Michael Jackson could lose Beatles catalog rights!! YES!!!!! (1 Viewer)

[Matt Butler]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Musi...eut/index.html

I want Mccartney to get the library!

 

[Kevin M]

GOOD! Maybe then we will get a decent CD/DVD-A/SACD release.

 

[Todd Hostettler]

Way too long in coming.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Assuming that he is forced to give up the rights to the library, then McCartney's not getting anywhere near them. One of those companies like Sony or ATV, or the creditors on the loans secured by the music library, will.

Frankly, I would rather have Michael Jackson, someone who probably appreciates the music, in control of it than one of those soulless record companies who would probably start by using it for unconscionable DRM experiments.

 

[Carlo_M]

While I certainly share no love for record companies, what has Michael Jackson done with those rights to appease us Beatles fans? I hardly count the "1" disc or the re-issue of the White Album and Yellow Submarine as doing the catalog justice.

I say let the chips fall where they may, and hopefully Sir Paul will step up to the plate (with help from some other contributors and whatever conscience MJ has left) and get back their music.

 

[PhilBoy]

"Instant Karma's gonna get you..."

 

[oscar_merkx]

about time perhaps

 

[Philip Hamm]

Right! Just like we've gotten of Paul's solo catalog..... er..... Well, not really.

 

[Danny Tse]

MJ only owns the publishing rights, not the rights to the actual sound recordings.

 

[oscar_merkx]

what is the difference then ?

 

[Matt Butler]

What Oscar said

 

[Carlo_M]

What Matt said

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

IIRC MJ owns the rights to the sheet music, and the rights for musicians to record the same.

Apple Corps. Ltd. owns the copyrights to the actual Beatles recordings. See http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/ar...icle11325.html for reasons why you won't hear the Beatles on your iPod anytime soon.

 

[Danny Tse]

Neither MJ nor Sony have control of what the Beatles put down on tape. Those are still the property of EMI, and anything involving the actual recordings has to have consent from both EMI and Apple Records.

 

[Carlo_M]

Here's a Q & A with Straightdope regarding this issue.

Essentially: So I can envision a scenario where the Beatles may not have re-released their entire catalog because MJ would get a cut of it (and if 50% went to Lennon/McCartney as the primary writers, Harrison and Starr would be SOL).

Whereas if they regain the rights, the Beatles (more specifically Paul) would recoup more of the profit and not have to share w/ MJ. We all know there's a bit of a feud between MJ and PM (how bad depends on the source you read) so perhaps McCartney (& Co) haven't reopened the cashcow floodgates as a way of "sticking it to the man"

Anyhoo, who knows what might come of this, all I want is a great sounding remaster of the entire catalog. I don't care if it's McCartney, EMI, Apple, or whomever that releases it. If getting those rights out of MJ's hands help expedite the process [and admittedly there is no guarantee it would], so be it.

BTW, I don't know what the author of that article that Dennis linked to is saying...I've got the entire Beatles catalog on my iPod

 

[Carl Miller]

Some local DJ's were talking about this subject this morning and played a practical joke on listeners by reporting that Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears and Usher formed a corporation and announced plans to buy the publishing rights. The listener call in responses were hysterical.

There are worse owners for these rights than MJ.

 

[Josh Simpson]

A quality remastering job of the catalog in both stereo and mono would just about make my year.... I don't even have DVD-A or SACD capabilities, but you put those suckers out there and I will upgrade.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Unless they are credited as writers, or are the publishers themselves, the other members of any band are not entitled to publishing royalties. Only the lyricist, composer and publisher get performance or mechanical royalties. Band members may get a share of the "points" on an album (a percentage of the wholesale price on their recordings), which is part of the recording and/or artist deal, but they may not even get that depending on the arrangement.

It would be HIGHLY unlikely that EMI would give a rat's ass about who owns the publishing rights, or would decline to exploit the assets for that reason. This is business, not kindergarten.

 

[Gui A]

So... anything new on this? Did MJ lose the rights?

 

[Carlo_M]

One would think...

And yet in this proven cash-cow that is the double-dip and re-release of remasters for "classic" albums, the Beatles are the one conspicuous absence. Pink Floyd, Zep, Stones, Queen, etc. All have had remasters and done quite well. Yet the proverbial 800lbs gorilla has been quiet. So while my envisioned scenario may not be accurate, **something** is holding up the works. They could stand to make a killing selling the remastered albums, and then again in a hi-rez format or dualy-disc.