Ninja Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 I recently lost someone dear to me. He threw himself from a bridge. We dated for 7 years from the time I was 17-24. He wrote a song for me and his mother has chosen to keep it from me because I refuse to go along with her narrative of what happened leading up to his suicide. Essentially, I'm not giving her the attention she wants so she is withholding something from me to encourage me into self erasure. I know that if he was alive he would send me a copy of the song. Technically, he owned the rights to the song, so his mother inherited it as he left no will. But the song was for me, he intended for me to have it. You may wonder, well then, why didn't he send it directly to me? The answer is that he wanted her to send it to me. She did post it to Facebook in order to share it with me and her audience. She has now blocked me. I can't help but feel I've got some right to the song as it was made for me, the message in the song is directed at me. I suppose if you serve as inspiration for art you've got no right to the artists work. Something about this situation doesn't feel right to me, I think it's that she is withholding it to spite me and has disregarded the fact that he wouldn't agree with that descision because he isn't here to defend himself. As far as my mind can reason, because of her blood relation to him, she now owns the song he wrote for and dedicated to me. Do you think I have no right to the song? seems that way to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 He could have intended to give it to you, but he didn’t. Until he gives it to you, it isn’t yours. As he was the author of his own death and he prioritized his own death over sending you that message, it was his free will action that lead to the result you have today. Maybe before he died he changed his mind, maybe he just forgot, maybe he thought not giving it to you would help you move on... wishing you all the best, move on, forget him. You have your own life to lead. He is a part of your past, don’t let him hold you back. There are many people who spend their whole lives worrying about injustice and stop improving their lives because they were wronged. Don’t join them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lleyta Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 On 11/27/2017 at 7:27 AM, Jsbrads said: He could have intended to give it to you, but he didn’t. Until he gives it to you, it isn’t yours. As he was the author of his own death and he prioritized his own death over sending you that message, it was his free will action that lead to the result you have today. Maybe before he died he changed his mind, maybe he just forgot, maybe he thought not giving it to you would help you move on... wishing you all the best, move on, forget him. You have your own life to lead. He is a part of your past, don’t let him hold you back. There are many people who spend their whole lives worrying about injustice and stop improving their lives because they were wronged. Don’t join them. Precisely this. Whilst you knew the 'intent' of the property right owner, that means nothing until it is put into action. Similarly, you have no right to go into a restaurant and use their bathroom without asking, even if you know they would let you use it if you asked them. As it is their property, they have to confirm the transfer (in this case temporary transfer) of property rights to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Posted December 3, 2017 Author Share Posted December 3, 2017 I agree. Though, I'm not clear on how a blood relation (in this case his mother) give someone a greater right to a dead mans property if blood relation is never a justification for the violation of property rights. If he had left no instruction for the allocation of his possessions we assume his closest blood relation is responsible regardless of their relationship. This moral dilemma leads me to wonder if a persons possesions should be disposed of if there was no instruction about what do do with it. Obviously that would be a shame. To dispose of a persons belongings post mortem simply because they had no formal wishes for their belongings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Legally, it's still his, even though he's dead, until a probate case is opened and a judge decides what to do with his property. If you have evidence for his intention to give you that song, you should be able to show up to court and make your case for it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 ... to @Ninja from... @barn (allocate responsibility to achieve resolution) On 11/18/2017 at 9:51 AM, Ninja said: I recently lost someone dear to me. He threw himself from a bridge. We dated for 7 years from the time I was 17-24. He wrote a song... On 11/18/2017 at 9:51 AM, Ninja said: ... he owned the rights... On 11/18/2017 at 9:51 AM, Ninja said: ... wonder, well then, why... On 11/18/2017 at 9:51 AM, Ninja said: ... to me? The answer is... On 11/18/2017 at 9:51 AM, Ninja said: keep it from me On 11/18/2017 at 9:51 AM, Ninja said: ... I can't help On 11/18/2017 at 9:51 AM, Ninja said: he intended... On 11/18/2017 at 9:51 AM, Ninja said: now blocked me. (life IS precious.) Some people choose not to see what they do to others. Barnsley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts