Sony and Jackson Estate reach agreement for Sony to acquire remaining half of Sony/ATV Music Publish

C

ChrisC

Guest
The Estate's accounts being public might have had something to do with all this too? I mean, prior to June 2009, surely Sony could only guess at what money Michael was able to put together to muscle them out in the event of them triggering the clause.
 

dancinmachine51

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
168
Points
18
If they ever thought that streaming makes publishing less profitable I sure would like to see the data their used because it's just blatantly untrue when they project a 23% increase in profit. MJ had no doubt that Sony wanted his catalog and they wouldn't have bothered to make a deal with him in 2006 if that had not been the case.
So we are supposed to believe that between that and 2015 Sony at some point seriously was considering doing the exact opposite of what they wanted to do between at least 2001 and 2009 and in 2015 because?

The bottom line they bought a catalog they believe will yield even higher profits in the future
and that money won't be going to the Estate at the same time who knows how what's left of the 750m will be invested
and how profitable that will be if at all but Branca already dares say that this is all good for MJ's kids.

Exactly! Cmon now Sony knew exactly what they was doing when they exercised their right. cmon!

Why would they pay 750 mill for something that they believe will be less profitable in the future....no way. Add 250 mill and that's a billion right there, they paid near to a billion, which infact they could conjure up or maybe even do have that little extra to add to it if need be...no bloody way would they if they thought it will be less profitable, I refuse to believe that.

If that was the case then why exercise their right, why would they even bother?

There's not just Beatles songs in that cat, there's songs in there that are still highly profitable today, and will also be in the near future because of the recency of other songs also, and let's not forget the classics are in there too.

They must of waited a few years to do this??...they wouldn't of done this a few years ago I guess because everything that happened was still relatively fresh, we all know there is no way in no lifetime that Michael would of sold either way.
They probably saw all this IRS shenanigans and thought 'lets hit them with this now there's no way the estate will refuse because of what it is facing right now and definitely will not be able to buy our (Sony's) half'
100% IMO Michael would of still fought to this day to keep this for his children if not for him, as he has done for a long time.

My opinion.
I've a written a post in here yesterday on this and now this one here will be my last. Really and truly what's done is done and I will not forget.
 
Last edited:

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
It's another matter, but I googled a bit and it looks like they could also sue the executors if they lose against the IRS:

the dispute with IRS isn't a "fail to pay taxes" situation. They timely filed their tax forms. They probably will pay when the amount is decided. The issue is a valuation dispute. Only way they would be "personally held responsible" would be if they knowingly not included an asset - which is tax evasion. (For example I found one example in which an Executor knowing and willingly have not listed a house as an asset during Estate tax. That executor was hold responsible for it.) Tax valuation dispute is quite different from tax evasion.
 

Autumn II

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
9,210
Points
0
Location
Appalachians in the U.S.
The executors don't receive 10% from the catalogue, but if they invest the money elsewhere, will they then get 10% of the income that new investment will bring?

Of course. In their management of the estate, what is good for the estate/heirs, is good for them too, either directly or down the road. The executors are lawyers and businessmen. They seek profit, and their profit is also good for the heirs. What Michael would have wanted, we cannot know. There was the business aspect, but also the emotional aspect for him, in ATV as the ultimate insurance policy, long-term.

Etoile, I've been reading your posts and I actually agree with you in many ways (as unpopular as that opinion may be, which I fully realize), but that time is long past -- to question the circumstances of Michael's death, who may have been involved, and what really happened, and who could have helped him in his hours of greatest need and yet failed him. There have been two trials -- Murray's, and a civil suit, and nothing was ever found as a smoking gun. Right after he passed, there were a lot of investigations, some on this board, and some in private groups. The "investigators" were fans but some were also very, very skilled at research (including myself). Every possible avenue was pursued, but there were limits to what could be done, and no smoking gun was ever found. That time is long past.

Michael was the best there ever was as an entertainer, but in his personal and business life, he wanted so badly to trust someone to have his best interests at heart. That did not work out well for him. Sadly. The has been a trend that I've seen, of fans also extending their support and trust to those who surrounded Michael at any given time. That included - so many. Just go down the list. Karen Faye comes to mind (with the disastrous MJJSource). Raymone Bain. Thome Thome. Others. None of them had his best interests in mind, IMHO. I feel the same about the executors, but given that their profit also extends to Michael's children, that is, as of now, financially, a win/win. What is important now, is the future of Michael's children, and their future is secure. Farther than that, as to the circumstances of his death, I think we cannot go.
 
Last edited:

Allusio

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
580
Points
0
Redfrog, dancinmachine51, I agree.

Sony is a corporation, not someone’s Estate with tree children behind it!

Of course, they have plans and it is all about profits.

However, what is great profits for one company can be a heavy burden for another one. It all depends.

The Estate cannot fight and survive knowing someone important depends on them and their decisions.

And I cannot blame Sony here, that is life.

I am more grateful that there is a chance for the Estate to get out of depts so soon.
 

gerryevans

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
1,760
Points
63
Of course. In their management of the estate, what is good for the estate/heirs, is good for them too, either directly or down the road. The executors are lawyers and businessmen. They seek profit, and their profit is also good for the heirs. What Michael would have wanted, we cannot know. There was the business aspect, but also the emotional aspect for him, in ATV as the ultimate insurance policy, long-term.

Etoile, I've been reading your posts and I actually agree with you in many ways (as unpopular as that opinion may be, which I fully realize), but that time is long past -- to question the circumstances of Michael's death, who may have been involved, and what really happened, and who could have helped him in his hours of greatest need and yet failed him. There have been two trials -- Murray's, and a civil suit, and nothing was ever found as a smoking gun. Right after he passed, there were a lot of investigations, some on this board, and some in private groups. The "investigators" were fans but some were also very, very skilled at research (including myself). Every possible avenue was pursued, but there were limits to what could be done, and no smoking gun was ever found. That time is long past.

Michael was the best there ever was as an entertainer, but in his personal and business life, he wanted so badly to trust someone to have his best interests at heart. That did not work out well for him. Sadly. The has been a trend that I've seen, of fans also extending their support and trust to those who surrounded Michael at any given time. That included - so many. Just go down the list. Karen Faye comes to mind (with the disastrous MJJSource). Raymone Bain. Thome Thome. Others. None of them had his best interests in mind, IMHO. I feel the same about the executors, but given that their profit also extends to Michael's children, that is, as of now, financially, a win/win. What is important now, is the future of Michael's children, and their future is secure. Farther than that, as to the circumstances of his death, I think we cannot go.

I cannot put into words how much I appreciate this post. It brings together for me a summation and close to several elements of the last seven years, and with the closure comes a certain peace. The only thing that still hangs painfully in the air at least for me now is the RobChuck nonsense. If those suits could finally end with neither of them getting anything but the karma they deserve, it would make 2016 one of the better years among the tumultuous ones since June 2009. Thanks.
 

144000

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
10,312
Points
0
Location
united states
Action still speaks louder than words, to me. Michael held onto this catalogue while he was here, despite everything I heard in the news. So..I'll look at it as Michael made history, as a businessman, (having the ability to buy music history's biggest catalogue) as well as an entertainer. And I've learned never to watch tv or listen to the news at face value, ever again. Because, i could be convinced to look at this as Michael Jackson awashed in debt. I don't see it, that way. Last time I checked, if I couldn't hold onto something, I lost it, immediately. Since Sony and Branca waited till after MJ died, then Branca, in my view, wanted the feeling of a lot of cash, in his hand, immediately, while MJ wasn't here to watch him...they're cowards. Those are my feelings on this. I could only wonder what Bandier meant by 'all the hard work we did' to make this transaction a reality. Again, more of my feelings.
 
Last edited:

ScaredOfTheMoon

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
336
Points
0
Some of the posts in this thread makes me wish it was possible to down-vote posts on here like you can on other forums because damn. It's headache inducing is all I'm gonna say.

When you have laid out actual facts and people still refuse to listen there is nothing more one can do.
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
ercan;4141471 said:
[video=youtube;hOABdQf4dRg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOABdQf4dRg[/video]

144 said:
Action still speaks louder than words, to me. Michael held onto this catalogue while he was here, despite everything I heard in the news. So..I'll look at it as Michael made history, as a businessman, (having the ability to buy music history's biggest catalogue) as well as an entertainer. And I've learned never to watch tv or listen to the news at face value, ever again. Because, i could be convinced to look at this as Michael Jackson awashed in debt. I don't see it, that way. Last time I checked, if I couldn't hold onto something, I lost it, immediately. Since Sony and Branca waited till after MJ died, then Branca, in my view, wanted the feeling of a lot of cash, in his hand, immediately, while MJ wasn't here to watch him...they're cowards. Those are my feelings on this. I could only wonder what Bandier meant by 'all the hard work we did' to make this transaction a reality. Again, more of my feelings.



there is something in connection with this VIDEO, I dont have a link for this article, but I found it in my PC files:

January 2009

Sony/ATV (Michael Jackson) is said to be worth $30 billion

Sony/ATV (Michael Jackson) Music Publishing LLC

The King of Pop was no "Fool on the Hill" when he invested in the music publishing business.

Sony/ATV Music Publishing, jointly owned by singer Michael Jackson and Sony Corporation of America, is one of the top publishing firms in the world. It is home to more than 750,000 copyrights by such artists as Willie Nelson, Roy Orbison, Linda Perry, Richie Sambora, Shakira, Diane Warren and Hank Williams, among others including more than 250 compositions recorded by The Beatles.

Its growing current roster of chart-topping artists includes Akon, Sara Bareilles, the Jonas Brothers, Kenny Chesney, Flo Rida, Lady GaGa, Rascal Flatts and Taylor Swift. The last time Sony/ATV was valued, it was said to be worth $30 Billion.

ATV Music was once the publishing arm of Lord Lew Grade's UK media empire, Associated Television (ATV). It had acquired Northern Songs (the Beatles' publishing business) in 1969.

Mr. Jackson acquired the Beatles catalog in 1985 when he bought ATV Music for about $47 million from Australian tycoon Robert Holmes à Court. He sold a 50% stake in the business to Sony for $150 million in 1995. Sony also contributed its existing publishing business to the new venture, forming Sony/ATV.

Other collections include the country catalogs of Acuff-Rose and Tree Publishing. The company acquired the Acuff-Rose catalog (featuring classics from Hank Williams and Roy Orbison) in 2002 for $157 million from Gaylord Entertainment.

Sony/ATV expanded its business in 2007 with the acquisition of publisher Famous Music from Viacom. The deal was worth some $370 million, and added 125,000 songs and sound cues to Sony/ATV's catalog. Famous songs include classics such as 'Footloose,' 'Moon River,' and 'Take My Breath Away'.

The growing company also scored a hit when it acquired the catalogue of award-winning songwriters Jerry Leiber and Michael Stoller in 2007 for some $45 million. The Leiber Stoller catalogue contains more than 40 Top 40 hits, including "Stand By Me", "Poison Ivy", and "Love Potion #9", as well as several songs made famous by Elvis Presley ("Hound Dog", "Jailhouse Rock").

CEO Martin Bandier, formerly an executive at EMI Group, is leading a focus on Sony/ATV's most valuable asset, its collection of Beatles songs. The company had historically resisted licensing Beatles recordings for commercial use, but in 2008 Bandier announced that he favored licensing Beatles songs for things that haven't been licensed in the past -- under certain circumstances.

Sony/ATV licenses its songs for use in movies, television, and advertising and collects royalties for its songwriters. It has offices in about 40 countries.

"I want to clarify a silly rumor - the Beatles catalog is not for sale, has not been for sale and will never be for sale." ~ Michael Jackson 2001

The Michael Jackson catalog is wholly owned by Mr. Jackson, administered by Warner Chappell, on Sony Music labels, and is not a part of Sony/ATV.
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
^^When I do google search for that article that claims catalogue is said to be valued 30 billion it takes me some sort of fansite? That number 30 billion, is that something that was dreamt as it was never valued more than 3 billion, and that is 27 billion less than that articles says?
Maybe the person who wrote that article put 1 extra 0 on that amount or something as it isn't even now worth of 30 billion.
 
Last edited:

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Here is how much the catalog was historically valued in the past. Apart from Mesereau's estimation, all valued it at about $1-1.5 billion.

[h=2]Value[/h] The value of Sony/ATV Music Publishing has varied in reports. In 2002, Forbes magazine estimated Jackson's 50% stake in the company, along with other music publishing ventures, to be worth $450 million.[SUP][44][/SUP] The organization was valued at $700 million in 2003.[SUP][45][/SUP] Industry experts valued the catalogue at between $600 million and $1 billion in 2004, based on the sales of rival catalogues.[SUP][46][/SUP] Charles Koppelman, a veteran music industry executive, stated that $1 billion was more reflective of Sony/ATV Music Publishing's worth.[SUP][46][/SUP] "Buyers would be lining up around the block if it were ever put up for sale," he said. "And I'd be in the front of the line."[SUP][46][/SUP] The value of the company was further estimated by Ryan Schinman, chief of Platinum Rye, to be $1.5 billion.[SUP][47]

[/SUP]

In 2005, Jackson's defense attorney, Thomas Mesereau, claimed that the song catalogue had been valued at between $4 billion and $5 billion.[SUP][48][/SUP] Jackson's own financial documents stated that his 50% share of the catalogue was worth $390.6 million as of 2007,[SUP][49][/SUP] which would have made the entire catalogue worth $781.2 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing#Value
 

Allusio

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
580
Points
0
144 said:
Action still speaks louder than words, to me. Michael held onto this catalogue while he was here, despite everything I heard in the news. So..I'll look at it as Michael made history, as a businessman, (having the ability to buy music history's biggest catalogue) as well as an entertainer. And I've learned never to watch tv or listen to the news at face value, ever again. Because, i could be convinced to look at this as Michael Jackson awashed in debt. I don't see it, that way. Last time I checked, if I couldn't hold onto something, I lost it, immediately. Since Sony and Branca waited till after MJ died, then Branca, in my view, wanted the feeling of a lot of cash, in his hand, immediately, while MJ wasn't here to watch him...they're cowards. Those are my feelings on this. I could only wonder what Bandier meant by 'all the hard work we did' to make this transaction a reality. Again, more of my feelings.

I’m sorry that you feel this way. IDK how awful it would be if I believe in something like this. It would be difficult for me to take.

I don’t think that Sony workers or the Estate executors can foresee the future.

Branca is not a young man himself, you know.

We all will die one day and to say that people are cowards just because they are doing their jobs, IMHO, is not very believable.

Especially with all hate that is thrown at them.
 

144000

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
10,312
Points
0
Location
united states
Allusio;4141567 said:
I’m sorry that you feel this way. IDK how awful it would be if I believe in something like this. It would be difficult for me to take.

I don’t think that Sony workers or the Estate executors can foresee the future.

Branca is not a young man himself, you know.

We all will die one day and to say that people are cowards just because they are doing their jobs, IMHO, is not very believable.

Especially with all hate that is thrown at them.
'Doing your job' is a loaded phrase. If doing your job is working for two people at once, when a person cannot serve two masters, then, 'doing your job' is not such an innocent phrase. NOBODY can forsee the future. A lawyer's job is to work for his client. One client. And if sony is so vast, they know to hire an attorney that isn't working for someone else. How is a deliberate move, like that, not considered hate? On another note, it's interesting how someone else on here stated nothing more can be done once 'facts' are stated. However, I see so many reports that contain a lot of estimating and editorials.

Finally, I'm not going to blame Michael for becoming a big star and, therefore, receiving hardships that go with that. And pain medication he might have had to take because of those hardships. And a whole lot of people coming at him at the same time because of his massive success,and many looking for that vulnerable moment. And how easy it is for at least, some of those people to find a vulnerable moment when he is so innundated. And I don't blame him for not having muscular arms and a gun,& not being able to shoot anybody that brings about, even a whiff of duplicity. But I have a problem with ones who take advantage of someone very successful, looking for the vulnerability, and pouncing on it. Hopefully, I'd rather be impaired by pain medications, due to an accident, rather than being impaired by greed, and taking advantage of a successful person in such a vulnerable position. The phrase 'do your job' isn't good enough. It should be replaced by 'do your job and have some ethics'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPQW33CkezA&feature=youtu.be

http://imgur.com/rQpZOvF
 
Last edited:

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
However, what is great profits for one company can be a heavy burden for another one. It all depends.

Was it a heavy burden before 2016 or it only would have become a heavy burden if they had bought Sony's share
with others? If so why? Who else was interested? We don't know. So we cannot possibly know whether
working with them would have been a heavy burden or not or how it would have been heavier than working with Sony between 1995 and 2016.

One thing is sure. Even with the rights going back to Paul after 2018 in the US (only) the Beatles songs alone
will continue to yield tons of money. Streaming make publishing
a better not worse business especially given its growth.

The impending changes come at an uncertain time for Sony/ATV and its rivals, which are trying to get higher royalties from services such as Spotify, Rhapsody and Pandora. Music publishers and record labels alike are trying to figure out how to best deal with consumers' shift from owning music to streaming it on computers, smartphones and tablets. On-demand music streams increased 93% in 2015, according to Nielsen. Industry analysts said owning all of Sony/ATV could give the company more leverage in negotiations with streaming services.

The most popular Beatles songs can each generate $300,000 to $400,000 a year in publishing revenue, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sony-music-atv-20160316-story.html



The estate of Jackson, run by John Branca and John McClain, had initially hoped to reach a deal to buy out Sony's stake and had spoken with potential partners, according to people familiar with the negotiations who were not authorized to comment publicly. Warner Music Group approached Sony about the possibility of a deal, and private equity firms attempted to assemble bids.

Ultimately, however, Sony wanted full control, and its offer proved attractive to the estate.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sony-music-atv-20160316-story.html

You bet Sony wanted full control. They wanted it for a long time and MJ knew it.
I sure would want to know why its offer was so damn attractive to Branca (McClain had a stroke is he doing anything at all?)
and why they even tried to find partners if they believed that having the full catalog would be such a "burden".
 
Last edited:

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Some info about beatles songs

Will Paul McCartney Get The Rights To His Beatles Songs Back? He's Already Working On It
3/18/2016 by Ed Christman
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
EMAIL ME

Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney in the studio, 1980.
AFRO AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS/GADO/GETTY IMAGES

When news broke that the Michael Jackson estate would sell its 50 percent share of Sony/ATV Music Publishing to Sony in a $750 million deal, many wondered whether Paul McCartney would finally be able to acquire the rights to his share of the company’s crown jewel -- the Lennon-McCartney catalog -- since it begins coming up for reversion in 2018.

Billboard can confirm that as of Dec. 15, 2015, he has already begun the process.

To recap, at some point during the early ‘80s heyday of McCartney’s friendship with Jackson, he pointed out the value of music publishing. Jackson soon received a tip that ATV Music -- publisher of the Beatles’ Lennon-McCartney songs, among many others -- was available, and purchased it for $47.5 million in 1985. McCartney had long coveted his Beatles catalog -- he and Lennon lost out to ATV in a 1969 attempt to purchase Northern Songs, their original publisher -- and he never forgave Jackson for what he considered a betrayal of their friendship.

A Timeline of Michael Jackson's Best Bet: The Sony/ATV Catalog

It’s an opportunity McCartney is not going to let slip past him again. The U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 gave songwriters the ability to recapture the publishers’ share of their songs, and in the case of titles written before 1978, writers can recapture songs after two consecutive 28-year terms, or 56 years. (That legislation allows for writers of songs issued in or after 1978 to recapture their publishing after 35 years.)

The Lennon-McCartney catalog begins hitting the 56-year mark in 2018.

In order to reclaim publishing ownership of a song, a songwriter must file with the U.S. Copyright Office, terminating the publishing anywhere from 2 to 10 years before the 56 years elapse, in order to obtain ownership of that song’s publishing in a timely manner. (If the writer doesn’t put in a notice within that window, they have another five-year period to reclaim the copyrights but each day’s delay adds another day that the publisher owns the copyright.)

Billboard has confirmed that on Dec. 15, 2015, McCartney filed a termination notice of 32 songs with the U.S. Copyright Office. Additionally, another source confirmed that he has filed termination notices for his songs that were issued on Beatles records from 1962-1964, although many of the titles he has moved to terminate were issued much later, including the 1969 and 1970 songs “Come Together,” “Golden Slumbers,” “Carry That Weight,” “She Came In Through The Bathroom Window,” and seven other songs on the Abbey Road album, as well as the single tracks Don’t Let Me Down” and “The Ballad of John & Yoko.” Most of the songs carry a termination date in October 2025, while “Get Back,” carries a termination date of April 18, 2025; and “Why Don’t We Do It In The Road,” on June 17, 2025.

According to the filing with U.S. Copyright Office, McCartney sent Sony/ATV Tunes LLC a notice of termination of grand under 17 USC section 304(C) on Dec. 15 by certified mail.

While many of the titles are widely acknowledged to be solo Lennon compositions -- the duo continued to share songwriter credit for the duration of the Beatles' existence -- the Act applies just to McCartney's share. “Only the McCartney half of the Lennon/McCartney songs are eligible for termination, and only for the U.S.,” an insider explained to Billboard, adding, “Sony/ATV still owns [those] Beatles songs in the rest of the world.”

In the case of Lennon, who died in 1980, the publisher's portion of his share of the Lennon-McCartney catalog for songs written in 1962 became eligible for reversion in 1990, because his death occurred during the first 28-year copyright term. However, in 2009 sources told Billboard that Sony/ATV cut a deal with Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, prior to the reversion dates that enabled it retain its publisher's share for the life of the copyright, which lasts for 70 years after the author’s death and then goes into the public domain (in Lennon’s case, that will happen in 2050).

Asked whether Sony overpaid for Sony/ATV given the coming reversion, the insider said no -- half of the Lennon-McCartney publishing for the world excluding the U.S. is not chump change by any measure.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/n...y-beatles-songs-publishing?utm_source=twitter
 

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
Some info about beatles songs



Asked whether Sony overpaid for Sony/ATV given the coming reversion, the insider said no -- half of the Lennon-McCartney publishing for the world excluding the U.S. is not chump change by any measure.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/n...y-beatles-songs-publishing?utm_source=twitter


Looks like Paris doesn't think it was a good deal, to say the least.
She liked this tweet:

paris.jpg


https://twitter.com/elena_brambi50/status/709769003938541572
 

innuendo141

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
3,379
Points
48
Looks like Paris doesn't think it was a good deal, to say the least.
She liked this tweet:

paris.jpg


https://twitter.com/elena_brambi50/status/709769003938541572

Her pinned tweet is "Yesterday" also. She posted this around the time she was going through tough times.

Being a massive Beatles herself fan I'm sure the whole situation is disappointing to say the least. God knows what information, if an, they got. I tend to only skim through the Estates essays when they feel they are required to explain themselves (which is always) but it still to me looks like the songs did exactly what they were supposed to do. A good investment that paid off.
 
Last edited:

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
but it still to me looks like the songs did exactly what they were supposed to do. A good investment that paid off.

And it will pay off in the future too. Except not for MJ's kids but Sony, a company MJ hated.
It's just wonderful.
 

HIStoric

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
3,456
Points
48
ivy;4141599 said:
When news broke that the Michael Jackson estate would sell its 50 percent share of Sony/ATV Music Publishing to Sony in a $750 million deal, many wondered whether Paul McCartney would finally be able to acquire the rights to his share of the company’s crown jewel -- the Lennon-McCartney catalog -- since it begins coming up for reversion in 2018.

Billboard can confirm that as of Dec. 15, 2015, he has already begun the process.

Excellent news! :clapping:
 

mkgenie

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,940
Points
48
http://www.jwjackson.com/a-job-well-done/


On behalf of my wife Katherine and myself, I would like to personally thank the Executors of my Son’s Estate for a Job well done. Selling the Music catalog at the high end of today’s Market value of over 750 Million US Dollars, has secured many times over the financial future of Michael’s children: Prince, Paris and Blanket.


It is every fathers dream to secure the financial well being of his children. That is what drove me to work 2 jobs in my youth while struggling to make it through the Entertainment world.


Today, although my son Michael Joseph Jackson is no longer with us, I know he is looking down on his children from heaven as a proud father would, knowing he has secured a lifetime financial foundation for each of them.
 

ScaredOfTheMoon

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
336
Points
0
Joseph seems to have become supportive of the Estate in these last years. I wonder what caused him to change his mind.
 
Last edited:

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Joseph seems to have become supportive of the Estate in these last years. I wonder what caused him to change his mind.

Money to KJ's trust is the reason.
If they had bought Sony's share out, it would have tied funds for years, but now they put money KJ trust so they can spend it before .......
 

Rhilo

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
2,816
Points
0
His attitude changed after his stroke and hospitalization last year.

I think they are paying his medical bills and for his care if he has a permanent carer.
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
Some info about beatles songs

Will Paul McCartney Get The Rights To His Beatles Songs Back? He's Already Working On It
3/18/2016 by Ed Christman
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
EMAIL ME

http://www.billboard.com/articles/n...y-beatles-songs-publishing?utm_source=twitter

A few comments about Paul vs MJ from this article:

Betrayal of friendship? How exactly did MJ betray Paul when
1. Paul REFUSED to bid on the catalog after Holmes, the owner, asked him whether he wanted it.

2. MJ was not the only bidder, he outbid others not Paul!

If someone else had bought it would Paul say that they betrayed him too?

MJ bought the catalog because it was up for sale and because Paul was not interested in paying as much for it as Holmes wanted.

People forget that in 1981 Paul tried to buy the catalog and was only willing to pay 20 million for it. Yoko would have paid another 20 million but she too considered it too much so there was no deal.
Paul had all the opportunity in 1981 to buy the catalog for 40 million and he didn't. MJ had nothing to do with hit.

If MJ had not bid on it at all Paul still wouldn't have got the catalog because
Koppelman/Bandier offered 50 million for it!

Pretty sure it was reported that Paul wanted to pay more but Yoko refused and since ttheir offer was equal he couldn't go higher. As yoko sold John's creations in the 90's as it says here, her holding back makes more sense now. she may have had a deal set up for years before she sold the songs. maybe back when bidding.

He has said that he placed a value he would pay to get the songs and when the price went higher his interest dropped. He does get co-writer money wherever the songs wind up.

Paul is entitled to think what he likes about MJ. He has more recently said he does not hold MJ buying his songs against him. Likely a bit of both.

this author didn't know that paul was given 3 private opptys, after lennon's passing, to buy the catalog before anyone else?? & i believe yoko was given private opptys (not sure how many) to also purchase the catalog?? see...ed christman doesn't know all the facts and isn't accurately reporting everything. he's noting how paul never forgave mj (which is true) but he's also NOT reporting that yoko continued to be friends with mj and NEVER harbored any hard feelings over it, it was business. and mj routinely would ask her for advice over the direction of the beatles' music formats that would be avail. to the public. she even advised him that john may not have agreed with the digital format which is also why mj held off on making the beatles music avail. on itunes for the longest time.

i just don't like how christman is making mj seem like a villain here, when paul himself owns (and even then) other artists's music too. does paul give buddy holly's family any royalties? is he entitled to? paul legally owns all of buddy holly's music and what he does with those songs is his business. what about the theme to the 'i love lucy' show...paul owns that song, does the family of lucille ball get any royalties? does the songwriter's family get any money? see...it's paul's song and HE gets 100% of the royalties. there's nothing wrong with that.
 
Top