Jackson might lose Beatles songs. It's about time

[johnnie]

"SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Michael Jackson's shifting finances have pushed the pop star one step closer to losing the rights to his publishing catalog of songs.
The Bank of America has sold two loans it made to Michael Jackson for a reported total of $270 miilion to a New York investment fund, NBC News confirmed Thursday.

If Jackson defaults on the loans, his Neverland ranch and his stakes in music catalogs that include hit Beatles tunes and his own invaluable compositions could be seized."

More:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7748202/



I hope he loses them. He screwed over McCartney on that deal.

[Melodybe]

1. I actually hope that McCartney can get the rights back.

[johnnie]

4. I think he has some

Sony owns 50% and I think somehow some deals were made. Harrison was the smart one, he set his own publishing rights early on.

[Fenris]

2. Good.

:thumbsup:

[tjdee]

3. Good--how the fuck do you take them away from Paul McCartney?!

That's pretty low--and I don't hate Mikey Jackson.

I don't even like Paul, really, anymore, LOL.
But it's his music, that's just wrong what happened.

[northzax]

7. poor Mccartney, he's only a billionaire

hey, he signed away the rights. You can't say everyone did, cause harrison didn't. That and he wants ot change all the Lennon/McCartney credits to McCartney/Lennon.

gee, my heart bleeds for him.

[johnnie]

9. We all make mistakes as kids

I don't think it is about him making more money. When you write songs, they are like your children.

[northzax]

12. he was 30

if you sell your children, you can buy them back.

[Goldmund]

10. No he doesn't

That was just a bad episode early on with Yoko.

Besides, no reason they shouldn't be McCartney/Lennon anyway. Statistically speaking, he wrote more of them in the end.

[tjdee]

11. Oh, I don't care that much, LOL.

But I can see how it would suck for someone else to own my blood, sweat, and tears.

As for the Lennon/McCartney vs. McCartney/Lennon stuff...that's a pretty meaningless thing. Both names are listed,etc. Is it petty? Yes.

I do seem to recall that he only asked for that for some songs? And Yoko said no, or something? I don't care that much, LOL, I wasn't really paying attention.

[northzax]

14. he sold them

it's like a painter selling a painting, once it's out the door, and the check has cleared, you can't complain about not owning it any more.

[Goldmund]

16. There was no internets in 1962,

You HAD to sell the rights to your songs if you wanted them distributed by a label.

And he didn't sell them to Jackson -- Jackson outbid McCartney at an auction when the publishing house was selling them.

[northzax]

20. obviously he didn't sell them

to an infant. If he'd wanted them badly enough, he would have bought them.

[Goldmund]

21. I want a ferrari really really badly

Well not really, but you get my point.

[northzax]

24. righto.

see, he is a billionaire. in Pounds. yes, it would be expensive, but hey, he can afford it.

[Goldmund]

26. Do you have any idea what figures we're talking about...

...or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

I don't know how much the song rights cost or how much McCartney had. I do know one thing for sure: Jackson could own McCartney ten times over at that time.

[northzax]

31. Jackson has leveraged 50% of the collection

for $250 million dollars. For the record, Paul McCartney is worth 1.9 Billion Pounds, according to Forbes. That's about 4.5 Billion Dollars.

he'll be fine.

should Norah Jones also have her rights returned? Sony ATV owns those as well. As well as Joni Mitchell, Marc Anthony, Sarah McLaughlin, destiny's Child, System of a Down...should I go on?

Oh, I forgot. It also owns the soundtrack to Muppets from Space. GIVE KERMIT HIS RIGHTS BACK.

Point is, Norah Jones is a modern artist, not exploited by anyone, she knew the business. So should her rights be returned to her, or was she allowed to sell them as well.

[johnnie]

18. The business worked that way back then

The first time they were "sold" was in 1963 or so. Paul was a little younger than 30.
They didn't really understand about all that stuff back then and were taken advantage of. It is a lot different than selling your paintings.

[northzax]

23. huh, how is it different?

oh right, selling is different than selling.

did he recieve payment for them? did he spend that money? yes? oh, then he can buy them back at fair market value. Bet he won't.

Do you think what gets people so worked up here is that, for once, a black man (kinda) owns a white man's music?

[Goldmund]

25. We've just crossed into the twilight zone.

[johnnie]

29. Actually no

The money was made after the songs were sold to the public. Publishing rights are different than outright selling. You sign an agreement with a company to promote your songs. Many many people were screwed because they didn't understand what the people in the industry was doing.
Today it is a lot different. I own 100% of any publishing to my songs. Not that I make money, but if one happened to do something somewhere I would get paid. If I would have signed with a company, they would be out trying to sell my material. In a lot of cases, the agreement is a percentage. Back then, it was robbery.
Crosby, Stills and Nash were one of the very first to figure that out. They own all they did. Before that a lot of people didn't. They had to fight to get some of their rights back.


To answer your other question.. I think what gets people worked up is that so many people (black and white) were taken advantage of in a business that was basically new. Trust me, I am more pissed about what happened to someone like Muddy Waters than I am about McCartney.
This isn't a racial issue to most of us. I didn't even think about that until you mentioned it. I think maybe you are thinking too much into this.

[northzax]

32. I notice no one posting threads

about how BB King's songs are owned by someone else.

that's all.

[johnnie]

34. If that was in the news today

I would be the first one to try to post a thread on it. I'm all for the people getting back what they got screwed on.

As for this issue about the money. When Lennon and McCartney signed away the rights, they got paid no money. They don't get money for any songs that are used that they have written.
They only make the money from record sales, not songs.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Sheesh! He Was 21 Years Old At The Time

How much do you think he knew about copyright laws at the time. Cut the guy a break for not knowing then what he knows now.
The Professor

[Atlas Mugged]

44. As much as I utterly loathe McCartney

the only song credit he wants to change is 'Yesterday', since he wrote it himself. And it would still have Lennon's name on it. This is an issue between McCartney and Ono.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. It's a long story

Snopes on it: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

Basically it came from the business deals that Lennon and McCartney did in the early days of the Beatles. They always got some money from the songs, but their manager and music publisher got a lot too. It was that share that eventually Jackson bought, via other companies. Jackson outbid McCartney for those rights (which included other groups' songs too).

[bluestateguy]

5. I just want the Beatles songs put online (Napster, iTunes, MusicNet)

It's very frustrating.

[catzies]

22. Me too. Is that so wrong? I don't think so. I hope they can work it out

Life is very short, and there's no time for fussing and fighting, my friends. :)

[jpgray]

6. The irony is that Paul advised him to buy up music publishing rights

It was good advice--probably been keeping Mike afloat the past few years.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. There's speculation that this is why the albums haven't been remastered

The CDs are of relativley poor quality - circa. 1988. They really need to be remastered, and some would say, remixed. But only a small portion of the songs have been. Some say this could be because of Jackson and the fact that Apple and Paul McCartney don't want to give him more money.

[underpants]

13. Sometimes there just isn't enough "French Fries"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=3190609&mesg_id=3190609

[johnnie]

19. Oh crap

Sorry ...

[underpants]

37. It's a different story really

French Fries :eyes:

[johnnie]

38. Oh..OK..lol

I just saw the name. French fries...wtf?

[noonwitch]

17. Paul and Yoko should put the past behind them and work together

The ultimate beneficiaries would be their kids, anyways. Most of them are pretty well off, but I'll bet Julian Lennon could use some money.

[Goldmund]

27. As long as he doesn't let Yoko record anything, I'm with you.

[JohnnyRingo]

28. If he loses them it'll likely be a new era in advertising

As they may go to the highest bidder.

"Baby, you can drive my car....beep beep n beep beep FORD"

[Goldmund]

30. Which is the main reason I'm so bent about this issue.

That plastic android let the Beatles' songs be used for commercial jingles.

The Beatles never let their shit be used for advertising.

[northzax]

33. er, Sir Paul played the Superbowl

I think's it's safe to assume he'd rent the songs for cash as well.

[Goldmund]

35. Oh, worse yet

he put out that "Freedom" piece of shit.

The Paul from 1968 would have been verily disgusted.

But during the existence of the Beatles, they never did allow their songs used for commercial purposes.

On Edit: I'm also not sure that McCartney would allow the songs used for advertising. I kinda doubt it. Superbowl was just a gig to him. That "Freedom" crap is much more offensive to me.

[coloradodem2005]

39. What freedom crap?

[tjdee]

40. That horrible song he released after 9/11.

"Freedom.....Freedommmmmm...."

It was the most mediocre...ugh. He probably thought of that in like, five minutes, and then went out to watch tv.

[Goldmund]

41. What tjdee said.

You really should check it out. It's amazingly offensive.

[northzax]

42. true, it seems to me that this has allowed

the Beatles to remain 'above commercialism' since the broken up band-mates were never under pressure to sell out, since they didn't own the songs. But really, if Cadillac could get Led Zepplin after 30 years, the right offer would have broken the Beatles as well.

[coloradodem2005]

36. I hope Jackson loses them.

Having them butchered on commercials is really annoying.

[Shell Beau]

45. Whoopee!!

:woohoo: It's about time!