Michael - The Great Album Debate

zinniabooklover

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
2,377
Points
113
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:

zinniabooklover

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
2,377
Points
113
How long do we need to wait for a decision? Feel like these things always take forever.
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.
 

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,403
Points
83
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).

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.
 

zinniabooklover

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
2,377
Points
113
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:

zinniabooklover

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
2,377
Points
113
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.
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 ...
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,933
Points
63
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..
 

zinniabooklover

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
2,377
Points
113
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..
That's depressing. Hadn't even considered that.
 

Hiker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
1,059
Points
113
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..
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.
 

Richard76

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2021
Messages
96
Points
8
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..
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!
 

zinniabooklover

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
2,377
Points
113
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!
Didn't know this either. The plot thickens. And gets more depressing with each detail that is new to me.
 
Top