Michael Jackson is LOSING the Beatles catalog!

[Guinastasia]

Finally!

does dance of joy around the room

[mobo85]

You say you want a revolution? Listen- do you want to know a secret? Yesterday, all Jackson's troubles seemed so far away. Now, he says goodbye, and Sony says hello. We can work it out? You can't do that. Help! You're nowhere, man. He's down. He should have known better. In the end, the cash you take is equal to the cash you make...or something.

_{daed si emocni fo ecruos rojam s'okcaJ}

[Terrifel]

YES! Finally, Sony will be free to sell the catalog to Britney Spears!

[Gorgon Heap]

It'll be a long day's night when Jacko can't buy himself love. He'd better buy a ticket to ride or be left a fool on the hill. No yellow submarine made of Norwegian wood will take him to the sky for diamonds. Blackbirds singing to Eleanor Rigby will make him feel like a nowhere man. It's so sad he'll hear the news today and have to be a paperback writer.

[mobo85]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

YES! Finally, Sony will be free to sell the catalog to Britney Spears!

I was expecting them to sell it to that lady Madonna.

[Scarlett67]

Originally Posted by mobo85

I was expecting them to sell it to that lady Madonna.

No, I think Terrifel meant Billy Spears.

[panamajack]

When I get older, shaving my head ...
will you still need me, will you still feed me, when, I'm dumb and poor?


I don't know that I'd pick Sony as my first choice to get it, but I suppose it's at least a step.

[Cisco]

I thought he lost it a long time ago? How has Jackson been basically [allegedly] broke for years while Sir Paul is a billionaire if the former still has the Beatles catalogue?

[sturmhauke]

Jackson spends his money on a whole bunch of stupid crap. Neverland, for example, must be pretty expensive to run. I saw some TV interview a while back where they followed him into an antique shop. This wasn't your basic mom-and-pop operation, either - there were gold- and jewel-encrusted things everywhere you looked. Jackson pointed at things and said, "I'll take that, and that, and that," while his lackeys handled the logistics. I imagine his surgeons make a fortune in making him look like an alien.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by Cisco

I thought he lost it a long time ago? How has Jackson been basically [allegedly] broke for years while Sir Paul is a billionaire if the former still has the Beatles catalogue?

I wish someone better versed than I in the vagaries of the music business could explain it to me, but this is what Michael Jackson owned (Wikipedia article on Northern Songs).

There are several things that I can think of that are worth money in the Beatles world - please correct or add as necessary!

1. Sales of Beatles CDs
2. Including a Beatles recording on some kind of compilation CD / movie soundtrack
3. Including a Beatles recording in a television or radio advertisement
4. Including a Beatles song (performed by someone else) on some kind of compilation CD / movie soundtrack
5. Including a Beatles song (performed by someone else) in a television or radio advertisement
6. Radio stations have to pay someone every time they play a Beatles performance
7. Radio stations have to pay someone every time they play a Beatles song (performed by someone else)
8. If someone wants to perform a Beatles song on a recording, they have to pay somebody
9. If someone wants to print the lyrics from a Beatles song (in a book, on a CD insert) they have to pay somebody

My impression that what Michael Jackson owns gives him the income from 4,5,8,9, but not the other items on my list. Is that right? In addition, Michael Jackson only has rights to Northern Songs, which does not include George Harrison / Ringo Starr songs on Beatles albums after 1967 (according to the Wikipedia article.) I know that there is one Beatles song that is credited to Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starkey on an album so I don't know where that one would fit in (is it Flying on Magical Mystery tour?)

I think from what I read in these articles that I mostly have it right, but asking again - who can explain this to me so that I can understand it better?

Must you get permission to record someone else's song? (Straight Dope article, 1978

Does Michael Jackson control the Beatles music library? (Straight Dope article, 1995)

I don't even want to get into the Anthology recordings, or any movies or "music videos" made by the Beatles. I guess this is why we need accountants and lawyers!

[mobo85]

Originally Posted by panamajack

I don't know that I'd pick Sony as my first choice to get it

He has no other choice- they already own the other half.


Snopes on what exactly Jackson controls. I think Jackson makes money off all 9 items on Arnold's list.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Gorgon Heap

It'll be a long day's night when Jacko can't buy himself love. He'd better buy a ticket to ride or be left a fool on the hill. No yellow submarine made of Norwegian wood will take him to the sky for diamonds. Blackbirds singing to Eleanor Rigby will make him feel like a nowhere man. It's so sad he'll hear the news today and have to be a paperback writer.

Have some pity: he just wants a friend he can come together with.

[fishbicycle]

Does anyone think this is why Apple has waited so long to issue remastered versions of the Beatles catalogue? Because they didn't want to pay Jacko any more than they absolutely had to? Because maybe they knew (or hoped) it would come to this and he'd lose the catalogue?

There is virtually no artist's catalogue that was ever worth any money that has not been subjected to CD remasters - and there are even lots of them that never made a thousand bucks for all concerned that are available with improved sound and bonus tracks, etc. But nothing in that area since 1987 for The Beatles (discounting "Love", which is more of a side project of George & Giles Martin). It's been rumored that all the albums have been remixed in 5.1 audio and they're just sitting on them. I guess we can look for those to come out soon.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

Originally Posted by fishbicycle

But nothing in that area since 1987 for The Beatles (discounting "Love", which is more of a side project of George & Giles Martin).

I think you're forgetting Yellow Submarine Songtrack, which was an interesting "this is how good the Beatles' CDs could sound" tease.

[Harriet the Spry]

Originally Posted by fishbicycle

Does anyone think this is why Apple has waited so long to issue remastered versions of the Beatles catalogue?

I think there was a completely different issue. I heard this on NPR a few weeks ago. There has been a big lawsuit, also recently resolved, between Apple Records, the Beatles' recording company, and Apple Computer. The gist of it was that Apple Records, which existed first, accused Apple Computer of copyright/trademark/something infringement. There had been a settlement a while back where Apple Computer agreed never to use the Apple name to market music. Because at one time people thought of the computer business and the music business as separate industries. Imagine!* Once the iPod and iTunes came along, though, obviously Apple Computer was in "screw that!" mode, since there was so much money to be made. Now that this has been resolved, this will free up Apple to put Beatles recordings on iTunes.

*Yeah, that was intentional

[Scuba_Ben]

Originally Posted by mobo85

I was expecting them to sell it to that lady Madonna.

GROAN!

Very well done, mobo85.

[DMark]

Originally Posted by sturmhauke

Jackson spends his money on a whole bunch of stupid crap. Neverland, for example, must be pretty expensive to run. I saw some TV interview a while back where they followed him into an antique shop. This wasn't your basic mom-and-pop operation, either - there were gold- and jewel-encrusted things everywhere you looked. Jackson pointed at things and said, "I'll take that, and that, and that," while his lackeys handled the logistics. I imagine his surgeons make a fortune in making him look like an alien.

That shopping tour was done here in Las Vegas in the shopping area at The Venetian - however, the follow up story was totally different. Yes, Jacko was wandering around pointing to this and that (each more expensive than the next) and seemed to purchase half of everything in the store - all in front of the cameras.

However, local Las Vegas news reported that the next day, all of the purchases, except one (which I forget what it was) were cancelled. In other words - it was just a bullshit performance of lavish spending for the cameras, and nothing more.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by DMark

That shopping tour was done here in Las Vegas in the shopping area at The Venetian - however, the follow up story was totally different. Yes, Jacko was wandering around pointing to this and that (each more expensive than the next) and seemed to purchase half of everything in the store - all in front of the cameras.

However, local Las Vegas news reported that the next day, all of the purchases, except one (which I forget what it was) were cancelled. In other words - it was just a bullshit performance of lavish spending for the cameras, and nothing more.

Yeah, but having seen the guy's house, I would imagine that back in the day when he HAD that kind of money, such shopping sprees were common place.

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by Cisco

I thought he lost it a long time ago? How has Jackson been basically [allegedly] broke for years while Sir Paul is a billionaire if the former still has the Beatles catalogue?

Also, Sir Paul invested extremely well, and one of his most profitable investments was ironically other people's catalogs. He always regretted losing so much of his own publishing rights revenue, especially after his first father-in-law told him that there were several ways he could have mitigated the then horrendous British taxes. He owns the complete catalog [including the songwriters rights] of Buddy Holly (he published them from Mrs. Holly) and several other major and minor performers. He owns a ton of "one hit wonder" rights, which can be very lucrative when period movies are made.

Paul and Yoko came close to regaining the Beatles publishing rights just before Jackson snapped them up. However, he and Yoko were trying to negotiate a lower price just as Jackson showed up with a pasture full of cash cows from his early 80s work and didn't quibble over a few million. There was a lot of "that's unfair and terrible" reaction at the time, but it's hard to feel a lot of sympathy for people that rich (and again, Yoko and Paul receive half the royalties from the songs anyway, they were just trying to buy back the other half and control of who uses the song). Ironically, Jackson bought the catalog in part on Paul's advice about investing in publishing rights when they collaborated on Ebony and Ivory.

[Martha Medea]

The Girl is Mine. Ebony and Ivory was Stevie Wonder.
I squirm at the memory of either of those.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by Martha

The Girl is Mine. Ebony and Ivory was Stevie Wonder.
I squirm at the memory of either of those.

Dissing Paul McCartney's collaborative efforts?!?!? Oh, Martha, my dear. Hold your head up you silly girl - look what you've done!

[Seven]

Does this mean we'll hear Beatles songs being used during tampon ads now?

*Giggle*

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by Martha

The Girl is Mine. Ebony and Ivory was Stevie Wonder.

Actually "Say Say Say" was the one I was thinking of.

[mobo85]

I think by that time, Jackson was beginning to make his shift from ebony to ivory, anyway.

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by Seven

Does this mean we'll hear Beatles songs being used during tampon ads now?

*Giggle*

Would you use Fixing a Hole or Young Blood?

[Saltire]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

Would you use Fixing a Hole or Young Blood?

Perhaps a brand of douche called Strawberry Fields?

[Klytus]

Originally Posted by mobo85

I think by that time, Jackson was beginning to make his shift from ebony to ivory, anyway.

He shoots and he scores!