Michael - The Great Album Debate

Paw

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
73
Points
0
Don't just sit back and wait for Teddy's book, or you will miss the last chance to file a lawsuit. Do you want to see fans still complaining about the same issue incessantly 10 years later?
 

SmoothGangsta

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
3,844
Points
113
What I don't understand is how some people can defend the people that worked on these songs, they obviously went to great lengths to ensure people thought it was MJ. They took parts from a lot of songs, most of the "whoo" you hear is from another song, breathing, grunting, everything sounding remotely MJ, is mj, the main vocal isn't.
 

Allusio

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
580
Points
0
I still do not understand WHY Branca and McClain chose to risk?!!!

I have only one logical explanation – it is really Michael’s voice…
 

OnirMJ

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
6,384
Points
63
Allusio;3901370 said:
I still do not understand WHY Branca and McClain chose to risk?!!!

I have only one logical explanation – it is really Michael’s voice…

It is not. Branca and Sony chose to risk because they don't give a damn about Michael and his fans, and of course because they know that all the evidence was destroyed. The only evidence is Jason Malachi and he won't talk!
 

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
I’ve been doing some research with the US Copyrights Office. The « MJ Songbook 1 » registration that Cascio and Porte registered right after MJ’s death might be the most important piece of information we have regarding what really happened. I’ve been wondering for a while if we could get more info about what exactly was registered at that time. So I asked the Copyrights Office :

« I am doing research on copyrights registration.

My question is this : when one sends you a collection of unpublished musical works to be registered under a general name, is it possible for members of the public to know the contents of this collection in more detail than what appears under the registration information on the Web site? »

The answer was :

« The content of your work will not be displayed, just the information you place on the application. However, your work is available for public inspection in the Copyright Office, as mandated by law, upon request and payment of a service fee. Please see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ06.pdf for more information. »

So I checked out Circular 6, and here are the interesting parts :

« Photocopies of the following copyright-related records can be obtained: affidavits, registration applications, assignments, contracts, licenses, and other documents that have been recorded in the Copyright Office. »

« The Office will provide certified or uncertified copies of published or unpublished works deposited in connection with a copyright registration and held in the Office’s custody only when one of the following three conditions has been met:
1- Written authorization is received from the copyright claimant of record or the owner of any of the exclusive rights in the copyright.
2- The Copyright Office Litigation Statement Form is completed and received from an attorney or authorized representative in connection with litigation, actual or prospective, involving the copyrighted work.
3- A court order is issued for a reproduction of a deposited article, facsimile, or identifying portion of a work that is the subject of litigation in its jurisdiction. »

« If you request a reproduction of a phonorecord, such as an audiotape, cassette, CD, or diskette, in which either a sound recording or the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work is embodied, the Copyright Office will provide proximate reproduction. Because of the characteristics of available sound reproduction, all frequencies contained in the original phonorecord may not be reproduced. »

« You can inspect (a) completed records and indexes related to a registration or a recorded document and (b) copies or identifying material deposited in connection with a completed registration or rejection in the Records Research and Certification Section. »

So if i’m understanding this correctly, it means that we could at the very least get a copy of the registration form that Eddie sent, as well as any documentation he sent alongside his request. But more importantly, through a lawyer, we could actually get a copy of the actual material Eddie registered. And finally, if somebody actually went to the Copyrights Office in Washington, they could inspect the material deposited by Eddie.

Aren’t those interesting avenues? Has anybody tried to get that info before? There are fees for all of this, of course, but nothing too steep. Just knowing whether Eddie claimed at that point that MJ was singing the songs, as opposed to just saying he had written lyrics for them, would be a start. Also, to know whether there were 12 songs right from the beginning would be interesting. And maybe the record contains an authorization to file from MJ’s Estate, or an acknowledgement of the filing, which could shed some light on whether the Estate were quick or not to admit the songs as legit.

Does anyone here live near Washington, for starters?
 

StellaJackson

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
2,736
Points
63
kreen;3901431 said:
I’ve been doing some research with the US Copyrights Office. The « MJ Songbook 1 » registration that Cascio and Porte registered right after MJ’s death might be the most important piece of information we have regarding what really happened. I’ve been wondering for a while if we could get more info about what exactly was registered at that time. So I asked the Copyrights Office :

« I am doing research on copyrights registration.

My question is this : when one sends you a collection of unpublished musical works to be registered under a general name, is it possible for members of the public to know the contents of this collection in more detail than what appears under the registration information on the Web site? »

The answer was :

« The content of your work will not be displayed, just the information you place on the application. However, your work is available for public inspection in the Copyright Office, as mandated by law, upon request and payment of a service fee. Please see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ06.pdf for more information. »

So I checked out Circular 6, and here are the interesting parts :

« Photocopies of the following copyright-related records can be obtained: affidavits, registration applications, assignments, contracts, licenses, and other documents that have been recorded in the Copyright Office. »

« The Office will provide certified or uncertified copies of published or unpublished works deposited in connection with a copyright registration and held in the Office’s custody only when one of the following three conditions has been met:
1- Written authorization is received from the copyright claimant of record or the owner of any of the exclusive rights in the copyright.
2- The Copyright Office Litigation Statement Form is completed and received from an attorney or authorized representative in connection with litigation, actual or prospective, involving the copyrighted work.
3- A court order is issued for a reproduction of a deposited article, facsimile, or identifying portion of a work that is the subject of litigation in its jurisdiction. »

« If you request a reproduction of a phonorecord, such as an audiotape, cassette, CD, or diskette, in which either a sound recording or the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work is embodied, the Copyright Office will provide proximate reproduction. Because of the characteristics of available sound reproduction, all frequencies contained in the original phonorecord may not be reproduced. »

« You can inspect (a) completed records and indexes related to a registration or a recorded document and (b) copies or identifying material deposited in connection with a completed registration or rejection in the Records Research and Certification Section. »

So if i’m understanding this correctly, it means that we could at the very least get a copy of the registration form that Eddie sent, as well as any documentation he sent alongside his request. But more importantly, through a lawyer, we could actually get a copy of the actual material Eddie registered. And finally, if somebody actually went to the Copyrights Office in Washington, they could inspect the material deposited by Eddie.

Aren’t those interesting avenues? Has anybody tried to get that info before? There are fees for all of this, of course, but nothing too steep. Just knowing whether Eddie claimed at that point that MJ was singing the songs, as opposed to just saying he had written lyrics for them, would be a start. Also, to know whether there were 12 songs right from the beginning would be interesting. And maybe the record contains an authorization to file from MJ’s Estate, or an acknowledgement of the filing, which could shed some light on whether the Estate were quick or not to admit the songs as legit.

Does anyone here live near Washington, for starters?

This has already been done and lawyers for Angelikson fought it tooth and nail.
 

WhoIsIt89

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
1,030
Points
0
Location
Neverland, Long Island
Allusio;3901370 said:
I still do not understand WHY Branca and McClain chose to risk?!!!

I have only one logical explanation – it is really Michael’s voice…

Then that explanation is wrong.

I also don't need to file a lawsuit to know that it's Jason Malachi on these records.
 

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,427
Points
83
StellaJackson;3901561 said:
This has already been done and lawyers for Angelikson fought it tooth and nail.

Your statement makes zero sense:
The Office will provide certified or uncertified copies of published or unpublished works deposited in connection with a copyright registration and held in the Office’s custody only when one of the following three conditions has been met:
1- Written authorization is received from the copyright claimant of record or the owner of any of the exclusive rights in the copyright.
2- The Copyright Office Litigation Statement Form is completed and received from an attorney or authorized representative in connection with litigation, actual or prospective, involving the copyrighted work.
3- A court order is issued for a reproduction of a deposited article, facsimile, or identifying portion of a work that is the subject of litigation in its jurisdiction.
 

OnirMJ

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
6,384
Points
63
I'm with Korgnex on this one. This should be done if it's really possible!
 

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,427
Points
83
That was kreen's idea. Please refer to points #2 and #3 (cuz #1 is impossible, obviously): You'd need a lawsuit for this (for #2 a filed/started one and for #3 a won one).
 
Last edited:

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
That was kreen's idea. Please refer to points #2 and #3 (cuz #1 is impossible, obviously): You'd need a lawsuit for this.

It says in the circular I quoted from that if one actually goes to the Copyrights Office in Washington, that they can request to inspect the material that's in a deposit. But I'm assuming that if it is a recorded file, all you get to do is see the CD; you don't actually get to listen to its contents.

When I get a chance, I'll call the Office myself; there's a toll-free number.

How much would it realistically cost to launch a lawsuit? Basically it would be against Sony for having released the 3 songs; if some statute of limitation has expired for the Michael album, the recent iTunes release could be used as basis for the suit.
 

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,427
Points
83
Like I said, I'm all in for a lawsuit. I do have a law company (in the USA, of course) that is potentially interested and has experience with similar cases. However in order to get their interest, I would need to present them a good summary of the sitation and I have had no time to write one, I'm busy with other things.

The statue of limitation ends 3 years after the release (in this case 14th December 2013 in the USA). I'm not sure whether a digital catalogue or re-issue would be treated separately (it would be the same like a newly created (online-) shop adding the item/individual songs to its assortment).
 
Last edited:

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
Like I said, I'm all in for a lawsuit. I do have a law company (in the USA, of course) that is potentially interested and has experience with similar cases. However in order to get their interest, I would need to present them a good summary of the sitation and I have had no time to write one, I'm busy with other things.

The statue of limitation ends 3 years after the release (in this case 14th December 2013 in the USA). I'm not sure whether a digital catalogue or re-issue would be treated separately (it would be the same like a newly created (online-) shop adding the item/individual songs to its assortment).

If all that is needed is a summary of the situation, well, all we have to do is cut and paste a couple of posts from this mega-thread. In 3 years, I think all of us have actually written a BOOK about these tracks.

Ok, let's say I write the summary. What's next? Do we have the money? What amount are we looking at?
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
3,151
Points
0
Location
Michael Jackson Community
Admin Note: Just to make clear. MJJC is NOT going to sponsor or kick start ANY lawsuit against Sony, Estate, Jackson's or anyone. So please take MJJC out of that equation. Its not going to happen. This thread was created to allow fans to discuss the issue here, nothing more. You can discuss anything pertaining to the Cascio tracks even your own lawsuits but we will not be involved. Period. Any further posts trying to bring MJJC into that equation will be deleted.

As always if you have any questions or concerns PM Admin do not reply to or discuss moderation notes or requests on the board.
 

StellaJackson

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
2,736
Points
63
Why do we need a lawsuit to know it's not Michael singing? What can it possibly achieve? Cascio/Porte aren't going to reveal anything for obvious reasons and it would just end up costing a load of money for nothing. The only thing that ahould happen is thatnthe songs should be removed from Michael's discography.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
kreen you were right, an in person visit to the copyright office allows you to see the registration form they submitted. not the actual work. otherwise everyone would have walked to the copyright office and for example read the next hunger games book. it looks like seeing the work requires either permission of the copyright owner or a lawsuit discovery process and even a court order. korgnex in all fairness the instructions do state "prospective" lawsuit which I think would mean not yet filed but will be filed lawsuit. However hiring a lawyer and going to the copyright office and saying "show the me work because I'll sue" will not be enough IMO, I would expect copyright office to definitely inform the other party and require a whole a lot of more information and even require the lawsuit to be filed, survive demurrer phase and subpoena's being served before they hand out copies of anything. I guess Stella might be referring to Birchey lawsuit which was an actual lawsuit but in UK. I don't see US copyright office being bound by any UK legal process
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
How much would it realistically cost to launch a lawsuit? Basically it would be against Sony for having released the 3 songs; if some statute of limitation has expired for the Michael album, the recent iTunes release could be used as basis for the suit.

Like I said, I'm all in for a lawsuit. I do have a law company (in the USA, of course) that is potentially interested and has experience with similar cases. However in order to get their interest, I would need to present them a good summary of the sitation and I have had no time to write one, I'm busy with other things.

The statue of limitation ends 3 years after the release (in this case 14th December 2013 in the USA). I'm not sure whether a digital catalogue or re-issue would be treated separately (it would be the same like a newly created (online-) shop adding the item/individual songs to its assortment).

If all that is needed is a summary of the situation, well, all we have to do is cut and paste a couple of posts from this mega-thread. In 3 years, I think all of us have actually written a BOOK about these tracks.

Ok, let's say I write the summary. What's next? Do we have the money? What amount are we looking at?

I would think that the statue of limitations is 3 years after the discovery of the fraud and first stream of the song I guess could be classified as first discovery. Any lawyer would want a summary of the situation because they would want to know that the lawsuit can stand up to a demurrer - meaning opposite side arguing there's no legal basis for such lawsuit and/or the claims are frivolous.

for actually filing fees you would need only several hundred dollars (less than a thousand) but the initial expenses will include lawyer fees. so it would mainly depend on the lawyer and how much money they want. you can file the lawsuit yourself - representing yourself. that would mean no lawyer fees but obvious success rates go down. also at any time you need to account for other sides legal fees because if you lose they might make you pay their legal expenses.

Why do we need a lawsuit to know it's not Michael singing? What can it possibly achieve? Cascio/Porte aren't going to reveal anything for obvious reasons and it would just end up costing a load of money for nothing. The only thing that ahould happen is thatnthe songs should be removed from Michael's discography.

the good thing about a lawsuit it can provide information that wasn't available to the fans before. such as a lawsuit discovery would allow you to ask for any communications, copies submitted to the copyright office and so on. possibilities are endless. the goal does not require to be aiming for a win but an information search. but I agree that cost benefit needs to be considered.
 

OnirMJ

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
6,384
Points
63
Why do we need a lawsuit to know it's not Michael singing? What can it possibly achieve? Cascio/Porte aren't going to reveal anything for obvious reasons and it would just end up costing a load of money for nothing. The only thing that ahould happen is thatnthe songs should be removed from Michael's discography.

We know that it's not Michael singing, but a lot of people doesn't. The goal is to remove those fake and awful songs from his discography. That would be the victory for all MJ fans. We don't care about those liars anymore, we know the truth. But lawsuit against Sony Music and request those songs to be removed from discography - that should be done.
 

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
the good thing about a lawsuit it can provide information that wasn't available to the fans before. such as a lawsuit discovery would allow you to ask for any communications, copies submitted to the copyright office and so on. possibilities are endless. the goal does not require to be aiming for a win but an information search. but I agree that cost benefit needs to be considered.

Like Ivy says, the point would not so much be to "win", but to get some more information which could be just as good as a "win". For instance, if we were to ascertain that the songs deposited the day after MJ's death feature the exact same vocals as what ended up on the CD, it would mean that, if there was a hoax, it took place BEFORE MJ's death.

On the other hand, if the vocals in the original deposit are closer to the "usual" MJ voice, it could mean that MJ indeed did record those songs with the Cascios, but that his actual vocals are buried in the final mix, under layers of James Porte doing his MJ thing.

In any event, a lot of solid information could come from this. I'm really willing to dedicate time and money to this, but I can't do this alone. Korgnex and Ivy, are you in? I'm assuming we'd need a US citizen willing to file the suit on our behalf. We'd need at least enough money to get to the first stage of the process : getting to hear what was deposited way back in June 2009.

OnirMJ, StellaJackson, and all of the other frequent contributors to this thread, would you be willing to contribute, maybe financially? I'm willing to put up 500 $ right now. Damien Shields should be interested also.

The great thing is that this should be of interest to every MJ fan who's into this debate, whether you think the songs are real or fake.
 

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,959
Points
113
Just to make this clear for myself - the original Cascio tracks when registered for copyright a mere few days after Michael's death had no mention of Michael Jackson anywhere?
 

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
Just to make this clear for myself - the original Cascio tracks when registered for copyright a mere few days after Michael's death had no mention of Michael Jackson anywhere?

No, that's the thing, they did : MJ was listed as writer, performer and lyricist.

Type of Work: Sound Recording and Music
Registration Number / Date: SRu000911714 / 2009-06-27
Application Title: MJ Song Book 2009 #1.
Title: MJ Song Book 2009 #1.
Description: Electronic file (eService)
Copyright Claimant: Michael Joseph Jackson. Address: Unlisted, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
James Victor Porte. Address: 105 Camilla Lane, Murfreesboro, TN, 37129, United States.
Edward Joseph Cascio. Address: 883 Huron Rd, Franklin Lakes, NJ, 07417, United States.
Date of Creation: 2009
Authorship on Application: Michael Joseph Jackson; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: sound recording, performance, production, compilation, LYRICS.
James Victor Porte; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: sound recording, performance, production, compilation, LYRICS.
Edward Joseph Cascio; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: sound recording, performance, production, compilation, LYRICS.
Rights and Permissions: James Porte, Ghost Manor Music, jamesporte@gmail.com

Names: Jackson, Michael Joseph
Porte, James Victor
Cascio, Edward Joseph
 

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
2 days after a friends death. Unbelievable.

Actually, it makes perfect sense for them to register those songs as soon as possible -- IF it is MJ singing. It was either that or Latoya releasing "The Cascio songs" 6 months later on Joe Jackson's Ranch Records label.
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
Actually, it makes perfect sense for them to register those songs as soon as possible -- IF it is MJ singing. It was either that or Latoya releasing "The Cascio songs" 6 months later on Joe Jackson's Ranch Records label.
I wouldn't say it makes perfect sense. I certainly couldn't do it. I was tore up for weeks over Michael's death and I never even met him. And there is no way anyone else could have released the Cascio tracks because they were solely in the possession of Eddie and no one else. Michael had no copies (Obviously. Why would he if it's not even him?).
 

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
I wouldn't say it makes perfect sense. I certainly couldn't do it. I was tore up for weeks over Michael's death and I never even met him. And there is no way anyone else could have released the Cascio tracks because they were solely in the possession of Eddie and no one else. Michael had no copies (Obviously. Why would he if it's not even him?).

If the songs had been registered 6 months later, people would be using that delay as proof MJ never sang them; they'd be saying "See? If the Cascios really had MJ material they wouldn't have waited so long". Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It makes perfect sense for the Cascios, immediately after MJ's death, to protect songs that all of a sudden had become valuable. I would have done the same. And if you can't imagine them, through the grief and confusion of the first 48 hours, taking the time to fill out a form, then all the more should you not think them capable, in the same period, of hatching from scratch the criminal plot to hire an impersonator and sell fake songs to Sony.
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
Whether they registered them 6 months or 6 years later, people question the songs because they don't sound like Michael. That's really the bottom line.

The point is I don't think there was much pain or grief. So yes I can imagine them coming up with such a plan. If Eddie really cared about Michael he wouldn't have done what he did. Point blank.
 
Top