Latest on MJJC

Court rules R. Kelly plagiarized MJ's "You Are Not Alone"

tupacavelli4life

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
61
Points
0
http://www.mediatakeout.com/23047/s...hael_jacksons_hit_song_you_are_not_alone.html

A Belgium court has ruled that R. Kelly stole the music from Michael's 1995 hit "You Are Not Alone". Kelly must fork over millions that he made as a result of this court ruling. This was Jackson's last number one song in the USA. The court ruling doesn't affect Jackson in any way as R.Kelly was always listed as the sole writer of the song.
 
tupacavelli4life said:
http://www.mediatakeout.com/23047/s...hael_jacksons_hit_song_you_are_not_alone.html

A Belgium court has ruled that R. Kelly stole the music from Michael's 1995 hit "You Are Not Alone". Kelly must fork over millions that he made as a result of this court ruling. This was Jackson's last number one song in the USA. The court ruling doesn't affect Jackson in any way as R.Kelly was always listed as the sole writer of the song.
Click to expand...

i know MJ is smart enough to protect himself, considering all the writers who wanna work with him, but this won't stop the song from being an MJ song in my heart. considering how the MJ touch gives new original life to anything he touches, and how many people are not going after Buble for 'lost', when there is no indication of whether or not that song will hit number 1, says to me, that this is about trying to take the spotlight away from MJ, not about caring about a song. i'm sure that the writers wanted this to affect MJ...not R Kelly..and number 1 songs...not the songs themselves. even timbaland...i'd be more agreeable with these writers if they didn't always wait till the song hit number 1. i didn't hear about the timbaland stuff till he started hitting number 1.
 
This decision was ruled quite a while back, it was a 100% straight rip off from the original by those guys from belgium, one thing i dont understand though is why MJ worked with Kelly again after it? I would be like "no, no, no dude! you steal..........bigtime"
 
mjdvds said:
This decision was ruled quite a while back, it was a 100% straight rip off from the original by those guys from belgium, one thing i dont understand though is why MJ worked with Kelly again after it? I would be like "no, no, no dude! you steal..........bigtime"
Click to expand...

You don't know why Jackson worked with Kells again? Because R. Kelly is the King of R&B...Everyone wants a Kelly hit. That's why.
 
tupacavelli4life said:
You don't know why Jackson worked with Kells again? Because R. Kelly is the King of R&B...Everyone wants a Kelly hit. That's why.
Click to expand...

Very correct I dont know why, but if someone claims to have written you a song and it turns out that they stole it from 2 unknown musicians then that would usually give off a warning flair to me. 2nd of all I think its damn right sick to be a millionaire musician who has almost everything he ever wants and yet steals a song from some struggling musician, its bullying and 3rd it just tagged Michael more than R kelly, when it was reported it was usually reported as "jackson song guilty of plagiarism" and R.Kelly didn't really change the song from its original anyhows, I mean it was pretty much identical :huh:
 
mjdvds said:
Very correct I dont know why, but if someone claims to have written you a song and it turns out that they stole it from 2 unknown musicians then that would usually give off a warning flair to me. 2nd of all I think its damn right sick to be a millionaire musician who has almost everything he ever wants and yet steals a song from some struggling musician, its bullying and 3rd it just tagged Michael more than R kelly, when it was reported it was usually reported as "jackson song guilty of plagiarism" and R.Kelly didn't really change the song from its original anyhows, I mean it was pretty much identical :huh:
Click to expand...

He only went with him again because this came around last year or the beginning of this year.
 
mjdvds said:
This decision was ruled quite a while back, it was a 100% straight rip off from the original by those guys from belgium, one thing i dont understand though is why MJ worked with Kelly again after it? I would be like "no, no, no dude! you steal..........bigtime"
Click to expand...


If you're talking about "One More Chance", I think that was a holdout track that had been recorded a few years before it was actually released. The plaigerism ruling wasn't made until last year. So I don't think that Michael had any idea that R. Kelly had ripped off "You Are Not Alone" from those guys.
 
Last edited:
mjfan4ever2009 said:
If you're talking about "One More Chance", I think that was a holdout track that had been recorded a few years before it was actually released. The plaigerism ruling wasn't made until last year. So I don't think that Michael had any idea that R. Kelly had ripped off "You Are Not Alone" from those guys.
Click to expand...

R. Kelly also wrote "Cry" from Invincible.
 
This news was actually made public way back in September 2007. But, kudos to Media Takeout anyways for at least getting the headline right. 99% of the outlets originally used the headline "MICHAEL JACKSON plagiarized hit tune" :rolleyes:.
 
mjdvds said:
3rd it just tagged Michael more than R kelly, when it was reported it was usually reported as "jackson song guilty of plagiarism" and R.Kelly didn't really change the song from its original anyhows, I mean it was pretty much identical :huh:
Click to expand...

that's why i have a hard time siding with the guys 'who wrote the song'..cus they knew it would be tagged on Michael, because Michael is the big star. Court's don't always side with the right person. no..i don't have proof that i'm right about the court's decision...but what i emboldened from your quote is enough for me to be wary about those 'original writers' and anyone who acts, with the timing they did..and against established acts, as big as MJ. it's just the way i feel..and i'll have a hard time seperating from that feeling. using your quote as a backdrop..i wonder if those brothers would pursue it with such vigor if R. Kelly sang it and took it to number 1, and michael had nothing to do with the song..or..if it didn't hit number 1 as fast as it did. you would have a hard time convincing me otherwise. sometimes, it's just easier to have a gut feeling about the honesty of some people...
 
Last edited:
vncwilliam said:
that's why i have a hard time siding with the guys 'who wrote the song'..cus they knew it would be tagged on Michael, because Michael is the big star. Court's don't always side with the right person. no..i don't have proof that i'm right about the court's decision...but what i emboldened from your quote is enough for me to be wary about those 'original writers' and anyone who acts, with the timing they did..and against established acts, as big as MJ. it's just the way i feel..and i'll have a hard time seperating from that feeling.
Click to expand...

There were NEVER any prosecutions aimed at or filed against Michael, they were only aimed at R Kelly and Zomba Songs, The case took around 12 years so it was well looked into, at no time in the case was Michael involved.

These 2 guys thought they were just cheated by a greedy RnB star. If you wrote a song and see MJ performng it 2 years later without your consent what would you do? I am so happy these guys won, they wrote a beautiful piece of music, which was the basis for one of Michaels best songs, and now they get the recognition...................and the dollar :lol:
 
Well, the source usually lies, but it seems like they are telling the truth here. I had no clue that it was ruled last year that Kels basically stole YANA from two songwriters. It is a shame when you think about it because Kels, no matter how I feel about the guy, is a very talented musician and he did not have to steal from these guys. I also believe that MJ had no clue that Kels stole the song. I think he, like anyone else would, judge Kels based on his body of work and sheer talent and trust on what he was doing. I really hope MJ does not work for that man ever again. MJ is better off, as usual, writing his own music.
 
Bee said:
Well, the source usually lies, but it seems like they are telling the truth here. I had no clue that it was ruled last year that Kels basically stole YANA from two songwriters. It is a shame when you think about it because Kels, no matter how I feel about the guy, is a very talented musician and he did not have to steal from these guys. I also believe that MJ had no clue that Kels stole the song. I think he, like anyone else would, judge Kels based on his body of work and sheer talent and trust on what he was doing. I really hope MJ does not work for that man ever again. MJ is better off, as usual, writing his own music.
Click to expand...

this sooo relates to a thread in another section, about Akon.

no matter how talented one is, in a lot of cases, it doesn't seem to be enough(if we are judging rightly on either subject, which is not guaranteed)...and it helps make the water more murky on this subject. i still believe none of us have total proof of ALL that went on here. it's hard to believe that r kelly has little faith in himself..and that MJ is blind in his choices of who to work with, since he has been vindicated many times. and i still maintain that the court system is not flawless. doesn't mean they are wrong in this case...but, i'm still not convinced that they are absoluetly right, either. for me, the jury is still out. it's sort of like, everytime MJ strikes gold in a business decision..people come online as if they know how it happened..after the fact. that always gets my gall. all these cases always turn out AFTER the fact...and it makes me distrustful of the outcome..especially since..and i can't help to keep repeating..these cases are always leveled against the BIGGEST stars, AFTER the fact..even if, it is found, in the end..that they had nothing to do with what the client is after.
 
Last edited:
mjdvds said:
The case had been going on since 1995, anyhows thats all HIStory now anyone who wants to listen to the original try below, its interesting

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8PrJ7jf8cbI
Click to expand...


yes..it went on since 1995..the year that the song was a number 1 bullet by MICHAEL JACKSON..as far as everybody is concerned, in their thinking at that time.

it would be easier if the case went on since 1990..or sommat when we didn't know about the song. and..if somebody comes up with a year prior, now that i posted this..i'll kick their a$$ lol:D:lol:
 
you know why all these type of claims are aimed at the biggest stars? because they are all the ones that we hear of, who want to know about a plagiarism case from an unknown small label artist? and also can i just point out that the courts who dealt with this claim, had a wealth of evidence, 12 years to work on it and alot of resources! at the moment we dont have any of them so you, me or anyone else cant comment on that side, its like criticing the judges decision, whats the name of the judge again? what was the evidence? we dont know so, its seems a closed case, R Kelly stole music, not as bad as madonna though she just steals up everyones music hee hee
 
mjdvds said:
you know why all these type of claims are aimed at the biggest stars? because they are all the ones that we hear of, who want to know about a plagiarism case from an unknown small label artist? and also can i just point out that the courts who dealt with this claim, had a wealth of evidence, 12 years to work on it and alot of resources! at the moment we dont have any of them so you, me or anyone else cant comment on that side, its like criticing the judges decision, whats the name of the judge again? what was the evidence? we dont know so, its seems a closed case, R Kelly stole music, not as bad as madonna though she just steals up everyones music hee hee
Click to expand...


even you used the word 'seems'. and as you know nothing is as it seems.

we don't know what r kelly did...for absolute sure..and like i said..you are treating the court system like they never get it wrong...which is not such a good idea.:)

i have a right to comment. it's not as simplified as you make it.:)

and it's a discussion board.. i like feeling free to discuss this.

a wealth of evidence isn't necessarily ALL the evidence. twelve years since 1995 still isn't iron clad, necessarily.:)

and the part about you saying that people only want to hear the cases against the big stars, leaves a lot of holes in it. i don't care how obsucre something is..it would be in my nature to persue it, if i feel wronged. and it usually is, for everybody else. sometimes, we don't hear about those obscure cases because they DON'T happen. it's all about fifteen minutes of fame...and big money.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Dats on this one. The little tune sounds so basic, with all the humans in the world who write tunes, it is highly possible that two can come up with the same sounding tune.

I think this case could have gone either way. And R Kelly's tunes has more parts than this one anyway.
 
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
I'm with Dats on this one. The little tune sounds so basic, with all the humans in the world who write tunes, it is highly possible that two can come up with the same sounding tune.

I think this case could have gone either way. And R Kelly's tunes has more parts than this one anyway.
Click to expand...


yes..i agree. it could have been elevator music in that 'original' form. it probably would never be a hit in that form. and who doesn't think that they are a songwriter?..lol
 
mjdvds said:
There were NEVER any prosecutions aimed at or filed against Michael, they were only aimed at R Kelly and Zomba Songs, The case took around 12 years so it was well looked into, at no time in the case was Michael involved.

These 2 guys thought they were just cheated by a greedy RnB star. If you wrote a song and see MJ performng it 2 years later without your consent what would you do? I am so happy these guys won, they wrote a beautiful piece of music, which was the basis for one of Michaels best songs, and now they get the recognition...................and the dollar :lol:
Click to expand...


you'll never be sure of what the aim was here, because there is no way that this song isn't looked at without Michael in the picture. it simply cannot be imagined any other way. and for courts or anybody else to say that they are objective on this matter, is hogwash. sure..it's convenient to pin Kelly now...but..i would bet that this wouldn't be an issue if MJ wasn't associated with the song in any way shape of form.

add that with the fact that MJ was a target in turbulent times during that period, which stands to reason why it was his LAST number 1 song on those 'legitimate' american charts.

anyway..the guys will get money...not the amount they really want..but they'll get money anyway, like you said.
 
Last edited:
vncwilliam said:
yes..i agree. it could have been elevator music in that 'original' form. it probably would never be a hit in that form. and who doesn't think that they are a songwriter?..lol
Click to expand...

I doubt it would have been a hit, but that recording was only a demo of their song, before vocals or even a vocalist, but they work the same way as michael i suppose the music is written and the words follow, the simple fact are there though, i think the key things that the courts took into account were.........

The original "if we can start over" was written and copyrighted in 1993

1 year or so later an almost exact replica made up michaels song, I mean listen to the background music it has the SAME composition, even the little bells, people do write music all the time but why did this song sound the same? in the same style why was it not a jazz song or classical?

The demo was unfinished, it was an early cut no where near production level, it was never finished..........well someone else did that for them
 
mjdvds said:
I doubt it would have been a hit, but that recording was only a demo of their song, before vocals or even a vocalist, but they work the same way as michael i suppose the music is written and the words follow, the simple fact are there though, i think the key things that the courts took into account were.........

The original "if we can start over" was written and copyrighted in 1993

1 year or so later an almost exact replica made up michaels song, I mean listen to the background music it has the SAME composition, even the little bells, people do write music all the time but why did this song sound the same? in the same style why was it not a jazz song or classical?

The demo was unfinished, it was an early cut no where near production level, it was never finished..........well someone else did that for them
Click to expand...


well then, why aren't they pursuing Michael Buble's 'lost', then?

and much of the song isn't there as the final version..just a small part of chorus. some courts may not even see this the way belgium's court did.
 
vncwilliam said:
well then, why aren't they pursuing Michael Buble's 'lost', then?

and much of the song isn't there as the final version..just a small part of chorus. some courts may not even see this the way belgium's court did.
Click to expand...

yes but as it is said, it was only a demo at the time, it was an imcomplete song to start with so it wouldn't possibly have come out sounding the way it did! the courts found the overall composition was 75% similar and the largest segments of the melody were 100% IDENTICAL

One question, if anyone heard that demo without knowing about this case, and i said it wasn't you are not alone but by some one else who has not got permission, there would be outrage by mj fans :lol:
 
The fact of the matter is that everyone won (apart from R.kelly) the brothers have whats owed to them and the song is eternally Michaels
 
mjdvds said:
yes but as it is said, it was only a demo at the time, it was an imcomplete song to start with so it wouldn't possibly have come out sounding the way it did! the courts found the overall composition was 75% similar and the largest segments of the melody were 100% IDENTICAL

One question, if anyone heard that demo without knowing about this case, and i said it wasn't you are not alone but by some one else who has not got permission, there would be outrage by mj fans :lol:
Click to expand...

i would not have seen that demo as you are not alone, anymore than i wuold see michael buble's lost as you are not alone. on the other hand, i might see them as slightly similar, depending on how i look at them..but i don't feel i could win a world wide case based on it. it's simply not enough. i don't think MJ fans would be outraged. seventy five doesn't agree with one hundred. that doesn't make sense. one court in one country decided this...give this a row in many countries, and i'm sure u'd get different results. anyway...it's a win win, as you said...MJ is free..r kelly is still rich..and the brothers will get something.
 
Last edited:
They usually bring in music theorists for these typs of cases who can deterimine how similar the cord progression is, etc... "You Are Not Alone" isn't even a very good song anyway, so who cares, lol. Michael made it a hit because his vocal on it was so good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top