Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[Emily]

This horse is barely breathing, but Mike Love paid his lawyers and lost close to a million dollars in fees and costs in the first round. He retained the same lawyers on appeal. Had the lawyers been 'rogue' and pulling all those shenanigans without his knowledge, and he was out 1.5 million or so dollars because of it, I hardly think he'd use the same lawyers to proceed further.

[CenturyDeprived]

Does anyone find this quote from the lawsuit perplexing:

"Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."

Everyone does. It's laughably wrong.

And that doesn't include all the times Brian toured with them - admittedly, it was sporadic, but not unusual to find Brian on stage with the guys after 1976.

From late 1976 through some time in 1982, I'd say Brian was a pretty "regular" touring band member. He missed some shows, increasingly so in 1981 and especially 1982. But I think one could call him a regular during those five or six years. I don't think he missed that many shows from 1977 to 1980 in particular. 

There were periods of time in the early 80s where Brian's presence was the only reason why a Beach Boys show was even allowed to occur, due to the one Wilson minimum rule.

[CenturyDeprived]

If Mike can stretch this far, might he also have embellished his contributions to the early songs?  I think we all know he got less credit than he deserved in some instances.  But perhaps there is reason to question some of the credits he won.
 

I think he probably justified stretching that far, and embellishments like WIBN (and possibly others) as a way to overcorrect for legit screwjobs like California Girls. I think that simply playing dumb/denying that Brian contributed that long list of songs from the 70s and beyond was motivated by revenge, to even the score (and then some) for how he felt he'd been treated. I don't condone it, but I understand it, especially growing up among revengeful people like his uncle Murry.

It's pretty obvious. To think this is utterly, ridiculously far-fetched is to be on par with the Flat Earth Society. Mike got f*cked with, stewed for decades, then busted a microchip in trying to fix the problem. Why grasp at straws trying to prove that's somehow out of character?

[CenturyDeprived]

This horse is barely breathing, but Mike Love paid his lawyers and lost close to a million dollars in fees and costs in the first round. He retained the same lawyers on appeal. Had the lawyers been 'rogue' and pulling all those shenanigans without his knowledge, and he was out 1.5 million or so dollars because of it, I hardly think he'd use the same lawyers to proceed further.

Yep. Waiting for Cam to chime in with a rebuttal theory on this.

[Empire Of Love]

This horse is barely breathing, but Mike Love paid his lawyers and lost close to a million dollars in fees and costs in the first round. He retained the same lawyers on appeal. Had the lawyers been 'rogue' and pulling all those shenanigans without his knowledge, and he was out 1.5 million or so dollars because of it, I hardly think he'd use the same lawyers to proceed further.

Great point Emily, that had not occurred to me.  Another compelling piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that Mike either believed what was said in the lawsuit or was willing to "embellish" as needed.

EoL

[SMiLE Brian]

Cam is parsing every word.

[Cam Mott]

Doesn't it say "He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy"?

[SMiLE Brian]

If so, deflecting blame for his actions once again...

[CenturyDeprived]

Doesn't it say "He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy"?

Just because unscrupulous means could potentially have been their strategy, does that by necessity mean he zero awareness and/or no ability to sign off on what the lawyers did and what the legal statement said? I'm willing to concede he may not have been the "mastermind", but why can't you concede he could possibly have even just gone along with someone else's bad ideas? That's an impossibility of the highest order?

[joshferrell]

Are there any contemporary interviews with Brian or Mike in which they discuss the writing of the songs? Do we see Brian actively lying about or actively acknowledging Mike's authorship in the years before the lawsuit? Or Mike bringing the issue up? Do we know the process of registering authorship? Was it generally Murry or someone else who did it? Did Brian actively engage with Sea of Tunes or was he passive and it was actively handled exclusively by Murry?
It is really egregious and also odd. How did it happen that it sat there uncontested for so many years?

Here's a typical example, from the latter part of 1964, starting at about 2:50 in the interview. While Brian doesn't claim to be the sole author of all the songs he mentions, one can easily come away with that impression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z4N4BSs4Ic

Capitol PR also generally focused on "Brian Wilson songs," without mentioning his lyrical collaborators.

cool video Thanks for sharing,, also I think the lady was starting to get "Hot under the collar" for Dennis around the 7:24 mark ,,,lol....

[Empire Of Love]

Doesn't it say "He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy"?

How does that counter or explain away Emily's point that he retained the same attorneys when he filed the appeal?  Are you arguing that a man of Mike's intelligence initiated a lawsuit, and subsequent appeal, and that the lawsuit used his standard talking points, and that he never read through the lawsuit?  If so, you are asking too much.  It is about as believable as Mike's statements in the lawsuit regarding Brian's output from 1967-2002.

EoL

[joshferrell]

As awful and misguided as this 2005 attempt, done by Mike (or in Mike's name), was against Brian, et al; it was unsuccessful.

For perspective, that would put it far, far below the other two awful and misguided yet "successful" affronts mentioned in the interview, done by a Beach Boy (or in the name of a Beach Boy) against another Beach Boy.

At least these guys kept these disputes out of their music, unlike John and Paul (although How Do You Sleep and Too Many People were both great songs). 

"Love Is a woman" doesn't count?

[Cam Mott]

Doesn't it say "He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy"?

How does that counter or explain away Emily's point that he retained the same attorneys when he filed the appeal?  Are you arguing that a man of Mike's intelligence initiated a lawsuit, and subsequent appeal, and that the lawsuit used his standard talking points, and that he never read through the lawsuit?  If so, you are asking too much.  It is about as believable as Mike's statements in the lawsuit regarding Brian's output from 1967-2002.

EoL

Doesn't it say this was claimed "In appealing both the copyright claim awards and the Lanham Act claim awards"?

[HeyJude]

Mike's initial claims were largely shot down, and heavily criticized by the court to boot. His appeals also failed. Which part of that is hard to grasp, especially for someone who has been posting for 17 years regarding "defendant" Al Jardine in the band name lawsuits and afforded Jardine none of the leeway or benefit of the doubt that has been tenuously afforded Mike Love in this thread (among numerous others)?

[Emily]

Doesn't it say "He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy"?

How does that counter or explain away Emily's point that he retained the same attorneys when he filed the appeal?  Are you arguing that a man of Mike's intelligence initiated a lawsuit, and subsequent appeal, and that the lawsuit used his standard talking points, and that he never read through the lawsuit?  If so, you are asking too much.  It is about as believable as Mike's statements in the lawsuit regarding Brian's output from 1967-2002.

EoL

Doesn't it say this was claimed "In appealing both the copyright claim awards and the Lanham Act claim awards"?

Seriously, Cam, if you lost a case and a million dollars in costs and fees, which isn't a given - the costs are only assigned to the plaintiff if the plaintiff's suit is considered exceptional (ly frivolous or some such term, I don't have the document open) - and you found out that the reason you were facing those costs was that your attorneys had offended the court with sanctionable work that you didn't know about, and you also learned that they'd filed such a defamatory complaint in your name without your knowledge, would you continue to work with those lawyers or would you feel maybe you didn't have so much faith in them anymore?

[Custom Machine]

At least these guys kept these disputes out of their music, unlike John and Paul (although How Do You Sleep and Too Many People were both great songs). 

"Love Is a woman" doesn't count?

Took a moment to sink in, but thanks for a great laugh!

[Cam Mott]

Mike's initial claims were largely shot down, and heavily criticized by the court to boot. His appeals also failed. Which part of that is hard to grasp, especially for someone who has been posting for 17 years regarding "defendant" Al Jardine in the band name lawsuits and afforded Jardine none of the leeway or benefit of the doubt that has been tenuously afforded Mike Love in this thread (among numerous others)?

Quite a bit different.  Al willfully and actively and repeatedly abused the brand without a license before his failed lawsuits, which were I think pretty much blamed on his lawyers and the offended co-owners of the brand as I remember.

Mike's lawyers filed a suit which failed and his lawyers filings had no force. It's not like he wrote and signed his own unilateral unsanctioned license and then actively operated under it in breach or anything like that. Mike's lawyers were also terrible and they also lost and Mike paid for their failure to have any effect by paying the defendant's legal fees apparently.

[Cam Mott]

Doesn't it say "He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy"?

How does that counter or explain away Emily's point that he retained the same attorneys when he filed the appeal?  Are you arguing that a man of Mike's intelligence initiated a lawsuit, and subsequent appeal, and that the lawsuit used his standard talking points, and that he never read through the lawsuit?  If so, you are asking too much.  It is about as believable as Mike's statements in the lawsuit regarding Brian's output from 1967-2002.

EoL

Doesn't it say this was claimed "In appealing both the copyright claim awards and the Lanham Act claim awards"?

Seriously, Cam, if you lost a case and a million dollars in costs and fees, which isn't a given - the costs are only assigned to the plaintiff if the plaintiff's suit is considered exceptional (ly frivolous or some such term, I don't have the document open) - and you found out that the reason you were facing those costs was that your attorneys had offended the court with sanctionable work that you didn't know about, and you also learned that they'd filed such a defamatory complaint in your name without your knowledge, would you continue to work with those lawyers or would you feel maybe you didn't have so much faith in them anymore?

Doesn't it say that in appeal he sought to not be punished for his lawyers litigation plan?  It sounds like he did not have faith in their plan.

[18thofMay]

Far out Cam... Honestly!

[joshferrell]

At least these guys kept these disputes out of their music, unlike John and Paul (although How Do You Sleep and Too Many People were both great songs). 

"Love Is a woman" doesn't count?

Took a moment to sink in, but thanks for a great laugh!

you're welcome...

[Emily]

Doesn't it say "He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy"?

How does that counter or explain away Emily's point that he retained the same attorneys when he filed the appeal?  Are you arguing that a man of Mike's intelligence initiated a lawsuit, and subsequent appeal, and that the lawsuit used his standard talking points, and that he never read through the lawsuit?  If so, you are asking too much.  It is about as believable as Mike's statements in the lawsuit regarding Brian's output from 1967-2002.

EoL

Doesn't it say this was claimed "In appealing both the copyright claim awards and the Lanham Act claim awards"?

Seriously, Cam, if you lost a case and a million dollars in costs and fees, which isn't a given - the costs are only assigned to the plaintiff if the plaintiff's suit is considered exceptional (ly frivolous or some such term, I don't have the document open) - and you found out that the reason you were facing those costs was that your attorneys had offended the court with sanctionable work that you didn't know about, and you also learned that they'd filed such a defamatory complaint in your name without your knowledge, would you continue to work with those lawyers or would you feel maybe you didn't have so much faith in them anymore?

Doesn't it say that in appeal he sought to not be punished for his lawyers litigation plan?  It sounds like he did not have faith in their plan.

Well the lawyers wrote that too, so I guess not. Sounds like Mike Love just gives them a few mil a year with orders to "Go after Brian Wilson! I don't care how you do it!"    ludicrous, right?

[Cam Mott]

Forget it, Jake. It's BeachBoytown.   

[HeyJude]

Mike's initial claims were largely shot down, and heavily criticized by the court to boot. His appeals also failed. Which part of that is hard to grasp, especially for someone who has been posting for 17 years regarding "defendant" Al Jardine in the band name lawsuits and afforded Jardine none of the leeway or benefit of the doubt that has been tenuously afforded Mike Love in this thread (among numerous others)?

Quite a bit different.  Al willfully and actively and repeatedly abused the brand without a license before his failed lawsuits, which were I think pretty much blamed on his lawyers and the offended co-owners of the brand as I remember.

Mike's lawyers filed a suit which failed and his lawyers filings had no force. It's not like he wrote and signed his own unilateral unsanctioned license and then actively operated under it in breach or anything like that. Mike's lawyers were also terrible and they also lost and Mike paid for their failure to have any effect by paying the defendant's legal fees apparently.

I think the difference is that you have a weird grudge against Al Jardine (complete with comically overwrought descriptions of his evil deeds that read just like Mike Love's 2005 complaint) and will go to the ends of the Earth to defend Mike Love. That is by far the simplest explanation.

You can see it in the post above. When it concerns Al, then "Al willfully and actively" did things. When it comes to Mike, it's conveniently "Mike's lawyers" doing everything.

[filledeplage]

Mike's initial claims were largely shot down, and heavily criticized by the court to boot. His appeals also failed. Which part of that is hard to grasp, especially for someone who has been posting for 17 years regarding "defendant" Al Jardine in the band name lawsuits and afforded Jardine none of the leeway or benefit of the doubt that has been tenuously afforded Mike Love in this thread (among numerous others)?

Quite a bit different.  Al willfully and actively and repeatedly abused the brand without a license before his failed lawsuits, which were I think pretty much blamed on his lawyers and the offended co-owners of the brand as I remember.

Mike's lawyers filed a suit which failed and his lawyers filings had no force. It's not like he wrote and signed his own unilateral unsanctioned license and then actively operated under it in breach or anything like that. Mike's lawyers were also terrible and they also lost and Mike paid for their failure to have any effect by paying the defendant's legal fees apparently.

I think the difference is that you have a weird grudge against Al Jardine (complete with comically overwrought descriptions of his evil deeds that read just like Mike Love's 2005 complaint) and will go to the ends of the Earth to defend Mike Love. That is by far the simplest explanation.

You can see it in the post above. When it concerns Al, then "Al willfully and actively" did things. When it comes to Mike, it's conveniently "Mike's lawyers" doing everything.

Hey Jude - "willfully and actively" are legal terms of art. Of course they were in the pleadings (which the judge called "overpled") that is absolutely on the lawyer and not Mike.  Thanks for your "benefit of the doubt" comment. It does extend to all the members.  And, I gave Brian the "benefit of the doubt" for 20 years since I saw them perform live, and patiently waiting to see Brian. I appreciate it.  You know karma. One day I may need it myself.    

As I recall, the deal with the license to use the name brand, was a "condition precedent" which, if adhered to, would permit use of the marketing of the name in connection with performance.  And, the "style" must also be adhered to, which I interpret to be no "poetic license" in performances and fidelity to the originals. It appears to be a "pay to play" scenario.  They all benefit from the work of the Touring Band, so let's be balanced and remember that when the Touring Band plays, they all get a check.    

[Lee Marshall]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]