Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

SmoothGangsta

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
2,588
Points
63
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

^Why not? Michael Prince basically already says that in the trailer at 1.43, right?

I'm just saying I won't be surprised if nothing conclusive comes out of this. I'm still interested though.
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

All in all I am utterly disgusted by the way Sony Music and Estate have been handling and managing all this situation by hiding themselves behind the first amendment. But I am not surprised, they knew it from the very beginning and their wordings on the album Michael was carefully chosen. Nowhere do they say that Michael Jackson sings the lead vocals on those three infamous tracks. So technically they are unattackable. As a matter of fact even if they admit one day that the lead vocals on those three songs are not MJ's, they can still defend themselves by saying "we never claimed MJ's sang the lead vocals". They already kinda play the card "we didn't know, Cascios and Porte are to blame."

How low!

They're all about covering their own backsides, rather than doing right by Michael (and his fans). They don't deserve our trust or support.
 

kai

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
3,171
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

All in all I am utterly disgusted by the way Sony Music and Estate have been handling and managing all this situation by hiding themselves behind the first amendment. But I am not surprised, they knew it from the very beginning and their wordings on the album Michael was carefully chosen. Nowhere do they say that Michael Jackson sings the lead vocals on those three infamous tracks. So technically they are unattackable. As a matter of fact even if they admit one day that the lead vocals on those three songs are not MJ's, they can still defend themselves by saying "we never claimed MJ's sang the lead vocals". They already kinda play the card "we didn't know, Cascios and Porte are to blame."

How low!

But if they release an album with MJs name on it saying the new MICHAEL JACKSON album.. isn't this the same as claiming that those are MJ songs?
I mean come on... it's like i am releasing an album of myself with my name as the artist on it. And later people find out i didn't sing anything. So i can say "i never said its me on the album.." but by releasing an album with my name i already "confirmed" that it's me..
 

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,401
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

^ According to US Californian state law it is very well fraud if the plaintiff can prove it. The court of appeal's decision did not make any statement on the actual matter and did NOT(!!!) - unlike some fans who don't understand jack - set a precedence for claiming whatever one wants for selling forgeries within the law. Only laymen like S-h_ields would interpret it like this (see the usual suspects' immature Twitter rants about things they clearly don't understand).

It only ruled on the anti-SLAPP motion and concluded that the plaintiff's lawyers could not involve the specific examples they have given against Sony Music / The Michael Jackson Estate because they did not fall under "commercial speech", thus having them protected by the First Amendment (freedom of expression in this case).

The court has not ruled on the issue whether Sony Music / The Michael Jackson might have deceived consumers and thus committed fraud which makes them liable (even if they were duped [in that case they would be damaged themselves and could take legal steps against Cascio/Porte - this is called regress]).
There's constructive fraud that does only require misrepresentation (which in this case could only be decided in a trial and not pre-trial at all).
In general a court only decides on issues presented to it by the parties involved, so it's all up to the plaintiff's and defendant's lawyers to make stuff relevant to the case.


In order to still go after Sony Music / The Michael Jackson Estate there needs to be a more clearly phrased rights violation of consumers - the US Californian civil code provides some suitable - that does not require "commercial speech" eg.

I've explained already how Sony Music / The Michael Jackson would have to enter trial before they could disprove the charges against them instead of easily throwing them off pre-trial like it has just happened (only for now if Serova's lawyers understand the issue they've brought to the plaintiff in that regard).
 
Last edited:

Slave To The Rhythm

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
417
Points
18
Location
Bavaria, Germany

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,555
Points
83

Slave To The Rhythm

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
417
Points
18
Location
Bavaria, Germany
Just one question at the end he says that Breaking News is not sung by Michael. And he also says that Monster is considered to be sung by the same singer.

But he says not really much about Keep Your Head Up?

I mean you can definitely say that they are sung by the same person, but he doesn’t really say that, does he?

Very interesting analysis! Proved that Breaking News is not sung by Michael
 

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,401
Points
83
Slave To The Rhythm;4229963 said:
Just one question at the end he says that Breaking News is not sung by Michael. And he also says that Monster is considered to be sung by the same singer.

But he says not really much about Keep Your Head Up?

I mean you can definitely say that they are sung by the same person, but he doesn’t really say that, does he?

Very interesting analysis! Proved that Breaking News is not sung by Michael

Let me just give you a hint that you needed a forensic report to back up a fraud claim in a trial (since the allegedly fraudulent songs have been protected by forensic reports themselves). Dr. Papcun's report is not as strong as it is being presented now. Vera knows that, the defendants know it, too. Taking this to the public won't help the case. What he could do was very limited and he was not - unlike Damien has claimed earlier - able to access the source material, he had to rely on released/leaked material. Also there's absolutely nothing conclusive regarding what Damien claims to be evidence of linking the recordings to Jason Malachi which remains a sore spot.
Over the coming months you'll get an insight into Damien's state of mind and modus operandi but there won't be any "evidence", only stuff he and his pals might consider for themselves as such.


Damien's remarks regarding the appeal court's decision are again false. Sony/Estate would in no way be allowed by US law to continue selling songs by another artist yet labelled as MJ IF that was proven in a trial. The ruling on the commercial speech has nothing to do with that at all. The relevant US law that clearly state that this would be fraud can easily be found online, if only people like him would actually learn to understand how the law works.
 
Last edited:

SoCav

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,906
Points
48
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Let me just give you a hint that you needed a forensic report to back up a fraud claim in a trial (since the allegedly fraudulent songs have been protected by forensic reports themselves). Dr. Papcun's report is not as strong as it is being presented now.
We have a highly renowned forensic audiologist concluding, on the basis of his detailed forensic analysis, that the singer is not MJ. I agree that this kind of analysis on its own is not conclusive evidence, but it is certainly a strong piece of the puzzle.

On the other side of the argument, we have nothing. The Estate claims that they had the songs analyzed too, but we have not seen those reports thus have nothing to rely on. Heck, they did not even tell us who conducted their analysis. It was also done overnight, whereas Papcun took his time to do a much more detailed analysis. In addition to that, all we have is an inaccurate description by The Estate about their meeting with Michael's former producers and the myriad of contradictory and nonsense excuses Cascio/Porte have mentioned (from PVC pipes to shower acoustics to MJ requesting to destroy hard drives, etc).

Also there's absolutely nothing conclusive regarding what Damien claims to be evidence of linking the recordings to Jason Malachi which remains a sore spot.
He does not say it is conclusive evidence. The point of Dr. Papcun's analysis was not to assess whether the singer is Jason Malachi, only to test the hypothesis that it is Michael Jackson. The latter, he rejects on the basis of his investigation. Because Jason has been named as the singer by others (and Howard Weitzman even says he called him), he did briefly look at Jason as well. Although that analysis was not detailed enough to warrant drawing strong conclusions, he does conclude that the vocal characteristics on the Cascio tracks are similar to Jason's.
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Just confirms and puts into technical format what most of us knew all along. Michael Jackson can sing. The lead singer on the Cascio tracks cannot. That's been very clear to most from the beginning.
 

Slave To The Rhythm

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
417
Points
18
Location
Bavaria, Germany
WildStyle;4229993 said:
Just confirms and puts into technical format what most of us knew all along. Michael Jackson can sing. The lead singer on the Cascio tracks cannot. That's been very clear to most from the beginning.

Wouldn‘t say that. Keep Your Head Up is a good song... it‘s just a different Voice... not as good but certainly not that bad.
 

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
902
Points
18
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Doesn't the ultimate answer to this question lie -- physically -- in the US Copyright Office? Cascio copyrighted a CD recording like two days after MJ's death, and the copyright notice claims that this CD contains vocals by MJ.

Isn't there a way for lawyers through a court action to inventory what's on the CD? The question would be whether the CD contains MJ singing the songs, and if so, whether those tracks are the same as what was eventually released\leaked.
 

morinen

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,074
Points
48
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Doesn't the ultimate answer to this question lie -- physically -- in the US Copyright Office? Cascio copyrighted a CD recording like two days after MJ's death, and the copyright notice claims that this CD contains vocals by MJ.

Isn't there a way for lawyers through a court action to inventory what's on the CD? The question would be whether the CD contains MJ singing the songs, and if so, whether those tracks are the same as what was eventually released\leaked.

Those collections copyrighted in June of 2009 contain songs with James Porte's vocals. Not MJ's, and not Cascio tracks vocalist's.
 

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,401
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

I agree that this kind of analysis on its own is not conclusive evidence, but it is certainly a strong piece of the puzzle.

If it's not conclusive, it cannot be strong, right? Because it simply is logical that you could have an audiologist conclude the other way since it is within the realm of possibilities. This report simply served its purpose but you should expect its shortcomings to be demonstrated.


Papcun took his time to do a much more detailed analysis.
You haven't seen theirs but yet you claim Papcun's would be more detailed. I wouldn't call a different approach - due to lack of source material - to be "much more detailed", that's raising expectations that it simply won't live up to.


The point of Dr. Papcun's analysis was not to assess whether the singer is Jason Malachi

This is known since it was made. Yet Damien is again writing sensational ficitional stories about it being hard "evidence" for just that. This is just wrong and highly misleading as usual.
 

Pentum

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
7,117
Points
63
Location
Norway
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Which means that the songs were recorded after Michael passed away. What a tragic. He was definitely "stabbed in the back, as a matter of fact"
 

BUMPER SNIPPET

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
2,357
Points
36
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

The Estate claimed they hired the best and the second best audiologists in the country to carry out the analyses. Um, ok, who are they? We've never gotten that answer.

Now, I am curious, based purely on the pronunciation, which serious professional linguist on Earth would claim that the singer on the 3 infamous songs has the same characteristics of speech as Michael Jackson? For sure, neither the best nor the second best audiologist/linguist would ever claim that. Those who believe the Estate/Sony Music that they hired the best and the second best audiologists/linguists believe either a huge lie or those audiologists/linguists had been bribed to deny clear facts, or they simply are not the best or the second best ones in the country.

Back in the day, I carried out the analyses of the speech and came to the same conclusions as Dr. Papcun (whom I don't know personally), so if there are other linguists around here, go ahead, carry out the analysis and come back with your conclusions.

I'm giving you an assignment, to all MJ fans who believe that MJ sings on those three infamous songs:

Find me a single song in the whole MJ's catalogue, name any song in which MJ does not pronounce the letter "t" in the middle of the words such as "better", "waiting/waitin' ", "starting/startin' ", "etc. Go ahead, hunt, then come back and share what you have found out.
 
Last edited:

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,555
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

If the Estate admit the songs are fake, would there be any ramifications? Could they simply say 'We were tricked, so the Michael album has been updated and we apologise for it'
 

SoCav

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,906
Points
48
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

If it's not conclusive, it cannot be strong, right? Because it simply is logical that you could have an audiologist conclude the other way since it is within the realm of possibilities. This report simply served its purpose but you should expect its shortcomings to be demonstrated.
Of course a piece of evidence can be strong while not conclusive on its own.

And yes, in theory audiologists can disagree and reach different conclusions. But we have not actually seen anyone do that. The Estate claimed the experts they hired did, but there is no way for us to evaluate that evidence, so it may as well not exist.

You haven't seen theirs but yet you claim Papcun's would be more detailed. I wouldn't call a different approach - due to lack of source material - to be "much more detailed", that's raising expectations that it simply won't live up to.
I say Papcun's analysis is more detailed based on Howard Weitzman's description of the Sony and Estate analyses. He says the experts they hired performed waveform analysis, while Papcun's was more comprehensive and consisted of a variety of approaches (he also states that his approach is more detailed and accurate in the report).

This is known since it was made. Yet Damien is again writing sensational ficitional stories about it being hard "evidence" for just that. This is just wrong and highly misleading as usual.
The headline to his article is "EXCLUSIVE: Forensic report concludes posthumous Michael Jackson album DID include FAKE songs, sung by an impostor!" There's nothing inaccurate about that, is there? The article itself relies on direct quotes from Dr. Papcun's report. How is this writing sensational fictional stories?
 

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,401
Points
83
SoCav;4230024 said:
There's nothing inaccurate about that, is there? The article itself relies on direct quotes from Dr. Papcun's report. How is this writing sensational fictional stories?

I was referring to his public tweets, always talking about malachi and the fact he‘s been writing sensational nonsense regarding the appeal court‘s ruling.
 

Been Told

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
41
Points
0
Location
Germany
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

The Estate claimed they hired the best and the second best audiologists in the country to carry out the analyses. Um, ok, who are they? We've never gotten that answer.

Now, I am curious, based purely on the pronunciation, which serious professional linguist on Earth would claim that the singer on the 3 infamous songs has the same characteristics of speech as Michael Jackson? For sure, neither the best nor the second best audiologist/linguist would ever claim that. Those who believe the Estate/Sony Music that they hired the best and the second best audiologists/linguists believe either a huge lie or those audiologists/linguists had been bribed to deny clear facts, or they simply are not the best or the second best ones in the country.

Back in the day, I carried out the analyses of the speech and came to the same conclusions as Dr. Papcun (whom I don't know personally), so if there are other linguists around here, go ahead, carry out the analysis and come back with your conclusions.

I'm giving you an assignment, to all MJ fans who believe that MJ sings on those three infamous songs:

Find me a single song in the whole MJ's catalogue, name any song in which MJ does not pronounce the letter "t" in the middle of the words such as "better", "waiting/waitin' ", "starting/startin' ", "etc. Go ahead, hunt, then come back and share what you have found out.
I find it staggering that there are still people who don't accept the fact that it's not Michael Jackson singing on those songs. I knew it the first time I had heard them, before I had ever heard anything about any controversy. It's just obvious.
 

SmoothGangsta

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
2,588
Points
63
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

If the Estate admit the songs are fake, would there be any ramifications? Could they simply say 'We were tricked, so the Michael album has been updated and we apologise for it'

They could probably use the free speech thing to continue selling the songs anyway.
 

stephenvalek

Proud Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
148
Points
0
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

So can I ask,all this is about the authenticity of the LEAD VOCAL,and the tests carried out on the lead,of those three songs?
What about backing vocals? Because a lot claim they hear Michael,but the confusion lies in what capacity is Michael singing in those songs ..

So are we claiming non whatsoever? Or a very small percentage ?
 

BUMPER SNIPPET

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
2,357
Points
36
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Well, imho, the whole issue is about the lead vocals. TBH, does it really matter who sings the backing vocals?

But in this very case, I personally don't hear MJ in the backing vocals, except here and there some copy pastes from the previously (un)released tracks. Anyway, I, personally do not have access to the isolated voices in the background so didn't bother to analyse them.
 

stephenvalek

Proud Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
148
Points
0
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Well, imho, the whole issue is about the lead vocals. TBH, does it really matter who sings the backing vocals?

But in this very case, I personally don't hear MJ in the backing vocals, except here and there some copy pastes from the previously (un)released tracks. Anyway, I, personally do not have access to the isolated voices in the background so didn't bother to analyse them.

Ok..thanks..I just wanted to clear it up,and appreciate the feedback in this thread,and the time and effort you guys are putting into this
 
Top