Another thought:

Don't writers and publishers each risk giving up something of value for a CHANCE at royalties? Truman has accurately described the publisher's point of view: they invest their time and effort in the hope that the song will generate royalties. The writer puts his time and effort into producing the song, and signs over half the right to those royalties in the hope that the publisher can place it. Both are gambling; both are giving up something of value in the hope of generating returns.

I have yet to see a persuasive answer for why publishing should NEVER revert to the writer. I suspect that the real answer is just relative bargaining power, or rather others' views of that relative power. But in the real world, each of us has to make our own bargains with our eyes open. If you don't feel comfortable signing away publishing in perpetuity for no guaranteed compensation, then don't. If you think it's your only chance at royalties and want to do it, then do. Don't let any self-proclaimed message board experts tell you how you should value a deal.

Personally, after reflecting on the events of the last week, I think I dodged a bullet.

[This message has been edited by dspence (edited 05-07-2006).]

[This message has been edited by dspence (edited 05-07-2006).]