skyecute said:

Oh, relax with your hypocritical accusations. I never said I HATED anyone and I'm sure I'd be just as angry if CBS or whoever was was liscensing all these Beatle songs. And by the way - Michael outbid McCartney as well, even after McCarteny appealed to him as an artist to let him own his own material. But surely if the Beatles - the songwriters themselves - did OWN their own catalog (and I won't even go into why they don't), we would NOT be hearing "Hello Goodbye" on a Target commercial. And by the way - I hope Michael's stuff never gets bought and sold either!

At least he gave Little Richard back his publishing rights

lmao!!! when Paul stops buying the rights of music from other artists!!!


I mean really, everyone goes poor Paul (and company)... How can you really feel bad for Paul when he's doing the same exact thing to other people! I call it karma!

DiminutiveRocker said:

Please spare me with the "Paul appealed to him as an artist...". That is not true. Paul had the same opportunity as Michael, CBS and others who were bidding for the catalogue. In fact, Paul had even MORE of an opportunity to buy his own songs.The problem was/is Paul is CHEAP. Paul is a billionaire. At the time of the bidding for the catalogue, he only offered $20 millon. He thought that Yoko should put up the other $20 million. Why? IF he really was serious about buying his own songs back, he would have put up more money. He certainly had the money. Paul thinks that he is entitled to something.He is not. This was a purely business venture. No one was going to give Paul the rights to those songs. He didn't deserve them to be GIVEN to him anymore than John did. They lost the rights to the songs. Did John or Yoko expect to be given the rights after they lost them? I ask this question of anyone who is whining about "poor" Paul. If you had been selling this catalogue would you have sold them to the highest bidder-$47.5 million or the lowest-$20 million. EVERYONE who I have asked this question says the highest bidder. Some things are just logical. It's time to stop with this "poor" Paul BS. He was too cheap to bid for his own songs. He exploits other artists' songs for his own monetary gain; yet, he whines when Beatles' songs are used for commercial gain. PLEASE, let's stop with the DOUBLE STANDARDS!
[Edited 3/15/07 7:26am]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBr_rCP9RjM
MJ sold Revolution ( the beatles song) rights to a Nike commercial.

bboy87 said:

yeah...its silly...and all the other media outlets pick it up and nothing ever comes of it...kinda like mj was in forclosure...and mj was filing bankrupty...each act would result in a public notice being issued by the courts...which all them media outlets would publish.


but it never happens...cause its all bs.

Please spare me with the "Paul appealed to him as an artist...". That is not true. [Edited 3/15/07 7:26am]

bboy87 said:

Isn't it interesting that Friedman and other "whiners" don't mention this fact about MJ returning all of Little Richards publishing rights to him? You would think that some of these people who do the most MJ bashing would have some knowledge of other things except bashing a person because they don't like him.

The Beatles need to get of their asses & buy it themselves. Together they have the money. It might break them, but only for about ten minutes.

The Beatles catalog is one of the best investments you could make, and at least Paul might stop whining if they had it.

NDRU said:

Actually, you're right. But maybe it's more important to all of us than to the remaining fabs (Paul and Ringo) - although Paul seems to care (tried to get the Lennon/McCartney reversed for "his" songs).

... could be at this point Heather Mills might be able to afford the catalog
[Edited 3/15/07 15:51pm]

DiminutiveRocker said:

It's amazing the downright ignorance and hypocrisy when it comes to Michael. Michael is HALF owner of the Sony/ATV catalogue. How can he be blamed for "exploiting" the catalogue when Sony owns the other half? If you are going to claim that MJ is exploiting, then why not be fair(as if that is possible when it comes to Michael) and say that SONY is exploiting the catalogue. In fact, there are Beatles songs that Michael REFUSES to allow for commercialization. I really get pissed when people have this "holier than thou" attitude toward Beatles songs, when Paul McCartney is "whoring" Buddy Holly's songs for every commercial that he can find. Are you trying to tell me that it is alright for Paul to do what he and others are whining about. Another thing that is so hypocritical is would the whiners still be whining if it was someone else who owned the Beatles catalogue and not Michael? You can guarantee that if CBS had gotten the rights( they bid around $42 million, Michael bid $46 million) for this catalogue, they would have been using songs for commercials even more. No one buys a catalogue just to sit and look at them and people need allowing their hate to cloud their judgement. Paul is exploiting Buddy Holly's songs and thousands of others and I haven't heard one complaint from the media, music industry or detractors.