was a sham, in our opinion

- Did the Cuban composer sign English language contracts? Was that legal in Cuba? Did the composers understand the English language? Was the legal and music publishing industry terminology understood by the songwriters?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: The contracts signed by Guillermo Venegas were in English, a language that Guillermo Venegas did not understand.

- Were the contracts public documents? Was this a law requirement for assignment of rights to be valid?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: The contracts signed by Guillermo Venegas were not public documents as, it is believed, required by law.

- Did the contracts have two duration terms, a "life of the copyright" duration and a short one (1-2 years)? This did confuse the composers and was it the intentional? Did the short duration clause intend to mislead composers into believing that if Peer did not do a good job with the songs, the assignment of the songs ended in that short duration? Why do Peer and other publishers have two duration terms in their contracts? To confuse composers?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: The main contract signed by Guillermo Venegas had two duration periods. The first duration said that the songs were assigned for the duration of the copyrights. The second duration was for the contract as a whole. The second duration was in fact altered without by adding a note below the signature of Guillermo Venegas. That is, the contract was altered without a Guillermo Venegas signature approval.

- After the contract ended, did Peer retain rights and obligation to administer the songs for the benefit of the beneficial owner, the composer? Did Peer have to pay royalties after the contract ended and its royalty payment clause expired along with the contract? Is the contract clear on this?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: The contracts signed by Guillermo Venegas that covered most assigned songs makes no mention that Peer will continue to manage the songs for the beneficial owners (the composer) after the contract expires. The contract may be interpreted to mean that it had a short duration and that that duration superceded the long duration if the contract was ended, meaning that after the contract ended, the assignment of the songs ended there too.

- After the contract end period, did Peer have a right to continue acting as legal owner of songs? - Is the contract specific about this?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: The contracts signed by Guillermo Venegas makes no mention that Peer will continue to manage the songs for the beneficial owners (the composer) after the contract expires.

- Is there any proof that Peer gave the composer a copy of the contract, other than Peer saying it did?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: No proof was presented that Guillermo Venegas ever received a copy of any of the documents he signed with or without a Peer signature. If that ere true, as suspected, it was good for Peer. Without a copy of a contract, the songwriter cannot claim that Peer violated the contract. When the heirs of Guillermo Venegas asked Peer for copies of the contracts, Peer refused to give them (except one, the Génesis contract, and there is a interesting story of an attempt to deceive the heirs).

- Did the Cuban contracts have a New York law clause? Can the contracts be rescinded due to failure of Peer to exploit the songs successfully?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: The contracts signed by Guillermo Venegas has a New Yorl law clause. That was very convenient for Peer, since no Spanish speaking composer had the resoures for hiring a New york lawyer so as to sue for contract violation. Under the laws everywhere, if one party fails to perform the major contract clauses the contract may be rescinded.

- Did Peer ever give legal advise to the Cuban composers or their heirs at contract signing or at other times, such as contract confirmation time? Was that legal?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: In Puerto Rico it is forbidden to give legal advise by non licensed lawyers. We think Peer give much legal advise by non lawyer locals and from outside by persons who are not licensed lawyers in Puerto Rico. Certainly Peer persons in Puerto Rico gave much legal advise to the heirs of Guillermo Venegas, including the advise to get advise from the Peer lawyer in New York. As a matter of fact Peer was told "do not give us legal advise , we do not want it".

- Did the Cuban composers ever sign a blank contract where if Peer filled the song name, the song belonged to Peer and Peer did no have to pay any royalties? Was it legal?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Yes. Guillermo Venegas signed at least two of these contracts. What story Peer made to get Guillermo Venegas to sign such a  contract, we do not know. See here to see one of these cntracts.

- Did Peer establish a de facto monopoly by signing so many Cuban composers?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: In Puerto Rico Peer signed most well known composers in the 1950's.

- Did Peer register the Cuban songs with the performance rights organizations (ASCAP/BMI) and did these organizations distribute their catalog mong their licensees so as to allow and promote the use f the songs so as to generate royalties? It is simple: How many licensees do the performance rights organizations have in all the countries of the world and and how many catalogs did they distribute?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Peer did register some Guillermo Venegas songs but many were not registered. Anyway, since these organizations (ASCAP/BMI) do not give copies of their catalogs to all their licensees, the licensees without catalogs (believed to be most) cannot use the songs.  Note: By not registering songs that were then published (before 1978) Peer exposed these songs to go into the public doamain and the loss of all rights in the USA for Peer and the beneficial owners, the composers. Total recklesness of Peer in managing their business.

- Did the Cuban composers sign "blanket" contracts, where unamed songs were assigned or where yet to be composed songs were also assigned?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Guillermo Venegas signed a contract that  said that all future songs belonged to Peer, in exchange for nothing or almost nothing (the contract said one dollar for all songs).

- Did Peer publish and maintains the publication at present tme the song scores for the songs that Peer alleges to exploit for the beneficial owners?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Peer, while claiming to be the owners of the songs did not publish Guillermo Venegas songs so they could be exploited. More here.

- ¿Did Peer have a permit to operate a business or its agent to work in Cuba when composers were being signed up.? ¿Did Peer pay contributions in Cuba?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Although Peer has had an office in Puerto Rico for many years under a variety of names, in the corporation register at the Department of State no record of a Peer registration as a local or foreign corporation was found. It is beleived that the lack of a registration may be a violation of Puerto Rico law. We do not know if Peer has ever paid any taxes in Puerto Rico.

- Does Peer have the scores for the songs they claim to own?  If not, how can peer promote their use and recording? Are the scores made available to performes that want to use and record the songs? Wher in the internet are the scores offered?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer:  Peer has no scores for half the Guillermo Venegas songs it claimed to owns. Those songs could not be exploited by Peer since Peer cannot license a song it knows nothing about (except a name). No score, no recoding. By no exploiting the scoreless songs, Peer is violating its alleged contract.with Guillermo Venegas. A fact is that per Peer data, no income from the sale of scores can be detected.. More here.

- How many songs have been lost as a result of Peer loosing the song materials given by the songwriter? Who responds to the heirs for that loss?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: It is estimated that about half the songs that Peer claims to own have been lost because Peer has no scores at present..

- Did a Peer employee sign documents as Guillermo Venegas so as to assign rights to Peer?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: A Peer employee simulated the Guillermo Venegas that they had a power of attorney to do that. The truth is that the power of attorney that Peer alleged to have may have been invalid because the contracts were never notarized..

- Did Peer register the Cuban songs at the US Copyright Office so as to protect the songs against infringement and loss of copyrights?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Peer never registered about one half of the Guillermo Venegas songs that Peer claimed were assigned to it by the composer. That favored Peer, since unregistered songs would never reach the renewal period and thus return to the heirs automatically. Some songs were also registered many years after they were alegedly assigned peer said, to elongate the copyright period, an absurd explanation.

- Did Peer notify the composer heirs of the bank and account number where their money is allegedly deposited?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: The heirs of Guillelrmo Venegas received no such information. We do not know why Peer would have bank accounts for the cubans but not for the heirs of Guillermo Venegas.

- Did Peer try to get an American Treasury Department waiver so as to be able to pay the Cuban composers or heirs?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Peer has not tried to make payments to the heirs of Guillermo Venegas, even when the royalties received by Peer, for which Peer has no rights to request or receive and the heirs asked for its reinbusement. All deaf ears.

- Did Peer ever inform the Cuban residents that they could be paid through a relative or agent residing outside Cuba?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer:  .N/A.

- Was Peer also prevented bu British law to pay the cubans from Britain, where Peer filed the song ownership lawsuit?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: N/A.

- Are the Cuban composers represented in the Peer web page, as are Rafael Hernandez and Agustin Lara?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Guillermo Venegas is not represented in the Peer web page. It is as if peer is not interested in prmoting the songs of Guillermo Venegas.

- Does Peer have in their catalog songs that are wholy owned by Peer or where Peer makes more money because thay pay a low fixed amount to the composer or the heirs?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer:  Not sure here but we think that Peer has different arrangements for different composers, in such a way that it is more profitable for Peer to promote some the songs of composers at the expense of other composers or their heirs.

- Why has Peer not named (as said in the press) which are the songs it claims to own in the british lawsuit?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Peer made confusing claims in the case For example, Peer admitted that the song Mi cabaña was included in their catalog but then said it did not claim the song. Peer also claimed to own songs that it had requested of the heirs of Guillermo Venegas in 1997... and was told "no" by the heirs.

- Is the money that Peer says is in bank account under the names of the Cuban composer heirs and can that money ever wind up in a Peer bank account? In what bank are the accounts?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: N/A.

- Has Peer done any deals whereby a record company does not have to report record sales with their royalty  statements?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Yes. Peer issued licenses with Guillermo Venegas songs where it stated it did not want the sales figures. As a result the reported royalties are almost meaningless. Anyway no royalties were ever paid to the heirs of Guillermo Venegas. Does Peer pay?

- Who audits Peer accounting to verify what Peer pays out in royalties to composers and heirs? Does Peer pay what the composer contracts say? Can the Peer income tax forms be inspected at no expense by the composers and heirs to whom Peer has a fiduciary responsibility?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Incredibly, in the trial, no such information was presented. The judge did not ask or care.

- ¿If Peer fails in the British lawsuit, will Peer allege that the verdict is not valid outside of Great Britain? And if Peer wins, will it allege that the decision is valid for other or all countries?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Peer alleges to own rights for the entire world except the Unites states for several Guillermo Venegas songs, which by American laws do not belong to Peer. We think that Peer is making improper claims, claims that we cannot understand nor accept. It seems that Peer thinks that Amercan laws do not apply to Peer, an American company or to certain songs of Guillermo Venegas..  As a matter of fact we the heirs of Guillermo Venegas do not know which songs Peer claims to own "for the rest of the world".

- ¿Does Peer voluntarily return (or renounce the rights) to the composers or the heirs (beneficial owners) when Peer has not been able to make any or a reasonable royalty payments for whatever reason?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Peer alleged in the trial that they have never returned any song to anyone for any reaso. This would include songs that Peer has never exploited for whatever reason. Amazing!!!

- Does Peer respect the Cuban composers and their heirs?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer:  Let us see.  Peer had little respect for Guillermo Venegas: -Peer said in their internal documents that Guillermo Venegas was "maladjusted" as an explanation for his complaint that Peer did nothing with his songs.  -Peer described the Venegas songs during the trial as songs that were not liked and thus Peer was not sucessful in their alleged exploitation.  -Peer planned the acquisition of Guillermo Venegas songs  "without the author suspecting".  -Peer put the name of Guillermo Venegas on a song (Borracho Sentimental) that Peer stole from another composer and left the name on the song after being made aware that Guillermo Venegas did not write the song.  Etc. Etc.  The heirs were equally treated: - Said a Peer lawyer during the trial that the "heirs had no right to information" to explain away the Peer refusal to give the heirs copy of the contracts signed by Guillermo Venegas.  - Peer was never forthcoming with the heirs so avoid, before late 1997, producing copies of the contracts signed by Guillermo Venegas.  - In 1997 Peer told the heirs, in writing, that the heirs were the owners of all previously Peer claimed songs. Peer said at the trial that Peer owned the songs.  - Peer continues to license Guillermo Venegas songs it no longer owns. For example, the song Genesis continues to be licensed by Peer (through ASCAP), being fully aware of the fact.  - Peer never paid any royalties.  - Peer offered to pay the heirs of Guillermo Venegas 70 dollars for the royalties of a song (Llega la noche buena) that Peer said was composed by composer Edmundo Disdier but in reality was composed by Guillermo Venegas. Peer has been notified that they own the heirs of Guillermo Venegas over one million dollars in unpaid royalties and has not replied to the claim.  - Etc. Etc.

Español

PEER EN CUBA: LA CONECCIÓN CUBANA (EXTRACTOS)
De articulos sobre la demanda de Peer International a herederos de compositores Cubanos.

Trasfondo: Luego del gran exito alcanzado por la grabación y el video "Buena Vista Social Club", Peer de pronto adquiere un gran interes y demanda en un Tribunal Britanico para reclamar la titularidad de las canciones cubanas, luego de alegadamente por decadas no pagar las regalías que correspondian a los herederos empobrecidos de los compositores Cubanos. Una fuente de noticias indica que Peer admite que no le ha contestado a los herederos cubanos sus cartas sobre regalías. Aqui presentamos algunas noticias, nuestros comentarios y preguntas. El autor  (Guillermo Venegas Lloveras Inc.) tiene actualmente una demanda cntra Peer en Puerto Rico.

Pero Peer pudo haber hecho lo decente...
Sería intersante saber (preguntas)...

Lo decente...
Porque Peer International (Peermusic) no hace lo decente y le dice a los herederos de los compositores Cubanos:
Ya que no podemos pagar regalías a causa del embargo Americano contra su pais. le devolvemos los derechos de las canciones, ya que no tiene sentido que nosotros explotemos las canciones, nos beneficiemos y ustedes no se beneficien. Despues de todo, ustedes son y siempre han sido los dueños beneficiarios y la idea principal de el contrato de asignacion era que ustedes hicieran dinero, y si no podemos pagar el trato ya no tiene sentido. Nuestras disculpas por nunca decirle que eran los dueños beneficiarios y que derechos tenian como tal. No queremos que piensen que los Americanos somos malos. De todos modos nosotros no hicimos poco o nada con las canciones en muchos años. Le deseamos exito en la explotación de las canciones.

El Tiempo.com
http://eltiempo.terra.com.co
Septiembre 29 de 2005
Dos sellos discográficos llevan al escenario de la música la tradicional disputa entre E.U. y Cuba

Dijo el el compositor Evelio Landa Martínez, de 83 años (sbre sus contratos): "Para mí todo fueron promesas. El interés mío era que mis obras tuviesen divulgación", dijo Landa, al deponer,  que no fue debidamente recompensado por su creación musical.

briffa.com
http://www.briffa.com
May, 2005
Autores de las canciones de Buena Vista Social Club Songs recibieron un trato de ron

PIC (Peer International Corporation) alega que ellos le pagaron regalías a los compositores hasta la revolución Cubana ein 1959 cuando el embargo Americano paró los pagos hacía Cuba.

The Miami Herald
http://www.miami.com
10-5-05
Viejos musicos Cubano luchan por derechos a regalías
Por Frances Robles

"Este caso tiene que ver con solamente 14 canciones, pero potencialmente estan en juego miles de canciones de compositores que no fueron pagados por años a causa del embargo Americano.".

Entre los asuntos: Violó Peer sus contratos al obedecer el embargo Americano y no pagar regalías? Y si pagaron, fue lo suficiente?

La abogada de Peer, Marisa Berardi dice:
''Peer tiene una larga histora de promover la musica de America Latina''.

Caso Buena Vista vueal a Cuba
Por David Ward
Thursday May 26, 2005

"EMC (Editora Musical de Cuba) alega que esta tratando de salvar la regalías de canciones que se sugirio, nunca hicieron un centavo para sus pobres autores."

Peer:  it had always paid the writers and their heirs a fair price.
But Editora Musical de Cuba (EMC) said the poor Cubans got virtually nothing. The contracts should not be recognised in law as they were "unconscionable bargains"

El Sr. Prescott (abogado de los compositores cubanos) dijo:
- Los reclamos de Peer sobre la música de 600 compositores Cubanos son todos invalidos.
- "Esos contratos fueron tan engañosamente creado (cunningly contrived) que le permitia a la editora pagar preacticamente nada a los compositores. ". "Los compositores recibian nada y si acaso, unos pocos de pesos y un palo de ron."

Sobre el hombre de Peer en Havana, segun Miguel Comas, director de la Asociacion Cubano de  Derechos de Autores Musicales:
"Su presencia es ahora leyenda.
"Un representante de Peer vino aqui en '58, '59,"
"Trabajaba desde la entrada del Hotel  Inglaterra, le traía a los musicos cerveza y le pagaban un dolar por sus canciones."

Sobre Peter Jaegerman, vice president de Peer:
dice que no sabe nada de tal historia de practica inescrupulosa.
Jaegerman insiste que Peer nunca le pago una cantidad fija, de una vez, por sus canciones
compositores que firmaban con Peer, todos recibian contratos lucrativo
Desde el 1961, dice Jaegerman, la regalías se han depositado en cuentas de banco a causa del embargo.

Pero la portavoz del Tesoro Americano, Weaver:
"el Berman Amendment libero a las casas editoras de musica freed para pagar a los compositres Cubanos en 1988."

Dice Marcos González, creador de Buena Vista, junto con el guitarrista estadounidense Ry Cooder:
"Muchos de nuestros grandes compositores del siglo pasado eran alcohólicos, bohemios, locos, entonces le daban una botella de ron y tres pesos, y firmaban cualquier cosa".

- Eran los contratos de Peer como descrito en los reportajes, "baratillos sin conciencia (unconscionable bargain) " y "tan engañosamente creado (cunningly contrived) que le permitia a la editora pagar preacticamente nada a los compositores. "?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Si, los contratos firmados por Guillermo Venegas eran engañosos para permitir a Peer no hacer nada con las canciones y no pagar regalías. Por ejemplo algunas canciones extraordinarias de Guillermo Venegas nunca ganaron regalias algunas con Peer segun los mismos datos de Peer. Aqui vemos que 19 canciones ganaron menos de mil dolares en unos 51 años. O sea, un dolar por año por canción en promedio. Y eso tampoco fue pagado. Y un informe interno de Peer escrito dice que Guillermo Venegas era un compositor que comparaba favorablemente con Agustin Lara, el mas exitoso compositor Latino Americano. El contrato era bastante engañoso en nuetra opinion y Peer fracasó totalmente en explotar las canciones.

- ¿Firmaron contratos en Ingles los compositores Cubanos? ¿Era legal eso en Cuba? ¿Entendian Ingles los compositores? ¿Entendian los compositores la terminologia legal y de industria de música de los contratos?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Los contratos firmados por Guillermo Venegas eran en Ingles, un idioma que el no entendia.

- ¿Era documento publico el contrato? Eran requerido por ley que lo fuera para que una cesion de derechos fuese valida?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Los contratos firmados por Guillermo Venegas no eran documentos publicos como, se cree, era requerido por ley.

- ¿Ternian dos terminos de duración los contratos, uno de poca duración y una de la duracion de la vida de los derechos de las canciones? ¿Confundia esto a los compositores, creyendo estos que si Peer no hacia su trabajo, las asignaciones terminaban y la canciones eran devueltas al compositor? ¿Tenia Peer que pagar regalías al terminar el contrato y su incluida clausula de pago de regalías? ¿Porque Peer y otras editoras comunmente hacen eso de tener dos terminos en sus contratos? Es para confundir a los compositores?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: El contrato principal que Guillermo Venegas firmo tenia dos duraciones. El primero era un termino para componer exclusivamente para Peer. El segundo termino decia que las canciones se asignaban para la vida de los derechos de la canciones. El primer termino de duracion fue alterado mediante una nota debajo de la firma de Guillermo Venegas. O sea, se altero sin que Guillermo Venegas aprobara el cambio con su firma.

- ¿ Consta, mediante firma de recibo, que Peer le dio copia de los contratos a los compositores?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: No hay evidencia de que a Guillermo Venegas jamas se le entrego una copia del contrato, con o sin firma de Peer. Si es cierto lo sospechado, eso era bueno para Peer. Sin una copia de contrato, un compositor no puede demandar por violacion de contrato. Cuando los herederos de Guillermo Venegas le pidieron a Peer copia de los contratos, Peer rehuso entregarlos (excepto uno, el de Génesis, y detras de se hecho hay una historia de tratar de engañar a los herederos).

- ¿Regian los contratos por ley de Nueva York? ¿Son anulable por incumplimiento de contrato?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Los contratos firmados por Guillermo Venegas regian bajo las leyes de Nueva York. Eso era muy conveniente para Peer, pues entonces no se podia demandar por incumplimiento en un tribunal local (menos costoso) y donde se hablaba Español, con un abogado local, haciendo casi imposible el demandar a Peer por incumplimiento de contrato. Bajo las leyes de cualquier sitio, si una parte no cumple crasamente con su parte, el contrato se puede anular.

- ¿Firmaron alguna vez los cubanos contratos en blanco que si Peer le ponia el nombre de una cancion, esa era de Peer y Peer no tenia que pagar regalías? Era eso legal?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Si, Guillermo Venegas firmo por lo menos dos de estos contratos. Que cuento le hizo Peer a Guillermo Venegas para que firmara tal documento, no sabemos. Ver aqui uno de estos contratos.

- ¿Dio Peer asesoramiento legal en algun momento a los compositores o sus herederos? Era eso legal?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: En Puerto Rico esta prohibido dar asesoramiento legal sin ser abogado licenciado en Puerto Rico. Nos parece que Peer da asesoramiento legal en Puerto Rico por personas que no son abogados y desde afuera por personas y abogado no licenciados en Puerto Rico. A los herederos de Guillermo Venegas localmente le dieron asesoramiento legal y hasta nos aconsejaron que buscaramos mas asesoramineto con el abogado de Peer en Nueva York. De hecho en su momento se le tuvo que decir a Peer, "no nos de asesoramiento legal, no lo queremos".

- ¿Estableció Peer un monopolio de representación al firmar las canciones de tantos compositores de Cuba?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: En Puerto Rico Peer firmo a la gran mayoria de los compositore de canciones mas exitosos.

- ¿Registró Peer registro las canciones Cubanas en las organizaciones de ejecución publica (ASCAP/BMI) y si estas organizaciones le dieron copia de sus catalogos a sus licenciados para que se permitiera la ejecucion publica y asi generara ingreso? Es simple: Cuantos licenciados tiene ASCAP y BMI en todo los paises del mundo y cuantas copias de su catalogo fueron distribuidas.

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: En el caso de Guillermo Venegas Peer registro algunas canciones (no todas) con BMI y ASCAP. Pero estas organizaciones no copian su catalogo a todos sus sus (creemos la mayoria) licenciados. Por tal razón, las canciones tampoco se usan por la radio y otras organizaciones que no tiene catalogos.

- ¿Firmaron los compositores Cubanos contratos tipo "blanket" donde cedian derechos por canciones no mencionada o canciones todavia no compuesta? ¿Era eso valido ante la ley?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Guillermo Venegas firmo un contrato que decia que su futuras canciones eran automaticamente de Peer. Eso era a cambio de nada o casi nada (el contrato decia un dólar por todas las canciones). El asignar canciones sin nombrarlas no constituye una asignacion valida.

c
- ¿Publicó Peer y mantiene la publicacion las partituras de las canciones que alegan tener para facilitar su explotación.

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Peer, mientras reclamaba ser dueño de las canciones, no las públicaba para que las canciones pudieran ser explotadas, salvo algunas excepciones por tiempo limitado. De hecho los datos de Peer no permite detectar pago alguno de regalías por venta de partituras.   Ver mas aqui.

- ¿Tiene Peer partituras para las canciones que reclaman? Si no las tienen, como pueden promover sus grabaciones? ¿Las tienen disponible para los artistas que quieren usar y grabar las canciones? En que sitio del Internet las ofrecen?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer:  Peer ni siquiera tiene partituras para aproximadamente la mitad de las canciones que reclamaron tener. Esas canciones no pueden ser explotadas por Peer, pues Peer no puede dar licenciar una canción desconocida en su totalidad y nadi las puede grabar sin una partitura. Esa falta de explotacion seria una violacion del contrato que pudo existir entre Guillermo Venegas y Peer. Ver mas aqui.

- ¿Cuantas canciones se han perdido a causa de que Peer las obtuvos y perdio los materiales que el compositor le entrego? ¿Quien le responde a los herederos por estas perdidas?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: En el caso de GVL estimamos que se perdieron aproximadamente la mitad de las canciones que Peer alegaba tener pero que no tenia partitura alguna.

- ¿Simuló un empleado de Peer la firma  de Guillermo Venegas en documentos que asignaban derechos a Peer?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: En varias ocasiones (6) un empleado de Peer simuló la firma de Guillermo Venegas en documentos que asignaban derechos a Peer. Peer argumento que tenian un poder legal para hacer eso, pero ese poder legal en realidad podria ser invalido por no estar notarizado.

- ¿Registró Peer las canciones en la Copyright Office para asi darle la proteccion en ley, necesaria antes del 1978 en Estados Unidos de America?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Peer nunca registro aproximadamente la mitad de las canciones de Guillermo Venegas que Peer alegaba que recibio del compositor. Eso favorecia a Peer, ya que canciones sin registrar nunca llegarian a su periodo de renovacion donde retornarían a los herederos. Algunas canciones Peer las registró muchos años luego de su alegada asignación, dijo Peer, para alargar la vida de los derechos. Una explicacion absurda.  Nota: Al no registrar canciones que fuesen publicadas (antes del 1978) Peer arriesgó esas canciones a que pasaran a dominio publico, con la perdida de todos los derechos en los Estados Unidos para la Peer y los dueños beneficiarios, los compositores. Era una locura administrativa de negocio lo que hizo Peer al no registrar las canciones.

- ¿Informó Peer a los herederos los numeros de la cuentas donde alegadamnete se depositaban las regalías?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: A los herederos de Guillelrmo Venegas no se le ha informado de cuenta alguna. Entonces no sabemos porque para los Cubanos Peer dice que tiene cuentas de banco y para los herederos de Guillermo Venegas no tienen cuenta (o no la divulgan).

- ¿Trato Peer de diligenciar con las autoridades Americanas que se le permitiera pagar a los herederos Cubanos? ¿Si no, porque?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: No aplica, aunque Peer no ha tratado (realmente, a nuestro juicio) de pagar dinero alguno a los herederos de Guillermo Venegas desde el fallecimiento del compositor en 1993. Ni siquiera pagó a los herederos regalías solicitada y que Peer recibió sin tener derecho a cobrarlas o recibirlas. Too cayo en oidos sordos.

- Le indico Peer a los residentes en Cuba que el dinero se le podia pagar a un familiar o agente  residente fuera de Cuba?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: No aplica.

- ¿Estaba Peer impedida, por ley Britanica, de pagar regalías desde sus oficinas en Gran Bretaña, donde Peer demandó para reclar la titularidad de las canciones?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: No aplica.

- ¿Tiene Peer espacio en su pagina de Internet para los compositores Cubanos como tienen  espacio los compositores como Rafael Hernandez y Agustin Lara?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Guillermo Venegas no es representado en la pagina de Peer como lo son otros compositores. Desconocemos el porque eso es asi.

- ¿Tiene Peer la completa titularidad de canciones, donde la Peer gana mas si promuebe sus canciones que las de compositores que son dueños beneficiarios?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: No sabemos con certeza pero creemos que Peer tiene contratos distintos con distintos compositores, donde para Peer es mas beneficioso promover unas canciones sobre otras en perjuicio de algunos compositores o herederos.

- ¿Porque Peer no ha indicado (eso lo dice la prensa) en la prensa cuales son las canciones que reclaman en el pleito Britanico?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Peer hizo reclamos confusos. Por ejemplo, Peer admitio que la canción Mi cabaña estaba en su catalogo. Pero dijo que no la reclamaba. Tambien reclamaba canciones en el pleito que dejaron de reclamarlas en el 1997 cuando se las pidieron a los herederos.

- Sobre el dinero que Peer dice esta en cuentas de Banco, ¿puede ser de Peer al fin de cuentas? ¿Estan a nobre de los herederos de los compositores? ¿En que Banco?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer:

- ¿Ha hecho Peer tratos con disqueras donde estas no tiene que reportar sus ventas de discos?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Si, Peer ha ortorgado licenscias con canciones de Guillermo Venegas donde la disquera, a peticion de Peer, no tiene que reporta las ventas de los discos, resultando ello en el pago de regalías insignificantes para los herederos. De todos modos la regalías nunca feron pagadas a los herederos de Guillermo Venegas. Paga bien Peer?...

- ¿Quien audita la contabilidad de Peer para verificar cuanto paga Peer en regalías a los compositores y herederos? ¿Paga Peer a los compositores lo que dicen los contratos? Pueden los compositores o herederos inspeccionar las planillas contributivas de Peer, sin incurrir en gastos, para ver si Peer cumple con sus responsabilidades fiduciarias?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Increibleente en el juicio no se presentó información de auditoria alguna. El juez no preguntó ní quizo saber.

- ¿Si pierde Peer el pleito en Gran Bretaña, entonces alegará Peer que son dueños de las canciones para todo el mundo menos Gran Bretaña? ¿Y si gana Peer, alegara Peer que son dueños para todo el mundo?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer: Peer alega que tiene los derechos para todo el mundo menos los Estados Unidos para muchas canciones que no le pertenecen en los Estados Unidos, por ley Americana. Creemos que Peer actua mal al hacer reclamaciones que no entendemos ni aceptamos. Parece ser que Peer dice que las leyes Americanas no aplican a ellos o a esas canciones.  Como hecho ni siquiera los herederos de Guillermo Venegas sabemos sobre que canciones Peer alega esa titularidad "para el resto del mundo".

- ¿Devuelve o renuncia voluntariamente Peer a los derechos de las canciones que no han generado razonables o alguno ingresos para los compositores o sus herederos (dueños beneficiarios)?

 

In Venegas vs. Peer: Peer alegó en juicio que nunca han devuelto los derechos de canción alguna. Asombroso!!!

- ¿Repesta Peer a los compositores Cubanos o sus herederos?

 

En Venegas vs. Peer:  Veamos.  Peer no le tuvo poco respeto a Guillermo Venegas: -Peer decia en sus documentos que Guillermo Venegas era un desajustado, para explicar las protestas de Guillermo Venegas de que Peer no hacia nada con sus canciones.  -Describieron sus canciones en el juicio como canciones que no gustaban y que por eso la Peer no tuvio exito con ellas.  -Para colmo, la Peer planifico la adquisición de canciones de Guillermo Venegas "sin que el autor sospeche".  -Peer le puso el nombre de Guillermo Venegas a una canción que Peer robo a otro compositor (Borracho Sentimental) y le dejaron el nombre de Guillermo Venegas sabiendo que Guillermo Venegas no era el compositor de la canción.  Etc. Etc.  A los herederos los trataron igualmente mal: - Dijo el abogado de Peer que los "herederos no tenian derecho a información" para explicar el hecho de que Peer se rehúso darle copia de los contratos a los herederos.  - Peer no respondio  a los herederos (continuamente) para asi no dar copia de los contratos solicitado, antes del 1997.  - A los herederos Peer le dijo, por escrito, que eran dueños de las canciones en 1997 para luego decir en el juicio que ellos eran los dueños.  - Peer sigue licenciado canciones de Guillermo Venegas que no le pertenecen. Por ejemplo, la cancion Génesis es todavia licenciada por Peer (mediante ASCAP), con pleno conocimiento.  - Peer nunca pagó regalias a los herederos.  - Peer ofrecio pagar 70 dolares por la regalías cobradas por una canción (Llega la noche buena) que Peer nunca tuvo ni alegó tener y que Peer decia que era del compositor Edmundo Disdier. Se le ha dicho a Peer que debe mas de un millón de dolares a los herederos de Guillermo Venegas y ha hecho caso omiso al reclamo.  - Etc. Etc.

News of 3-6-03 at http://www.brandonsun.com/story.php?story_id=20245

Our note: Music publishers in general have the habit of not giving requested information to songwriters and their heirs regarding song assignments, royalties, breach of contract, etc.