Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Michael Jackson could lose Beatles catalog rights!! YES!!!!!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
21 replies to this topic

#1 of 22 OFFLINE   Matt Butler

Matt Butler

    Screenwriter



  • 1,921 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 23 2001

Posted December 20 2005 - 10:38 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2....eut/index.html

I want Mccartney to get the library!
My Blu Rays
http://www.blu-ray.c...ol...=Dj Matt B

Favorite films of all time in no order
1. Zodiac 2. Dawn of the Dead (1978) 3. The Good The Bad and The Ugly 4. Blade Runner 5. The Warriors 6. Dark Knight 7. The Godfather  8. Bullitt 9. Experiment in Terror 10. Raiders of the Lost...

#2 of 22 OFFLINE   Kevin M

Kevin M

    Producer



  • 5,172 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 23 2000

Posted December 20 2005 - 08:36 PM

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

There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures.  The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves.
- Roger Ebert
 

#3 of 22 OFFLINE   Todd Hostettler

Todd Hostettler

    Second Unit



  • 285 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 07 1999

Posted December 21 2005 - 02:50 AM

Way too long in coming. Posted Image

#4 of 22 OFFLINE   Aaron Silverman

Aaron Silverman

    Lead Actor



  • 9,535 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Silverman
  • LocationFlorida

Posted December 21 2005 - 02:54 AM

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.
"How wonderful it will be to have a leader unburdened by the twin horrors of knowledge and experience." -- Mr. Wick

#5 of 22 OFFLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor



  • 9,737 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted December 21 2005 - 03:18 AM

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.

XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)


#6 of 22 OFFLINE   PhilBoy

PhilBoy

    Second Unit



  • 427 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2003

Posted December 21 2005 - 05:06 AM

"Instant Karma's gonna get you..."
simplicity is genius...

#7 of 22 OFFLINE   oscar_merkx

oscar_merkx

    Lead Actor



  • 7,632 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2002

Posted December 21 2005 - 05:58 AM

about time perhaps
Toastmasters International

Communication is Everything

#8 of 22 OFFLINE   Philip Hamm

Philip Hamm

    Lead Actor



  • 6,885 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 1999

Posted December 21 2005 - 07:36 AM

Quote:
GOOD! Maybe then we will get a decent CD/DVD-A/SACD release.
Right! Just like we've gotten of Paul's solo catalog..... er..... Well, not really.Posted Image
Philip Hamm
Moderator Emeritus

#9 of 22 OFFLINE   Danny Tse

Danny Tse

    Producer



  • 3,190 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 2000

Posted December 21 2005 - 08:51 AM

MJ only owns the publishing rights, not the rights to the actual sound recordings.
SACD not listed at sa-cd.net (updated 8/26/2009)

#10 of 22 OFFLINE   oscar_merkx

oscar_merkx

    Lead Actor



  • 7,632 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2002

Posted December 21 2005 - 09:21 AM

what is the difference then ?
Toastmasters International

Communication is Everything

#11 of 22 OFFLINE   Matt Butler

Matt Butler

    Screenwriter



  • 1,921 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 23 2001

Posted December 21 2005 - 10:19 AM

What Oscar said
My Blu Rays
http://www.blu-ray.c...ol...=Dj Matt B

Favorite films of all time in no order
1. Zodiac 2. Dawn of the Dead (1978) 3. The Good The Bad and The Ugly 4. Blade Runner 5. The Warriors 6. Dark Knight 7. The Godfather  8. Bullitt 9. Experiment in Terror 10. Raiders of the Lost...

#12 of 22 OFFLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor



  • 9,737 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted December 21 2005 - 10:29 AM

What Matt said



Posted Image

XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)


#13 of 22 OFFLINE   Dennis Nicholls

Dennis Nicholls

    Lead Actor



  • 7,828 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 1998
  • Real Name:Dennis
  • LocationBoise, ID

Posted December 21 2005 - 11:40 AM

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....icle11325.html for reasons why you won't hear the Beatles on your iPod anytime soon.
Feline videophiles Condoleezza and Dukie.


#14 of 22 OFFLINE   Danny Tse

Danny Tse

    Producer



  • 3,190 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 2000

Posted December 21 2005 - 11:45 AM

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.
SACD not listed at sa-cd.net (updated 8/26/2009)

#15 of 22 OFFLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor



  • 9,737 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted December 21 2005 - 12:01 PM

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

Essentially:
Quote:
What Michael Jackson bought for $47.5 million in 1985 was the publishing rights to 159 or 251 Beatles songs, depending on who's counting. To maybe oversimplify a complicated business, publishing rights are basically the sheet music rights. When Paul McCartney wanted to print the lyrics to "Eleanor Rigby" and other Beatles classics in the program for his 1989 world tour, he discovered he'd have to pay a fee to Michael Jackson. The owner of the publishing rights (hereinafter the publisher) also gets a royalty when someone plays a Beatles song on a jukebox or the radio or does a cover version of a Fab Four tune.

...

The point is, being a publisher doesn't give you all that much control over the songs you own; mainly it gives you the right to the profits they earn. You don't even get to keep all of that; typically you have to give 50% to each song's composer(s), one reason not to feel too sorry for Paul McCartney and the estate of John Lennon.
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" Posted Image

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 Posted Image

XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)


#16 of 22 OFFLINE   Carl Miller

Carl Miller

    Screenwriter



  • 1,461 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2002

Posted December 21 2005 - 03:37 PM

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.
Carl

#17 of 22 OFFLINE   Josh Simpson

Josh Simpson

    Supporting Actor



  • 926 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2002

Posted December 22 2005 - 09:41 AM

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.

#18 of 22 OFFLINE   Jeff Ulmer

Jeff Ulmer

    Producer



  • 5,593 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 1998

Posted December 22 2005 - 10:16 AM

Quote:
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).
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.

#19 of 22 OFFLINE   Gui A

Gui A

    Supporting Actor



  • 597 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 25 2000

Posted December 25 2005 - 03:16 PM

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

#20 of 22 OFFLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor



  • 9,737 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted December 25 2005 - 05:31 PM

Quote:
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.
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.

XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)



Back to Music & Soundtracks



Forum Nav Content I Follow