- Jan 9, 2005
As per Variety MJ estate are selling 50% of Mjs catalogue for 900million
For a legacy artist selling the rights makes a lot of sense. In the US there are really good tax benefits when they get that big lump sum. Dividing assets amongst the kids is easier when it's a lump sum. I've seen reports stating that some artists have sold their rights for up to 25x - 30x the value of their annual royalties.
Retaining 50% (same as Neil Young) sounds like a canny business deal.
Michael did fight hard to retain ownership of his music. But we don't know what he would do if he was still alive and saw his peers selling their rights. He had a good business brain and three kids. Maybe he would have changed his mind. There's no way to know.
The royalty rate from streaming is frankly insulting.This is a standard music practice these days. A lot of artists are selling their catalogue, because there are hardly making any money from streaming.
Exactly. If that figure is correct that is MASSIVE. That figure dwarfs every other one I've seen. Bruce Springsteen got $500m (or $600m according to some reports). Bowie's estate got $250m I think. Don't think I've seen a figure for Bob Dylan.The fact that only 50% of MJ's catalogue is being sold for nearly a billion tells me that he is still a massive name in the music industry.
I understand that.There's no way to know what he would have done, we do know what he did all his life though, which was fight hard to keep his music.
There's also the case that a lot of folks today pirate music & movies. With music that's been happening ever since the Napster days when Metallica tried to sue MP3 file sharers. You couldn't do that decades ago. At most you could copy an album to a cassette, but you had to actually play the record in real time, you had to know somebody that owned the album/45, & have a stereo with a cassette recorder or a double cassette boombox. There's programs that let you download Youtube videos or just the audio. Notice that music artists today that are richer made a lot of their money from something else like Rihanna with her makeup line, Dr Dre with headphones, & Will Smith/Queen Latifah from acting. People not buying physical product is why Stevie Nicks doesn't want to record any new music with Fleetwood Mac or solo. She said that's a waste of money since an artist still has to pay for studio time and to promote the music with little or no profit in return.The royalty rate from streaming is frankly insulting.
That's the point I was trying to make. With the changes in the music industry we can't know what Michael would decide.Not entirely sure how to feel about this. I know people are hyper focused on MJ’s prior comments on the ownership of his catalog, but the industry is completely different from 20 years ago.
It almost definitely will provide more money for the kids.We don’t know the logistics of this—it could offer a wider expanse of his catalog, it could provide more income for his kids,
It's amazing. I haven't seen any other comparable deal with this kind of figure attached to it. This is off the chart.so on and so forth. It’s easy to say, “MJ didn’t want to do this,” but sometimes it’s about what’s necessary rather than what our subjective opinions are. (Also, there are a lot of things MJ didn’t want, and yet we as fans are in total support of them. Sort of inconsistent in our stances.)
Also, as @Nite Line said, plenty of artists are selling their entire catalogs. The fact that only half of MJ’s is worth nearly a billion is a testament to his staying power.
Exactly. I'm expecting it to be Hipgnosis or one of the big hitters. With that kind of figure being quoted - if it's accurate - I can't see who else it would be. But time will tell.Ultimately, while I understand the skepticism, I don’t want to make any final judgments until we see who the purchaser is and what extent the estate still presided over his catalog.
That's just it. There doesn't seem to be one standard package for these music rights sales. They all seem to be a little bit different from each other.This could mean a million different things.
Someone else gets the money.What will be the changes after the catalog gets sold?
Paying 800 Mio. $ to bury the songs?? I don't think Sony's morals is that high to lose money burying their biggest artist. Also the estate retains half of the catalog. So they are not in full control. And since Sony controls what MJ music is released anyway, they wouldn't need to buy the catalog to bury it.How do we know that this is not Sony's attempt at canceling Michael Jackson? Who has possession of Michael Jackson's master tapes?