ozemouze;4289070 said:
But OK, let's judge it on moral ground: MJ was a bad friend, cared only about business, Paul was hurt - it's still the end of story. Paul couldn't seriously expect MJ to offer him the catalogue at a lower price (wouldn't this make him also a questionable friend who cared only about money?).
Do you realize that "doing at least that much" would mean serious financial loss for MJ (not to mention how better that deal should exactly be? When Paul says that's not too pricey anymore?). How is that MJ's loss doesn't matter, but Paul's is enough for making moral judgement?
Thinking that MJ shouldn't have bought the catalogue is fine, but you can't seriously think he should give it to Paul at a discount price. I really can't fathom this idea, it's so unreal.
But I don't think that has ever been sugested. Paul talks about a "rise". Not about Michael selling him the catalogue. Now, I confess ignorance about the workings of this bussines. I'm not sure how it works. The owner of the publishing rights pays a certain rate to the author of the song? Anyone knows?
I don't think it would be reasonable to expect that Michael should have given Paul the rights or sold them to him at a lower price (though what that would mean would have been hard to establish in the first place, cause the price paid was for the whole catalogue and not just the Beatles songs), simply because Paul was rich too. It does seem reasonable that, since they were friends, maybe he should have given him that rise (whatever that means) and not used the songs in commercials since Paul wasn't OK with that.
BTW to suggest that Michael wouldn't have been making money off the songs if he didn't license them for commercials is wrong. The publisher makes money every time the song is played.
ScreenOrigami;4289080 said:
One thing I truly dislike is how Paul went on TV to talk about it. MJ never
ever did anything like this, except once with “Mr. Eminem”.
Paul never went on TV to talk about it. He was in interviews and the issue was brought up by the interviewer and he commented on it. From his perspective of course.
And I've only seen one interview posted here where he sounds actually somewhat upset. The others are very mild. His imitation of Michael's voice btw is something he had been doing when telling the story of Michael calling him, since way before the whole catalogue thing, so it was never meant in a negative way.
somewhereinthedark;4286155 said:
Thank you for posting this- FACTS!!! 100%!! The lies that Paul McCartney has perpetuated all these years is just ONE of the reasons that the some in the industry and the MSM has this hate towards Michael. I wonder why Paul never speaks on the fact that Yoko Ono did not WANT him to have the rights to this catalogue. Paul could have cleared up this misinformation about Michael, years ago. YET, he allowed it to fester and fans of the Beatles, including the media and the industry used it against Michael. For newer fans of MJ, this is what all of the media hate is against Michael. The fake allegations have ALWAYS been a smoke screen. Older fans have always known the agenda behind the hate and jealousy of Michael and it has crap to do with fake abuse allegations.
What lies has Paul McCartney perpetuated?.
He's never said Michael "outbid" him and he's always admitted he was offered the catalog first .
Paul DOES speak of Yoko Ono's role in the affair. If anything, it seems he blames her for not buying the rights back then, though he doesn't outright say it. (I'm going to try to find a video of what he's said about this).
The misinformation about this has been made up by the press: the idea that Michael outbid Paul or that he somehow took the rights away from him (as the title of one of the merged threads here indicates). He couldn't have taken the Beatles catalog away from Paul because Paul didn't own it.
In fact, several interviews by Paul clearly indicate that, while he wasn't exactly pleased, there was no fallout over this, and as the pics posted on this thread show, they seem to have remained friends. The real problem happened over Paul wanting a rise and Michael either refusing or ignoring his requests. The use of some songs in commercials doesn't seem to have helped either. Still, it would appear there was no real fallout either but rather that they drifted apart over this over time.