Yoko has never had a problem with MJ owning songs co-written by her dead husband. Yoko and Paul fight a lot, don't they.

... "Fallen Pop King"


Thats the best statement here!
[Edited 8/14/05 12:20pm]

Cloudbuster said:

Or could just be showing us how fucked up his fans are too.. haha

lilgish said:

Yeah, but it hurts more when your wife cheats on you with a "friend" than with some stranger. Or so I would believe.

i know now Paul is getting the last laugh in this situation...

If i were him i would have wanted to kick mj in the balls and made him eat his own dick when he did that...I know Paul was really pissed with mj during that time.

Maybe one of you knows the answer to this question.

Is there something going on with the current ownership rights of The Beatles catalogue that restricts the use of samples (of the good stuff anyway) on any of the online CD retailer sites (amazon, allmusic, cduniverse, etc.)?

Thanks.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...rmusic.htm

And yall are grown adults talking like this?

what the fuck is wrong with yall?

regardless of how yall feel about whom did what to whom and who should get what , yall should know better thant to run around talkin like little punk ass kids.


Yall should be ashamed, for real. this is sad.

real lack of maturity on this board.

and all this is comin from a minor.....

Why didn't McCartney bid on the catalog when it went on the market?

Nvncible1 said:

hmmm, in case you didn't notice, all of these threads have comments in these tones, all different tones might I add...did we hurt your little feelwings???

slightly yeah.....


bake a homeboy some cookies. and quickly.

Nvncible1 said:

awww...here's some

Ah hem, b4 everyone starts ranting about MJ/the Catalogue and whatever McCartney thinks, can we begin by questioning the validity of this article. Imo its a pile of shit and i cant believe McCartney even made those statements.

Its manipulated, distorted horse shit which bends the truth and creates a whole new story.

MJ owns the Beatles back catalogue , he bought it, he OWNS it, he doesnt hold a lease on it. Right now MJ owns 50% of Sony/ATV effectively translating as he owns 50% of the publishing revenue made by Sony, all their artists and everything they control, this means MJ is making money from Mariah Carey's back catalogue, the Beatles, some Elvis, some George Michael etc etc

This deal is set to end in December 2005, this means that either MJ retains the ATV catalogue i.e. the Beatles etc and Sony retains their part. However, whether this will actually happen is an interesting topic at the moment as some ppl are sayin MJ has struck a deal where he owns the whole thing (possibly why the conspiracy has heightened in recent years). Its unlikely he will give up the catalogue no matter what.

Ultimately it all seems dodgy that a source here and a source there have said MJ is in financial trouble, that kinda slur on a persons finances can only mean one thing, they dont want anyone to give him financial backing, they dont want investors etc who may support him, provide him with instant capital.

FunkyBrotha said:

Exactly

FunkyBrotha said:

http://www.chartattack.co...8/1201.cfm

http://www.kget.com/enter...211DBE6D1A

http://www.nme.com/news/113343.htm



as for the rest of your comments, i imagine Paul McCartney is more versed in the ins and outs of the publishing business, not to mention this particular case, than you are.

missfee said:

Whats even more funny is the amount of cursing this "Mature Adult" has displayed while trying to point out the immaturity of some orgers..


HAHAHA

missfee said:

Anyone would have been upset in his position. But he learned, and obviously he is gonna smile through it. which im glad

okay...why is mj the bad guy and mccartney the good guy in this case? it was a business transaction that mccartney lost....if the initial contract that mccartney and co. signed was illegal then why didnt mccartney and co. sue?

why does he "deserve" his masters back when he gave up ownership on his own accord?

and why are fans taking a personal vested interest in all of this? i am by far no mj defender but what he did made smart business sense..if mccartney wanted his masters strong enough he should have bin higher.....

some of the mccartney fan comments here have really surpised me..please help me understand your position better...

sosgemini said:

thats true. this whole thing was just "only" business, but they were suppose to be friends at the time, and it seems like a stab in the back what MJ did. He knew McCartney wanted that ownership, but it was McCartney's fault for enlightening MJ to the whole thing, otherwise if MJ wasn't even friends with McCartney at the time, he probably wouldn't have even thought about the catalog.

Its like when you tell a friend of yours that you plan on saving up to get this special house that will be on the market, and then they go out and buy the house before you can even come back from the bank and then they tell you "hey its just business". McCartney still has a right to be upset about it, whether it was his fault or not.
[Edited 8/14/05 19:46pm]

missfee said:

thats foreign to me...recently i decided to get out of the business that i created with a close friend and partner and asked for a buyout....at first things were a bit rocky but we both agreed our friendship was more important then money..with that in mind, if either one is being a b*tch about this, well...i just cant relate.

sosgemini said:

thats because you and your partner discussed it. Apparently, MJ and Paul didn't. Thats a different situation. MJ gained something that Paul missed out on.

missfee said:

Macca should only be mad at one person; Yoko. Yoko told Macca to hold out and the price wouldn't rise. Mike stepped in and got them, but there where other ppl in line that were gonna outbid Paul. Let's not forget, Mike told him he was gonna buy his songs.

missfee said:

yep, thats it.
[Edited 8/14/05 20:11pm]

sosgemini said:

first, it's not the masters that MJ owns. it's the the controlling interest in the publishing rights.

second, you're absolutely right. Paul only has himself to blame. He was worth about $500 million at the time, and declined to outbid MJ when he had the chance. also, Paul really doesn't have a leg to stand on in this whole thing, because he himself owns the catalog of several songwriters, including Buddy Holly, and was the person who gave MJ the idea to start buying up publishing interests.

Sdldawn said:

but mj and paul werent partners....neither one had a business obligation to the other...

besides sharing royalties for "say say say" and "the girl is mine".

CrozzaUK said:

Agreed. I too have heard that Paul is worth that much.

sosgemini said:

Which both songs sucked

Sdldawn said:

but what does any of this have to do with paul signing away his rights (for cash)...those rights being offered to the public and Paul choosing not to outbid others?

im curious to hear what you all think of prince's slave/wb contract issues...

do share...

sosgemini said:

NO NO NO NO.. damnit.. Why did you bring up Prince?


here we go with the orgers who protest "Prince IS GENIUS AND THATS FINAL.. YOU DONT EVEN KNOW" bull shit...


just teasin, but now you just brought all the creepy fans in..
[Edited 8/14/05 20:20pm]

sosgemini said:

here's a concise recap of how all if happened.

http://www.dailyhome.com/...0b2113.htm


Will Michael Jackson sell Beatles songs?
By David Hinckley
New York Daily News
06-30-2005





While the not-guilty verdict in the Michael Jackson trial should mercifully close the book on much of its sad and sordid business, a few subplots linger. One is that Jackson’s ongoing cash-flow problems could force him to consider selling some or all of his 50 percent share in the Sony/ATV song publishing catalogue.
That would just be boring bean-counter news except that this catalogue is home to not only a few familiar items like "Star Dust" and "Blowin’ in the Wind," but 251 Beatles songs. That means John Lennon/Paul McCartney standards like "Yesterday," "In My Life" and "Hey Jude."

This gives the catalogue an unusual prominence, and Jackson himself recently charged the molestation case was just a ploy in a larger conspiracy to put him in a position where he would have to sell his Sony/ATV share.

He also insists that he has no plans to do so. But reports persist, because Sony/ATV is part of the collateral he recently put up to obtain a $250 million loan and he is now technically in default.

As his pal Donald Trump can attest, these things usually get worked out. Still, the fact that one of the world’s most valuable and beloved song catalogues could be in play is instructive about the song-publishing biz.

Ever since Jackson bought the catalogue in 1985, he’s said it was both an investment and a rare chance to own music he loves.

McCartney, similarly, has often said he would like to own the catalogue just to bring his babies back home.

This kind of talk is music to fans’ ears. They want everyone to love the songs as purely as they do, for being beautiful music. When Brian Wilson tried to get all his Beach Boys songs back after his nasty father, Murry, sold them, who didn’t root for him?

Unlike a kiss, however, a song isn’t always just a song. It’s also a cash asset, as the trail of the Beatles’ songs confirms.

Junction One, 1962. Beatles manager Brian Epstein, unhappy with promotion for the single "Love Me Do," wants a more aggressive publisher. George Martin steers him to Dick James. McCartney and Lennon form Northern Songs and Epstein gives James 50 percent of the revenue to publish their work. Months later, James is a multimillionaire.

Junction Two, 1965. The Beatles are making so much money they have hit Britain’s 90 percent tax bracket. To shift their income to capital gains, they take Northern Songs public. James retains 37.5 percent and McCartney and Lennon 15 percent apiece. The company is valued around $5 million.

Junction Three, 1969. James realizes Lennon and McCartney are about to break up, which will badly curtail their song output. So he sells his shares to ATV, which is owned by Sir Lew Grade, a British entertainment mogul nicknamed Sir Low Grade. James doesn’t mention this to Paul and John until the deal is done, though he insists a nice lump sum from Grade is the most lucrative option for everyone.

John and Paul then try to block Grade from getting enough additional stock to have a controlling interest, and they almost succeed until Lennon announces he won’t deal with any suits, including those he and Paul need for control. Grade ultimately buys it all for 9 million pounds, around $18 million.

Junction Four, 1985. Grade’s people decide to cash out. McCartney is interested, but he wants Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, to kick in and she declines. So even though McCartney is said to be worth more than $500 million and already owns other song catalogues, including Buddy Holly’s, he declines to top Jackson’s $47.5 million bid for ATV.

Junction Five, 1995. Jackson, needing cash, sells half the catalogue to Sony for $150 million. Later Jackson will call Sony president Tommy Mottola "devilish" and accuse him of trying to steal Jackson’s assets.

Today the Sony/ATV catalogue is worth from $400 million to $1 billion. It could be Jackson’s most valuable asset, particularly since he has enhanced its value by selling some songs for TV ads — a move that infuriates McCartney, even though he himself has licensed Holly songs for ads.

So let’s call it unlikely that Jackson would want to sell all or part of his 50 percent share.

If he did, though, it would keep the trains running at Neverland for a long time. Which is why, even though Jackson and, especially McCartney, undoubtedly love the music, the recurring role of these songs in this drama is less the "romantic interest" than "cold hard cash."
[Edited 8/14/05 20:22pm]

hmmm...paul is mighty hippo about all this...mighty hippo..

i wonder if buddy holly fans hate paul..