mjchris
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 4,282
- Points
- 83
Propofol is non addictive drug.
thats no news.
i deppends on how you use something.
Propofol is non addictive drug.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
'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.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.
However, what is great profits for one company can be a heavy burden for another one. It all depends.
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
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:
https://twitter.com/elena_brambi50/status/709769003938541572
but it still to me looks like the songs did exactly what they were supposed to do. A good investment that paid off.
Hold on so paris is back on twitter?
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.
Joseph seems to have become supportive of the Estate in these last years. I wonder what caused him to change his mind.
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
EMAIL ME
http://www.billboard.com/articles/n...y-beatles-songs-publishing?utm_source=twitter
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.