Latest on MJJC

Feb. 3 - News & Mentionings

hmmmmm wow typical reception here...

this 'pathetic loser' was obviously good enough to produce a hook so rad that mj liked it.... soul makossa is the reason mj had the hook in wbss......

he's not greedy he's not being a bad person...mj didn't have permission to allow rhi to sample something that mj sampled....if his team were up on anything, they would hav passed HER team on to dbango.

how hard is that for people HERE to realize? why is everyone w/ a lawsuit suddenly greedy and someone suing w/o merit? is he kapone? is he avram? no, he's a man that mj 'sampled' and has a right to be paid just like landis does.

or is mj never at fault?
 
soso deaf said:
hmmmmm wow typical reception here...

this 'pathetic loser' was obviously good enough to produce a hook so rad that mj liked it.... soul makossa is the reason mj had the hook in wbss......

he's not greedy he's not being a bad person...mj didn't have permission to allow rhi to sample something that mj sampled....if his team were up on anything, they would hav passed HER team on to dbango.

how hard is that for people HERE to realize? why is everyone w/ a lawsuit suddenly greedy and someone suing w/o merit? is he kapone? is he avram? no, he's a man that mj 'sampled' and has a right to be paid just like landis does.

or is mj never at fault?
Click to expand...

I SORT of agree...
But didnt this guy and Michael already have a financial settlement like 20 years back?
 
tired of this irrational and embarrassing nonsense filling up most of these law-suit topics.

first and foremost, we don't know what he's suing for nor if it is legit or not yet. funny how us fans immediately rely on the same dirty press that prints all the BS about Mike and his business when we like what we hear.

if Mike was a virtual nobody who had written a hook that a big somebody capitalised from, and that someone continued capitalising from it through an unjust advantage, what would you then say?

Rihanna's 2007 album was massive. if your composition was used in that album, and you weren't getting paid (much less credited), you'd be looking to sue too.
 
But this beatch already sued Michael 20 plus years ago and got what he wanted. It's just sad that he's suing him again.
Click to expand...
Stargirl said:
I SORT of agree...
But didnt this guy and Michael already have a financial settlement like 20 years back?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what they settled on 20 years ago. 20 years ago was when Michael used it. Today Rihanna has used it with Michael's permission - Michael doesn't have permission to do that therefore this is a new case. The original dude is due this time because his music was once again used without his permission.

He should hire us :happy:

MJJC would make a great management team :p
Click to expand...

Oh hell no :doh:
 
It's the RECORD COMPANIES responsibility to check the legal standing of ALL words and sound reproduced on THEIR products.. before every album or single gets released lawyers examine all the material. So it had NOTHING to do with Rihanna or MJ.
The record company also use insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits. So even IF the African guy wins it won't cost MJ any money.
 
markmark11 said:
So it had NOTHING to do with Rihanna or MJ.
----
So even IF the African guy wins it won't cost MJ any money.
Click to expand...
no, that's yet another issue we don't really know about.

originally, all writing credit went to Michael for the whole composition. obviously, this is unfair since Dibango was responsible for the hook - so they settled that, with Mike, for all uses from Thriller and whatnot.

Rihanna has now interpolated the same hook, and again Michael is credited as the sole writer for the hook, and gets the full commission (which is most likely insignificant to him) for Dibango's hook.
 
Totally agree with Soso and Shannon on this. Michael isn't ALWAYS right just because. . he's Michael. This is just further evidence of a management team not on the ball. Or teams? There has been a lot of turn-over, and each time there is a shift, there is more confusion. There is really only one person who can straighten it out. . . and that one person is Michael, in whom he chooses to hire to get his "business" in shape.

Yes, if Michael loses this lawsuit it is likely it WILL cost him money. He already lost in court once about this. Not the record company, but Michael -- the artist who wrote the song. I'm sure he doesn't have the time to deal with all this. That is what financial managers are for. . . . . he just needs to be sure they are the right ones, or if they are the right ones now, that they familiarize themselves with what has already been done (as in the lawsuit that Michael lost).

carry on,

Victoria
 
I understand what is meant about lawsuits and Michael's "oxygen-use." However, the lawsuits stem from poor financial management. One can only hope that the current team is better than the ones that caused this to happen, through neglect. In my opinion. . . .
 
analogue said:
I tell you Michael will be sued just for breathing next. I can just see some crazy idiot making a statement that he/she owns the rights to MJ's oxygen
Click to expand...


:toofunny: :toofunny:
U know i wouldnt be surprised if that does happen one day!
 
MJ is not the one who used the song mantra on Rihanna's album. Rihanna is the one who used the mantra which was sung by Michael. Michael has already paid the dude for his use of the song. Just because Rihanna is using Michael's rendition of the mantra doesn't mean that this guy has a right to sue Michael. Rihanna is the one he should be suing. Look for MJ to be dropped from the lawsuit.
 
ATLF, I hope Michael is removed from the lawsuit. However, the way this can be read is:

"But in 2007, Rihanna -- apparently in good faith -- obtained Jackson's permission to use the same section of melody on her hit single 'Please don't stop the music,' without also contacting the original artist Dibango."

that Michael gave permission to Rihanna to use "the hook" when it was not his to authorize. I would assume this was done in writing? Apparently she thought it was Michael's to give? But it wasn't. . . . . That was the moment where he should have said (or more likely his representatives should have said), "but I don't OWN 'the hook,' and can't give you permission to use it. You must ask Dibango for permission."

Michael didn't buy future use of "the hook," but paid for having used it. Possibly in a percentage of the revenues of the song?

The law on this might be murky, but I don't think it's an automatic removal of Michael's name from the lawsuit. . . . .
 
Last edited:
Wow! People may or may not like whom Michael Jackson choses to work for him, but what is with the immediate rush to say that Michael is wrong in each of these recently filed lawsuits? It's really just as bad as those who rush to say he is never at fault.

Where has it been stated or proved that Michael or his team did not advise Rihanna's team to deal with this person now suing? Same thing with the Landis lawsuit. Michael's attorneys haven't stated anything one way or the other; it may be as simple as he screwed up or it may not be. But, could he at least have the chance to state his case one way or the other before people start shouting how he really needs to get his act together or how he needs to make changes in his team? Do most people even know who exactly his true team is now from management to legal to financial?

What is so weird is that a few years ago the repeated mantra was that the media and public needed to hear Michael's side of the story before thinking accusations and/or lawsuits were decided as true and that Michael must be guilty. Well, that seems to have gone out the window. Does this just go for if people like or know his team/staff?

Michael has been sued and rightfully so. Michael has had to say "my mistake" and make up for the damages, rightfully so. Michael has also been sued and accused wrongfully so. He has been in situations where on first glance of someone's lawsuit, it seems as if Michael didn't have his ducks in a row because of the "evidence" presented in the filing complaint; yet, later, that "evidence" had another version to it where things weren't so simple and cut and dry.

Until we hear from his side on either of these, what is the problem with waiting to hold judgment. That's not kissing a**; that's just being fair and realizing that we don't know the ins and outs of every conversation or business deal.
 
classic said:
Until we hear from his side on either of these, what is the problem with waiting to hold judgment. That's not kissing a**; that's just being fair and realizing that we don't know the ins and outs of every conversation or business deal.
Click to expand...
"holding judgement" is not being branded as "kissing ass" - hardly anyone's holding judgement here, instead the majority chose to disrespect Dibango.

i'd be a very happy poster if the majority of vocal fans from any community would just refrain from illogical speculations based on knowing jack all about most situations regarding their artist's private business.

in fact, putting a ban on any private business would be ideal, but i guess people need to talk..
 
classic said:
Wow! People may or may not like whom Michael Jackson choses to work for him, but what is with the immediate rush to say that Michael is wrong in each of these recently filed lawsuits? It's really just as bad as those who rush to say he is never at fault.

Where has it been stated or proved that Michael or his team did not advise Rihanna's team to deal with this person now suing? Same thing with the Landis lawsuit. Michael's attorneys haven't stated anything one way or the other; it may be as simple as he screwed up or it may not be. But, could he at least have the chance to state his case one way or the other before people start shouting how he really needs to get his act together or how he needs to make changes in his team? Do most people even know who exactly his true team is now from management to legal to financial?

What is so weird is that a few years ago the repeated mantra was that the media and public needed to hear Michael's side of the story before thinking accusations and/or lawsuits were decided as true and that Michael must be guilty. Well, that seems to have gone out the window. Does this just go for if people like or know his team/staff?

Michael has been sued and rightfully so. Michael has had to say "my mistake" and make up for the damages, rightfully so. Michael has also been sued and accused wrongfully so. He has been in situations where on first glance of someone's lawsuit, it seems as if Michael didn't have his ducks in a row because of the "evidence" presented in the filing complaint; yet, later, that "evidence" had another version to it where things weren't so simple and cut and dry.

Until we hear from his side on either of these, what is the problem with waiting to hold judgment. That's not kissing a**; that's just being fair and realizing that we don't know the ins and outs of every conversation or business deal.
Click to expand...

I agree w/ you.
 
arXter said:
"holding judgement" is not being branded as "kissing ass" - hardly anyone's holding judgement here, instead the majority chose to disrespect Dibango.
Click to expand...

As I said, disrespecting either at this point should be off the table. And taking into account this and the Landis lawsuit, it has gone both ways.
 
The link to the court papers for the Landis lawsuit has been given, and I suggest that after reading the complaint, most people would agree that it IS pretty clear cut and logical. Landis was paid and given quarterly reports for decades, and now has not been paid or given reports since 2004. That is what he is asking for. So either Michael paid him and gave quarterly reports, or he didn't. I doubt that Landis' attorneys are making it up, that he hasn't been paid, because that is totally easy to prove.

The Rihana case is also pretty clear-cut. Either Michael gave her permission to use the music, or he did not. If he did, it would have been in writing. . . but, the judgment in the earlier court-case was that he didn't own that part of the music, and hence, didn't have the authority to give anyone permission to use it. This is business and has a paper-trail; it's not an accusation about a crime that Michael did not commit, with no evidence to back-up that accusation. This is different . . . . . . . This type of lawsuit, of which there have been many, is the result (in my opinion) of flaky financial management teams. I hope that is a situation that is in the process of being corrected.

I don't think we will EVER know the "other side of the story." I doubt that either of these cases will ever go to court, and I think there will be settlements. Just a good hunch. . . .
 
Last edited:
Victoria83 said:
The link to the court papers for the Landis lawsuit has been given, and I suggest that after reading the complaint, most people would agree that it IS pretty clear cut and logical. Landis was paid and given quarterly reports for decades, and now has not been paid or given reports since 2004. That is what he is asking for. So either Michael paid him and gave quarterly reports, or he didn't. I doubt that Landis' attorneys are making it up, that he hasn't been paid, because that is totally easy to prove.

The Rihana case is also pretty clear-cut. Either Michael gave her permission to use the music, or he did not. If he did, it would have been in writing. . . but, the judgment in the earlier court-case was that he didn't own that part of the music, and hence, didn't have the authority to give anyone permission to use it. This is business and has a paper-trail; it's not an accusation about a crime that Michael did not commit, with no evidence to back-up that accusation. This is different . . . . . . . This type of lawsuit, of which there have been many, is the result (in my opinion) of flaky financial management teams. I hope that is a situation that is in the process of being corrected.

I don't think we will EVER know the "other side of the story." I doubt that either of these cases will ever go to court, and I think there will be settlements. Just a good hunch. . . .
Click to expand...


I'm not disputing what has been filed. I'm asking why not wait for a response from Michael Jackson. Maybe we will know the "other side of the story" and maybe not. Whether it is settled or not is not an indication that these cases were cut and dry. And all cases boil down to evidence; we don't know what the root cause is. I'll ask again, where is the evidence that Michael did not refer Rihanna's team to this musician and it was in fact her team that dropped the ball? He may have or may not have; but at least let's wait to find out.

It really doesn't matter to me whether or not he is in the right or wrong with either of these. If he is in the wrong, he will do what he has done before, fix it and move on. Furthermore, I think that there has been indication that he is definitely working to correct previous financial problems. Yes, there have been many lawsuits, but again, he still deserves to have his side heard before people decide the merits of the case.
 
classic said:
As I said, disrespecting either at this point should be off the table. And taking into account this and the Landis lawsuit, it has gone both ways.
Click to expand...
no one's disrespecting Mike here at all.

and no comment about the Landis suit, i haven't even touched that bloody thread.
 
I would think Rihanna would need permission from both Michael and this other guy in order to use the recording as it is Michael's vocals, is it not, that she used on her song? Meaning he is linked to the specific recording she used. The fault I see as Rihanna's in not obtaining both Michael's and this other guys' permission to use the recording, not Michael's himself. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I would take it that it is Rhianna's responsibility to make sure it checks out on both ends. Michael released his permission to use his recording, and the other dude needed to give his permission to use the composition. It just seems odd to me that he would sue Michael over another artist using a refrain from a song he wrote, but which Michael sang in another recording and gave permission for his specific recording to be used. It just seems to me that Michael is not responsible for Rhianna's negligence in getting the composers permission.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
I would think Rihanna would need permission from both Michael and this other guy in order to use the recording as it is Michael's vocals, is it not, that she used on her song. Meaning he is linked to the specific recording she used. The fault I see as Rihanna's in not obtaining both Michael's and this other guys' permission to use the recording, not Michael's himself. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I would take it that it is Rhianna's responsibility to make sure it checks out on both ends. Michael released his permission to use his recording, and the other dude needed to give his permission to use the composition. It just seems odd to me that he would sue Michael over another artist using a refrain from a song of his.
Click to expand...
nope, because writing credit and commission goes to Mike who bears responsibility for Dibango's work since he didn't credit him for the hook in the first place (and hence the Thriller settlement).

now this bloke saw Rihanna's huge album where, in a rare moment, filing a lawsuit might actually have a financially advantageous outcome.
 
Well alright. The dude should have demanded that he recieve writers credit though in the first place. And it's still Rihanna's responsibility to get his permission, not Michael's.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
I would think Rihanna would need permission from both Michael and this other guy in order to use the recording as it is Michael's vocals, is it not, that she used on her song? Meaning he is linked to the specific recording she used. The fault I see as Rihanna's in not obtaining both Michael's and this other guys' permission to use the recording, not Michael's himself. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I would take it that it is Rhianna's responsibility to make sure it checks out on both ends. Michael released his permission to use his recording, and the other dude needed to give his permission to use the composition. It just seems odd to me that he would sue Michael over another artist using a refrain from a song he wrote, but which Michael sang in another recording and gave permission for his specific recording to be used. It just seems to me that Michael is not responsible for Rhianna's negligence in getting the composers permission.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what I was gonna say. From what the reports are stating, since mike got permission to use the line in WWBSS and Rihanna sampled it in her single which had Mike's vocals on it? why is the 'plaintiff' who is accountable for that line seeking for pay? maybe Mike gave her the permission cause it was his vocals. I can understand the 'plaintiff's' complaint if Rihanna used his vocals instead of mike's, which also leads to question, for what reasons is he suing Mike, when mike was given the 'go' and rihanna borrowed for him? it's like a cut and copy from Mike's hit 20yrs ago.

It just dos'nt seem like a big deal to me unless my voice(in reference of the plaintiff) was on it.
 
(I'd quote here, but my quote feature is glitchy).

The way the complaint is worded, Rihanna didn't KNOW about the earlier lawsuit and that "the hook" was not actually Michael's. That is what "good faith" means, in the complaint. I don't think she would have any way of knowing about an obscure lawsuit of the past if Michael's team didn't TELL her! Michael's "team" has been changed so many times that it's entirely possible that whoever is current is not up to speed about all of the transactions/lawsuits, and so forth. That is such a well known phrase in a well-known song, of MICHAEL'S, that she probably didn't think to ask, "Hey Michael, you really wrote that, right?" I mean, think about how that could have worked?

Michael did NOT get "permission" to use the phrase. He paid a settlement for using it, after-the-fact. That does not give him permission to give it to someone else.

Oh, and I still say, we will probably never know the details of this. My hunch is that there will be a confidential settlement, and that will be the end of it.
 
Victoria83 said:
(I'd quote here, but my quote feature is glitchy).

The way the complaint is worded, Rihanna didn't KNOW about the earlier lawsuit and that "the hook" was not actually Michael's. That is what "good faith" means, in the complaint. I don't think she would have any way of knowing about an obscure lawsuit of the past if Michael's team didn't TELL her! Michael's "team" has been changed so many times that it's entirely possible that whoever is current is not up to speed about all of the transactions/lawsuits, and so forth. That is such a well known phrase in a well-known song, of MICHAEL'S, that she probably didn't think to ask, "Hey Michael, you really wrote that, right?" I mean, think about how that could have worked?

Michael did NOT get "permission" to use the phrase. He paid a settlement for using it, after-the-fact. That does not give him permission to give it to someone else.

Oh, and I still say, we will probably never know the details of this. My hunch is that there will be a confidential settlement, and that will be the end of it.
Click to expand...

Ok, well I'm sure the 'plaintiff' heard it or about it, it's was all over the airways, you couldn't miss it unless you lived under a rock or didn't have a radio or access to one it's 20+yrs old so why is the 'plaintiff' suing him now? why is he just now getting around to it? he had to have known about it.

Also if Mike owes money? then I think he should up.
 
I hate legal mumbo, jumbo, lol. Honestly though, I don't even understand how this works. I would think it was Rhianna's responsibility to get permssion from Michael to use his recorded vocals and her responsibility also to get this guys permission to use the content, and that Michael wouldn't be responsible for her failure to do so. That would seem like the logical thing to me. But I guess it doesn't work that way. Either way, this crap is old.
 
RE Rihanna - her labels publishing/clearance department should have cleared that or any other song or sample that went on her album!! :yes:


I think !! :D
 
Stargirl said:
He should hire us ^_^

MJJC would make a great management team :p
Click to expand...


Yeah that would be a great idea!! :lol: :p

The members here span from Layers to economist. We sure could put a nice team together! :laugh:
 
Last edited:
different year same old crap *yawn* other fans look forward to the next new release we look forward to the next new lawsuit to discuss.
 
classic said:
I'm not disputing what has been filed. I'm asking why not wait for a response from Michael Jackson. Maybe we will know the "other side of the story" and maybe not. Whether it is settled or not is not an indication that these cases were cut and dry. And all cases boil down to evidence; we don't know what the root cause is. I'll ask again, where is the evidence that Michael did not refer Rihanna's team to this musician and it was in fact her team that dropped the ball? He may have or may not have; but at least let's wait to find out.

It really doesn't matter to me whether or not he is in the right or wrong with either of these. If he is in the wrong, he will do what he has done before, fix it and move on. Furthermore, I think that there has been indication that he is definitely working to correct previous financial problems. Yes, there have been many lawsuits, but again, he still deserves to have his side heard before people decide the merits of the case.
Click to expand...

thank you Classic once again for a good post.... it erks me when panick and lecturing on how Michael should run his life financially or otherwise comes poring out.. just from a news story.................

and lets say its determined that Rhianna's record label DefJam was the one that made the error................I wonder if there will be posts apologizing on making the WRONG assumptions....???
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top