Latest on MJJC

Sony and Jackson Estate reach agreement for Sony to acquire remaining half of Sony/ATV Music Publish

^^That Duran Duran case was interesting and surprising. Since they had their publishing with a British firm subsequently bought by Sony and Britain doesn't have such a copyright law, that superseded the US copyright law.
Paul obviously has the same prob since Northern songs was a British company.



Paul may have moved on, but at times he still grouses about it. Keeps that story of Michael outbidding him alive. I'm sick of that.
Would be funny to me if he doesn't get his songs back.
 
Last edited:
what 'rights' would McCartney have on sueing Sony for having the music? I mean legally speaking he fairly lost the opportunity to have it in the 80's.
 
KOPV said:
what 'rights' would McCartney have on sueing Sony for having the music? I mean legally speaking he fairly lost the opportunity to have it in the 80's.
Click to expand...
US copyright law of 76 says they revert back to the writer after so many years.
The question now is if his catalog is governed by British law or US law.
 
Maybe Paul's mood and attitude switched over the years because he was blaming Michael again in the 2000's even in that 2009 interview David Letterman asked Paul about him which I perceived him as condescending towards Michael. So he didn't move on completely.
 
Last edited:
Well Paul is one to be a stickler when it comes to legality with his music.. back in the day he even sued the community College I went to for using one of his songs in a play. How he found out IDK but I remember thinking.. DAMN, he doesn't play!
 
SmoothMJ said:
And certain people were saying The Estate were wrong to sell?

How's that looking now?
Click to expand...

The catalog is much bigger than the Beatles music to be honest. Do you really think Sony would buy something that's about to fail or diminish and worth? Come on now.
 
You think it has the same value without The Beatles catalogue?

Come on now.

In either case, it's a fight The Estate could do without. The media would have loved to have brought some more negativity Michael's way. Now the battle is Sony's.
 
The songs were always to go back to him at some point, and I hope he gets them in the end.

And I agree with Smooth above. Theres a reason that The Beatles/ATV Catalogue are always mentioned in the same sentence.
 
KOPV said:
Well Paul is one to be a stickler when it comes to legality with his music.. back in the day he even sued the community College I went to for using one of his songs in a play. How he found out IDK but I remember thinking.. DAMN, he doesn't play!
Click to expand...

True. We are talking about the man who officially dissolved The Beatles with paperwork and contracts etc.
 
The Beatles portion of the catalogue is definitely worth a lot to Sony.. that's why it became Sony/ATV in the first place. They made the deal with MJ largely because of the Beatles music. Yes there is much value outside of that umbrella.

My thing is I would assume that when making the deal Sony (dealing with music legalities far before Sony/ATV venture) would have made specific choices when putting contracts together to make sure those songs would not just slip back to Paul... It Is possible that since the ATV portion lumps many artists -that legally they can keep them. Meaning once they are joint they are an entire package which Paul would never have the rights to..

Not 100% sure on this (loop holes) but a possible ground that Sony did to protect from this happening.
 
^I doubt that. The Act only applies to a songwriter's songs. Not a bundle.
They already negotiated with Yoko on her half. Sure they tried with Paul but he's not budging. The DuranDuran case proves Sony has a good chance in this fight.
 
when it comes to legality I never have doubted what Sony is capable of.. I mean, I saw how trapped Michael was in some sense.
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
I wonder why Yoko was blamed for ages if it was Paul who decided to leave the band first.
Click to expand...

John actually left first. In September 1969, he informed the other 3 that he intended to leave but kept it on the downlow. There was no public acknowledgement of The Beatles breaking up until Paul announced he was leaving in April 1970.

Yoko is often unfairly targeted as the reason The Beatles broke up, and while it's true that she was a factor, she wasn't the only factor. There were a great deal of complicated factors over a ~3 year period that lead to their break up. The Wikipedia article should give you an overview (and it has a section on Yoko).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top