This ain't goin' away...read this:

---

Jackson Considering Filing Suit Against Sony
Thu Jul 18, 7:09 PM ET
By Sue Zeidler

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Michael Jackson, engaged in a war of words with record label Sony Music, is now considering suing the media giant for breach of contract, accusing it of questionable accounting practices, his lawyer said on Thursday.

Such a move would mark an escalation in an already bitter and public spat between the self-described King of Pop and Sony. Earlier this month, Jackson lashed out at Sony Music chief Tommy Mottola, accusing him of racism and a pattern of exploiting minority artists.

"We're definitely considering a lawsuit," said Marty Singer, a lawyer for Jackson.

"We've asserted claims against Sony. These are claims for breach of an agreement and fiduciary duties," said Singer.

"We have Enron-like accounting claims concerning the under-reporting of revenues to Michael Jackson as well as other alleged improper accounting practices," Singer said, adding that claims "could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars."

"Whether or not we're going to file a suit we're not saying at this time," he said.

A spokesman for Sony Music, a unit of Sony Corp., declined comment.

Jackson's pursuit of a lawsuit, a common occurrence between recording stars and their labels, comes on the heels of Jackson's headline-grabbing attempt to garner support for his dispute against his label.

At a news conference with the Rev. Al Sharpton in Harlem on July 6, Jackson shocked the media and the music industry by calling Mottola, chairman of Sony Music Entertainment Inc., "racist" and "very, very, very devilish."

Sony responded by calling his comments, "ludicrous, spiteful and hurtful."

Many in the industry dismissed the eccentric pop star's actions as the latest bizarre act in a singular career, and viewed the outburst as more driven by self-interest than a concern for the rights of minority artists.

LAWSUIT NOT PERSONAL

But Singer said Jackson's pending claims and a potential lawsuit have nothing to do with Jackson's personal issues.

"This is not a personal dispute. This is a legal dispute. It's a business relationship. Jackson's records have generated over a billion dollars of revenue for Sony," Singer said.

He said Jackson is claiming Sony acted inappropriately in the marketing of Jackson's latest album, "Invincible," which he blamed for the CD's relatively poor showing.

The album, which reportedly cost about $30 million to make, has sold only two million units in the U.S. By contrast, rapper Eminem ( news - web sites)'s latest album has sold that many in about two weeks.

A source close to Jackson says he believes Sony may have wanted him to fail so the company could have more leverage in a dispute involving his joint-publishing venture, Sony/ATV, which owns the Beatles catalog and is valued at close to a billion dollars.

Some in the recording industry have speculated that if Jackson falters, he would be unable to pay back Sony millions of dollars he owes it, and the label could then try to take over the joint venture.

"This dispute relates to more than claims involving the recording agreement. It also relates to their business relationship in the publishing venture, which is Sony/ATV," Singer said.

Sony has defended its marketing of the album, which industry sources said cost the label about $25 million.

Many in the music industry believe that Jackson, with one of the most lucrative contracts in the music industry, is trying to blame Sony for his flagging popularity.

Singer said Mottola never returned phone calls to Jackson for over four months when the pop star was trying to market his album.

Singer further said Sony failed to air a commercial during Jackson's televised special last year at a time when his album was allegedly being promoted by Sony. There are other disputes concerning the release of videos promoting the album.

"The 'Thriller' album did not really explode until the 'Thriller' single and video were released, which was well after the album initially came out," said Singer, referring to Jackson's blockbuster album of the 1980s, which sold nearly 50 million copies worldwide.

---

That last paragraph speaks the truth...promotion (videos, radio, singles, etc.) is the key 2 a successful release. He has a case.

Wow, I can't believe this . Michael is on the war path and out for Blood so to speak. They definitely screwed him over for him to act like this. Too bad! he is really letting his hair down and it's about time already. I hope he wins if he sues them cause it's not fair to him and they weren't doing the right thing by him. I dig him a lot. I think he's cool and i hope he wins this war against Sony .

Vagina said:

You Echo My Exact Sentiments.Peace

Michael owns some of the royalties of the Beatles music, he purchased them some years ago. there was rumor that he needed money because he hasnt been taking care of it properly... anyways he thought he could release another album and regain some money. He made a deal with sony, and in that deal he put his Beatles royalties on the line to get sony to him money for his new album, but he wasnt counting on it bombing the way it did. So he blames Sony for not promoting his album enough and for stealing his Beatles royalties from under his nose. AND THATS THE REAL STORY WHY HE SO MAD!! Sony stole his money from under his nose. I guess Tommy Mattola was to smart for Michael.

June7 said:

That last part is A LIE!!! When the Thriller video and single was released in late 83', the album was already at around 23 million in sales. Sounds like the album had already "exploded" to me. It was only a couple of million copies away from becoming the best selling album of all time.

Brother915 said:

Ur right, I didn't notice they were talking about the song "Thriller", I misread it, I thought they meant the album, as a whole.

It's a ridiculous statement 2 say the album "exploded" after the song "Thriller" was released on video and radio..."The Girl Is Mine", "Beat It", and "Billie Jean" were already big hits, both on radio and MTV (well, no video 4 TGIM).

I think the album "exploded" after the "Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever" special aired.

Honestly unless Michael has something in writing he will lose any law suit. U can not make people buy your record if they dont want it, alot of people are tired of Michael because he hasnt grown as an artist, his videos are all the same now, 10 to 15 minute storylines about nothing, and usually feature a celeb. This is similar to George Michaels complaint about his second solo LP which was 10 times better than FAITH but the public didnt want to hear him serious they wanted him in jeans and shaking his ass. But the difference with George was that he wanted to Grow as an artist and he just wanted to leave. Michael wants his CDS to sell and get played everywhere. Well sorry Michael, times change and whether INVINCIBLE is good or bad doesnt make a difference to the people that Buy music nowadays or listen to the radio, which is unforunate but true. Your popularity has dropped, your sales have dropped, just face it, it happens to every artist, just deal with it. I mean look at ELTON, he made his best CD this past year and chartwise it was one of his lowest selling. Does that mean the CD sucked, NO, it just means that his BIG selling days are behind him, same goes for PRINCE, MADONNA, MARIAH, BRUCE, WHITNEY etc...Just grown as an artist, accept the times and getting older and SHRINK the EGO and finally...GIVE BACK THE BEATLES MUSIC...Give Julian Lennon Back the Rights to his fathers work, so he doesnt have to go to auction and buy it from U so U can add another room on to your mansion. Maybe then I will respect U as a person.

lastdecember said:

hmmm...
mj needs to do more to promate the album and not just himself and his past acheivemetns from 20 years ago.
if invincible sold 6-8 million with one video of him appaereing in it, imagine what more could it sell...
u are right about other artists who don't have much success but still are the best.
mj should bounce back, it took maddy 2 albums to do that. so he should come back.
also, john lennon's other son said mj was smart to buy music from the 1960s. paul didn't really believe it would be worth much, but mj did.

Jackson tiff about green, not black

By Leonard Pitts, Jr.
Miami Herald

Fri, Jul. 19, 2002

You cannot libel a recording industry executive.

At least, that's my humble opinion, based on the 18 years
I spent reporting on the $14 billion-dollar-a-year business
of pop music. I saw gall that would shame a TV preacher,
greed that would make an Enron executive blush. So from
where I sit, you can say pretty much any nasty thing
about the industry and its leaders that your heart desires.
Because, as your lawyer will tell you, it ain't libel if it's true.

That's why I wasn't particularly mortified when Michael Jackson took a swipe at Sony Music Chairman Thomas Mottola during a rally at Sony's New York headquarters earlier this month. The self-proclaimed king o' pop, angry about the modest sales of last year's Invincible album, laid the CD's failure at Mottola's feet. He called the music company chief ``devilish.''

If anyone had a right to be insulted, I figured it was the devil.The problem is that Jackson didn't stop there. He also called Mottola a racist. It is Jackson's contention that the label failed to properly promote his album because he is black. In supporting him, Jackson told the crowd, they fought for ``all black people, dead or alive.''

As a black person of the alive persuasion, let me respond in words of one syllable: ha ha ha.

Not that there isn't racism in the pop music industry. To the contrary, from Elvis to 'N Sync, race has always been a key factor in determining who got airplay, promotion or pay. Consider just one of a thousand examples: In the early 1980s, MTV was notorious for its tacit whites-only policy -- meaning, its refusal to air videos by black artists. Sony reportedly threatened to withhold all its artists from the video channel if it did not play one black singer in particular: Michael Jackson.

So no, I have no problem with raising the issue of racism in pop music. What I question here is the source, the timing and the motive. Jackson's contract with Sony is believed to be the most generous in history. The label is reported to have spent a whopping $55 million to produce and promote Invincible. It's hard to see evidence of anti-Jackson bias in that largess. Apparently, it hasn't
occurred to the ''king'' that maybe consumers didn't buy his CD because they were unimpressed with it. Or else were unwilling to spend their money on an accused -- albeit never convicted -- child molester.

I'm sorry, but you don't blow 55 million bucks to support someone you hate. Truth is, this industry loves neither black nor white half as much as it loves green.

What's most galling about this is the idea of Michael Jackson as civil rights leader. Here's a man who has spent years in full flight from his blackness, who has never seemed to embrace or even want to be part of the African-American community, who has disfigured himself with medical and cosmetic procedures that seemed specifically designed to erase from his face every last lingering trace of Negro. Now he thinks he's Malcolm-freaking-X?!

Not in this lifetime.

''I know I'm black,'' Jackson told the audience at a later meeting convened by the Rev. Al Sharpton.

He's black, all right. Like O.J. Simpson when the cuffs went on. He rediscovered his ancestry when it became convenient to him.

And pathetic as that is, the real tragedy is that Jackson's
shameless, self-serving accusation trivializes the issue of race. It makes it easier for minds to close and hearts to harden the next time we confront a real instance of racism.

A black music executive told Billboard Magazine, ``You could
throw a dart at the R&B chart and find almost any artist who
would have more resonance on this issue than Michael Jackson.''

Better they should save the darts for the singer himself.

Martin Luther Jackson should take his own advice. Just beat it.

2001 miamiherald and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miami.com

hold on, just becuase mj had plastic surgery to remove or diminish his african features such as a big nose, etc. ; that will take away his roots?!!!
what if a white man had plastic surgery, would he be less white? what if the white man wanted to tan, would he be considered less white??!

mj always talked about black artists not receving their dues. but the whole situation is about sony vs. mj. not about rasicsm, or the album being bad. it all comes down to business of the atv catalouge. all the other mumbo-jumbo has come up since mj is revealing the industry in which he was part of most of his life.

Pssst...

NO ONE CARES!

99% of people who talk about MJ are laughing at him because he has no clue he is over and no one cares.

locoarts said:

one album that supposdedly flopped becuase of one video release and being gone for 6 years has sold 6-8 million. his war against Sony and the recording industry is the only one from the colaitions that talk about artists + their rights that is getting any real recognition. he is currently at #10 on vh1's mojo list.

it took maddy TWO flop albums which sold only 5 million-7million!! until ray of light, critics gave her critics,grammys and she sold 15 million albums. music sold 12 million. btw, she is only at #9 on the mojo list.