Oh shut the fuck up. Nobody is saying that it's an evil conspiracy to take the catalog from MJ perpetrated by "the man." Inherent in my argument, and what you seem to miss because you're so fucking jaded, is that the fact of the matter is that the people who control the media, by and large...for whatever reason...have focused on MJ owning the catalog as one of the major ways to discredit him. In the 80s, it was to say that he had no respect for the great Beatles and since he merged it with Sony in 1995, they've used speculation surrounding it to downplay his success (at least fiscally). I suggested that there was a racial motive and provided evidence as to why I thought that was the case. I never asked anybody to accept it as the gospel - it is an op/ed piece and doesn't pretend to be anything else, so instead of unleashing such venom at me, your sentiment would probably be better served attacking those in the so-called objective media who are anything but that.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Former child actor Corey Feldman, who has publicly defended Michael Jackson in the past, said in a recent interview the pop star once showed him a book of nude photos when Feldman was a young teen, ABC News reported on Thursday.

ABC News reported that Feldman, now 33, went to authorities late last week after conducting the interview and has since been subpoenaed as a witness and placed under a gag order in the criminal case against Jackson.

A spokesman for Feldman, who appeared as a young actor in such films as ``Gremlins,'' ``The Goonies'' and ``Stand By Me,'' told Reuters that was true.

Feldman's interview, set to air on ABC's ``20/20'' program on Friday, was conducted by British journalist Martin Bashir, whose 2003 TV documentary, ``Living with Michael Jackson,'' included an interview with Jackson and the boy who later accused the singer of molesting him.

Jury selection in Jackson's trial began on Jan. 31. The 46-year-old entertainer is charged in a 10-count indictment with child molestation and conspiracy to commit child abduction, extortion and false imprisonment. He has pleaded innocent.

After his arrest in November 2003, Jackson received expressions of support from several show business associates, including Feldman, who befriended Jackson at the age of 13 but had a falling out with the singer years later.

According to excerpts released by ABC News from his recent interview with Bashir, Feldman denied he was ever molested or touched inappropriately by Jackson.

But Feldman recounted that during a visit to Jackson's apartment about 20 years ago, he noticed a book on the singer's coffee table containing photographs of nude men and women.

``The book was focused on venereal diseases and the genitalia. ... And he sat down with me and he explained it to me, showed me some different pictures and discussed what those meant,'' Feldman told Bashir. He was 13 or 14 at the time. Jackson would have been in his mid-20s.

``I was kind of grossed out by it. I didn't think of it as a big deal. And for all these years, I probably never thought twice about it,'' Feldman added.

Feldman also said he defended Jackson when questioned in 1993 by police investigating previous child molestation accusations against the pop star. But he decided to go public with his account of the nude photos after seeing Bashir's 2003 documentary.

``I started looking at each piece of information,'' he said. ``And with that came this sickening realization that there may have been many occurrences in my life and in my relationship to Michael that created a question of doubt.''

Yeah, right, that's only why the media has been preoccupied with his ownership of the catalog since he purchased it.

Pepina said:

Well, Michael Jackson shouldn't have purchased the Beatles catalog if he was going to do stuff like license 'Revolution' to Nike. John Lennon was probably rolling in his grave so Michael could buy another elephant for Neverland Ranch. Certain songs should never be used to sell sneakers, and Revolution is definitely among them.

Pepina said:

Well, Michael Jackson shouldn't have purchased the Beatles catalog if he was going to do stuff like license 'Revolution' to Nike. John Lennon was probably rolling in his grave so Michael could buy another elephant for Neverland Ranch. Certain songs should never be used to sell sneakers, and Revolution is definitely among them.

You're deluding yourself if you think that most people in the media don't know that Michael owns the Beatles catalog. That shapes their view of Michael, which, in turn, shapes public perception.

Oh shut the fuck up. Nobody is saying that it's an evil conspiracy to take the catalog from MJ perpetrated by "the man

Michael told Paul that he was gonna buy the Beatles catalogue (some of Elvis' 2). Paul thought he was just joking. He can't say he didn't see it coming. It's Michael's now, he can do with it whatever he decides 2 do. Yes, it is a big deal that a successful black man owns the publishing rights 2 music, because many of Michael's idols were screwed by their record companies, and they still have yet 2 reap the benefits of all their hard labor. Michael has never been oblivious 2 all the resentment 2wards him all these years. He wasn't born in2 riches.

scorp84 said:

Agree with everything you said. However, MJ owning The Beatles catalog, unlike what some seem to be saying, isn't why he is in trouble now-or viewed as being weird.

skywalker said:

isn't it...

i've always ponder this question...
But MJ did recieve alot of hatred from "Caucasions" because of this...
we all know this...
I have friends who happen to hate Him Primarily because he owns the beatles catalogue...
and i imagine theirs alot more out there...

Now im not saying that the investigation is about this, no, the Investigation is about Fame not race...
But what im saying is that Alot of beatles fans are bitter because he owns it.
(i don't know why)

I've always thought The ATV catalogue was a brilliant asset to aquire,
But do we really wan't Mcartney Owning the Publishing...
I never saw George Harrison Complaining about MJ's beatles Asset,
as a matter of fact Dhani his son, said his relationship with Michael was always on good terms...

Plus owning the catalogue Jackson only gets a fraction of the revenues,
he still has to pay out royalties to his artist...
Including Mcartney... who always askes for a raise and never recieves it lol
maybe thats why he's bitter

Luv4oneanotha said:

Well, if you're trying to insinuate that Paul is just a sore loser, Yoko Ono and Julian Lennon were none too pleased about the usage of Revolution. Maybe it's just cause MJ never licensed any of George's "important" songs to shoe commercials.

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=bo050209

Funny.

3 things about this:

1. Corey Feldman. Nuff said.
2. Feldman gave a different version of the story to the police.
3. Feldman STILL says MJ didn't molest him. Nor did he say that the pictures he showed were pedophilia.

Axchi696 said:

Yoko Ono and Julian still have a good relationship with Michael...
They where the ones that Gave MJ the OK to use it, and helped him buy it,
Yokoi did not wan't it in the hands of Mcartney... probably for her own personal reasons...
You have to understand that this is a Business...
And out of all the years of ownership,
Your upset because he used it in a Shoe Comercial?
Other than that Jackson i Believe has been very good to the Catalogue...

Maybe its the fact that a black man owns the rights to what is arguably the greatest Caucasion Group in history?
The very same Black men who shattered theirs and Elvis's world records into peices...
Now i don't wan't to be the first to shout Racism...
But would the reaction be different if it where owned by a White Cooperate Mogul...

You shouldn't mix morals with business...
thus your argument about the Nike Comercial is Null and Void...

I'll tell you the same thing that MJ told Paul once he aquired the catalogue

"Its Just Business"

Luv4oneanotha said:

Well, that's "very devilish" of you.


BTW, George Harrison himself told Musician magazine this in 1987:

"What has happened is some people have used the Beatles catalog without the right to use it. People who haven't got the right have been given the right..."

and in the same interview he said:

"If it's allowed to happen, every Beatles song ever recorded is going to be advertising women's underwear and sausages. We've got to put a stop to it in order to set a precedent. It's one thing to be dead, but we're still around! They don't have any respect for the fact that we wrote and recorded those songs, and it was our lives"...



Now, when MJ sells HIS own songs to Nike, JC Penney, HP Printers, or Panasonic, then maybe I (and George's estate) will reconsider our opinions.

I dont think Lennons have a problem with MJ. Didnt Sean Lennon say MJ was the reason he is into music?

Mj doesn't own his own Publishing, i don't think...

Oh, he most certainly does! Mijac (sometimes credited as Miran) Music contains all of Michael's compositions, as well as the compositions of Sly Stone, some Gamble/Huff, Ray Charles and Isley Brothers songs. There are over 830 songs in his personal music catalog, not even counting the songs in Sony/ATV!

As far as I know the rights to Thriller and Bad weren't his since early 90s(because of the contract he signed with Sony). Now he fulfilled everything the contract said "2 more albums(HIStory, Invincible), a remix album(Blood), a best of (no 1s) and a boxset(Ultimate Collection), so he probably will get his rights back.

LightOfArt said:

arent him and Sony in a Stalemate Battle for the Sony/ATV catalogue,

He owns half of Sony Publishing Including Atv and Sony holds his Publishing....

Luv4oneanotha said:

wasnt that a part of the same contract which gave his rights of Bad and Thriller to Sony? If so, he'll will get that other half of Sony/Atv catalogue from sony back along with the rights to his own songs.

It was a good deal for Mike because they paid him some 100 millions, didnt they? and now he'll get all the rights back. Do you think sony made more than how much they gave him, in these 10 or so years?



spellingedit
[Edited 2/12/05 10:19am]

LightOfArt said:

Yah but Didn't Sony Try to make him Default on the Catlogue, by Sabotaging Invincible?

I believe thats why Matolla Haulted Promotion and videos after three monthes,

He knew that MJ had alot of money involved in the invincible Project, But Invincible Sold enough for MJ to break even, so the plan failed

If mj wasn't able to pay off his loans he would automatically have to give up his half...

Luv4oneanotha said:

yeah that's the theory that makes the most sense. There's that other theory that Motolla didnt promote Invincible coz it's shit