Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

Had to bail out after about 15 mins. Duty calls.

In the grand scheme of things this might seem irrelevant but I was disheartened to hear a lawyer talking about Leave Me Alone. He was making a good point about how you can't really separate an artist from the artistic work they create. Unfortunately, in using Leave Me Alone as an example he made the standard mistake of confusing the video content with the lyrical content, describing the song as being about media persecution of Michael. Which it isn't.

Obviously, Michael was happy for the video to tell a slightly different story than the lyrics. That's fine. And, of course, Leave Me Alone is much better known than Tabloid Junkie, for example. But I would expect a lawyer to be a bit more precise than this.
 
Last edited:
SmoothGangsta said:
How long do we need to wait for a decision? Feel like these things always take forever.
Click to expand...
However long it takes I'm just gonna wait. Just jumped back in for another sesh. They were discussing franchises and the right to confer one. Didn't understand enough of it to stick around. :unsure: This is not my superpower, lol.

Thinking about Michael and all the times he had to deal with court cases re plagiarism claims or whatever. The poor guy. This is exhausting.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
They didn't decide anything on the stream I don't think. Just heard arguments. It's also not to remove the songs or not. Just to start the court proceedings again (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Click to expand...

Yeah, only D.S. & Co. are suggesting it would be anything on the actual matter (proof of fraud --> thus consumer deception). This is just about legal arguments for a rightful or not rightful use of the anti-SLAPP statutes under California's law. There are lots of case examples for varied interpretations of commercial speech, First Amendment rights etc.

D.S. & Co. greatly exaggerate and misrepresent the current state of affairs which certainly does not help the plaintiff at all by doing so.
 
Fuzball said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529411714097090561
Click to expand...
This is the bit I was referring to. I think I was being too generous to the guy in suggesting that he made a mistake about the lyrical content of Leave Me Alone. This has to be a deliberate misrepresentation of those lyrics. Has to be. Because a lawyer who could make such a basic mistake is not someone I would want on my team.

As for the second statement in Damien's tweet, the vocals are fake so the songs ARE meaningless, by definition. If that's the basis of the Sony defence, that's just weird.
 
Last edited:
Korgnex said:
This is just about legal arguments for a rightful or not rightful use of the anti-SLAPP statutes under California's law. There are lots of case examples for varied interpretations of commercial speech, First Amendment rights etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. I had bailed out and when I came back in they were in the middle of this bit which I was able to follow quite well but not completely (plus I'm not American). This is a lovely clear explanation. And so concise! Lawyers are very wordy, lol. I guess they have to be but still ...
 
I don't see Sony ever losing this fight. They can do this circular argument forever while money is depleted. Even IF they are cornered with proof the singer is not Michael Jackson, there is still Michael Jackson on the track (adlibs, sounds etc.). They would use that as being authentically him on the tracks..
 
KOPV said:
I don't see Sony ever losing this fight. They can do this circular argument forever while money is depleted. Even IF they are cornered with proof the singer is not Michael Jackson, there is still Michael Jackson on the track (adlibs, sounds etc.). They would use that as being authentically him on the tracks..
Click to expand...
That's depressing. Hadn't even considered that.
 
KOPV said:
I don't see Sony ever losing this fight. They can do this circular argument forever while money is depleted. Even IF they are cornered with proof the singer is not Michael Jackson, there is still Michael Jackson on the track (adlibs, sounds etc.). They would use that as being authentically him on the tracks..
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that's how such cases go. Michael is not here to testify, and without a confession from someone there is no way to prove it. It will remain grey area forever. Only people who will benefit from this case are the lawyers.
 
KOPV said:
I don't see Sony ever losing this fight. They can do this circular argument forever while money is depleted. Even IF they are cornered with proof the singer is not Michael Jackson, there is still Michael Jackson on the track (adlibs, sounds etc.). They would use that as being authentically him on the tracks..
Click to expand...
adlibs were stolen from previous songs! 70% michael vocal screams are from invincible era! That makes no sense at all! With that perspective everybody can make Michael music, just stealing adlibs from his previous songs... Thats a cringe!
 
Richard76 said:
adlibs were stolen from previous songs! 70% michael vocal screams are from invincible era! That makes no sense at all! With that perspective everybody can make Michael music, just stealing adlibs from his previous songs... Thats a cringe!
Click to expand...
Didn't know this either. The plot thickens. And gets more depressing with each detail that is new to me.
 
Great news. - I really hope Branca - or someone from the Estate will make a statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top