The Beatles could bail out Michael Jackson

[brownie]

Michael Jackson may have to sell the publishing rights (at least half ot it) to the Beatles catalog he bought in 1985 to pay off his mounting debts. He is denying the report for the time being.

From AFP:

JACKSON DENIES HE IS SELLING HIS BEATLES MUSIC CATALOG

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - Embattled pop superstar Michael Jackson, on trial for child molestation and said by prosecutors to be all but broke, denied he is seeking to sell his Beatles music catalog.

"There have been numerous reports regarding the sale, or portions thereof, of Michael Jackson's music catalog. These reports are not true," said the singer's spokeswoman Raymone Bain.

The denial came after Fox News reported that Jackson was about to sell most of his 50 percent share of the prized collection of the Fab Four's hits to pay off more than 275 million dollars debts that prosecutors say will become due by year end.

The sale of his share of the precious catalog, which he owns jointly with Sony/ATV Music and estimated to be worth around 400 million dollars, would mean all his debts could be paid off, Fox said.

In addition, the television station said, Jackson would end up liquid again with about 10 million dollars in cash from the deal.

"Michael doesn't want people to think he lost the Beatles," Fox quoted a longtime friend as saying, according to the station's website. "He wants his fans to think it was stolen from him. He has to be the victim."

Prosecutors in the star's child sex trial said in February that the star was facing a major financial debt crisis that could ruin him.

"I am informed that the defendant Michael Jackson was facing a dire financial crisis at the time of the charged offenses," they wrote in a request to have the superstar's financial records subpoenaed at his trial.

"I am also informed and believe that Michael Jackson faces a crushing amount of personal debt mounting to well over 275 million dollars which will be due and payable in December of this year," they said.

Jackson has pleaded innocent to 10 charges, including child abuse on a 13-year-old cancer survivor, plying the boy with alcohol and plotting to kidnap the boy and his family to limit the damage of bad publicity on his struggling financial empire.

Edited April 16, 2005 by brownie

[Michael Fitzgerald]

So Michael Jackson nabs the Beatles rights by outbidding *Paul McCartney* and now we're supposed to feel sorry for Jackson? How the hell is he the victim?

Mike

[Brownian Motion]

"I am informed that the defendant Michael Jackson was facing a dire financial crisis at the time of the charged offenses," they wrote in a request to have the superstar's financial records subpoenaed at his trial.

If I had over 400 million in assets and 275 million in debts I would count myself so wealthy that I would set up a small foundation with some of the excess. I guess these things are relative.

[Jazzmoose]

So Michael Jackson nabs the Beatles rights by outbidding *Paul McCartney* and now we're supposed to feel sorry for Jackson? How the hell is he the victim?

Mike

This story makes me too angry to write straight, so I'll just quote Mike and add "I agree".

[Soulstation1]

paul /ringo should own the rights to ALL the beatles lyrics/songs

[WD45]

I saw it on Fox News so that shit must be true.

[porcy62]

That's seems a good reason to buy only used Beatles' vinyls, a part the gorgeous sound obviously

[jazzypaul]

paul /ringo should own the rights to ALL the beatles lyrics/songs

Not so fast. Many, and I repeat many of the Beatles' songs written by John or George were written exclusively by those two. Especially in the case of George. So to say that Paul and Ringo (who wrote TWO, count 'em TWO) should have sole rights to those songs is ridiculous. I may not like the idea of Yoko getting the lion's share of the taste of John's tunes, but that's the way it is. What I really don't like is that she gets a piece of Yesterday, which was written solely by Paul. He deserves the millions upon millions that that one song alone has generated.

What I am still trying to figure out is how Blackwood/Northern Songs got out of the hands of Paul and John in the first place.

[BruceH]

Some things I'll never understand. Why the Beatles should not automatically have ownership of their own song catalog is one of them.

[bertrand]

Same reason a lot of jazz musicians don't: giving up the publishing rights to their music was one of the conditions for getting a record contract.

Alfred Lion (among others) insisted on this. Remember that interview with Moncur where he speculated that the reason he was dropped from BN was that he refused to give up his publishing? Some BN artists were able to keep the publishing rights (Silver and Shorter). I suspect this is even why Wayne did not sign to Blue Note as a leader until 1964. I bet Lion was courting him before.

Bertrand.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Lennon and McCartney had an agreement were anything by either would be credited to BOTH (as "Lennon and McCartney"). So the Yesterday thing is in line with that. McCartney tried to get that one switched to "McCartney and Lennon" but Yoko said no.

If you make the agreement, you live with it. It could just as easily have worked out that Lennon wrote a big smash by himself.

Mike

[BERIGAN]

I saw it on Fox News so that shit must be true.

Glad to see you are finally coming over to the dark side.

[WD45]

I saw it on Fox News so that shit must be true.

Glad to see you are finally coming over to the dark side.

That sounds like an admission of guilt to me!