So why doesn't he just 'Beat on the runt with a baseball bat' instead.

Yup, punk is dead -- it's all corporate and litigation these days.

If he's stuck for something to do he can always 'go and sniff some glue'

Why are artists so keen to keep their songs secret? What's the point in writing music if you aren't going to share?

Unless of course you leak it to them by "accident", and then sue the arse off them a few years later to make some easy money?

Conspiracy?

Theres nothing more punk than suing people for wanting to listen to your music- although, granted, it is the fact they're making money of it he seems to dislike

:claiming that his music publisher never had the right to "authorize distribution or duplication of six songs he wrote between 1983 and 1987":

So sue the publisher! DUH! They made the bad call - the storefronts aren't responsible for checking up on the contractual papertrail behind the publisher's offerings.

I would hope that more artists follow this trend, especially if they are consumer friendly and realise that the RIAA (and similar orgs in other countries) are trying to screw over their customers. If the artist reviewed their aggreements to see if internet distribution is actually covered in the original agreement, if not, kick up a fuss like this (although in this case rights don't seen to have been granted for *any* distribution). I'm sure there must be other cases where distribution has been extended to the internet but the original rights agreement doesn't cover that.

I guess punk music kicked a few people's dogs or something.

According to reuter's he is suing the publisher, as well as the studio and the ramones estate, so don't knock him for that.

@ Keith Turner

I feel it necessary to point out that it's "brat", not "runt". Even punks can write rhymes!

I just love some of you guys, that any time the subject of lawsuits or copyrights come up, automatically take the default "No one owns anything!!!!11!!!11!" position.

This guy spent his time and energy writing these songs. Yes, he does want people to listen to them. However, he never agreed to let the companies in question sell his work, and not get paid for it.

Let me analogize:

You write a computer program. It might be GPL, it might not be, whatever. You want people to use it. You like the idea of people using it. One day, you walk into Wal-Mart, and they're selling your program for twenty bucks a disk. And not giving you the money.

Conclusion?

He wrote it, he owns it, surely he can decide who can/cant listen to it. Sue away, lil buddy!

Apple and Walmart know better than to accept claims at face value I could go in and sell a bunch of things I don't own almost infinite number of things I don't have the rights to sell someone was not doing their job

Just a correction for you, if you had GPL'd your work and Walmart were selling it then you would have no cause to complaint as long as they were also providing the oringal source code and providing the code to any updates or derived works.

A while back trading standards tried to arrest a guy for selling firefix for £20 a time.

They were shocked at Mozilla for not having an issue with it, they simply pointed out that their license allowed it.

On my way into work this morning, what should start playing on my MP3 player? The Ramones, including 2 of the offending songs!

He was by miles the fastest drummer The Ramones ever had, is Richie slowing down in his old age?

p.s. 'Somebody put something in my drink' is a work of absolute genius.

"He was by miles the fastest drummer The Ramones ever had, is Richie slowing down in his old age?"

Nope he's getting up to speed and realising that by suing he can get far more bucks than he could from royalties from a few semi-obscure songs. Dont blame the guy for trying tho.