I'm just puzzled about this near glee about "breaking the news" to fellow fans that everything should just go back to the way it was and the reunion should end, in light of the other members showing an interest in more touring and recording.

This is my reaction precisely.

Why would someone act happy that this is the outcome, regardless of how preordained it actually was?

And if three of the five members are actively objecting, how preordained was it really?

Thank you for those words. This is how I feel. I'm as much of a realist about this all as any BB fan, cynical too. I never thought the reunion was going to crumble half-way through or anything, simply because of the financial obligations involved. I assumed they would go back to the way it was in 2011 afterwards. I thought they would put more breathing room in between the end of the reunion and resuming Mike/Bruce shows, if for no other reason than to save Mike's band from being unfavorable compared to an inherently superior band/lineup.

The sole fact I don't understand is how big BB fans, who loved this reunion tour, are happily telling fans who are just pointing out "hey, look over there in the corner, Brian, Al, and David actually want to do more reunion shows!" that they are naive, etc., and also celebrating going back to how it was before. "Hey, Mike's band puts on a great show!" I'll bet he does now, and Totten and Cowsill proved it to me. But there's a BETTER band waiting in the wings!

Reading the judge`s comments it seems pretty clear that things turned out as they ought to have done.

It is right that Al could refer to his past membership of the band `in a descriptive fashion`.

It`s also right that he was banned from using the Beach Boys name as he was too cheap to pay for it. Al indeed does come out as the villain of the piece at that time.

A real shame as Al essentially wasted a whole decade where he could have been performing as himself to smaller crowds and maybe winning some new fans.

I think it was more than not being willing to pay to use the BB name. Arguments were also made that the "BBFF" name was confusing concertgoers and promoters/venues. That's why I think the whole issue of paying for a license, and going out as "BBFF", was a non-starter early on, as even if Al had abided by whatever terms BRI wanted him to, they would have eventually started fighting that out too and telling him that a second "Beach Boys", or even just a second band called "BBFF" wouldn't work. They were pretty active early on in trying to prove that people were "confused" by Al's "BBFF" name.

As for Al wasting the decade, that's true, and a shame. He should have been doing small, solo shows instead of booking sporadic oldies shows with Dean and whatnot.

Is it? Al voted for the use of the trademark name by original members of the band to require a license with certain conditions to be met and set fees to be paid when he thought it was Mike being required to do it and again when he thought Mike, Brian and himself would be required to do it.  So did he suddenly decided it was a huge injustice to be required to do what he required to be done only when it was required of him? Justified for Mike or Brian but not justified for Al if he has to live up to his own prearranged conditions?  

Ok, I'm going to have to move on, apparently not many share my view.

What Al was attempting in at least one part of the lawsuit was something that can but doesn't always work in the legal realm, and that is to do the sort of having your cake and eating it too argument. He was arguing in part that he had a license, and was also arguing that using the "BBFF" name didn't require a license because of *how* he was using the BB trademark. So he was basically saying he didn't need a license, but as a backup, incase anyone questions whether he needs one, he also had one. This legal concept does work in some cases. But whatever license he may have had expired anyway, so that part of the argument didn't matter.

He made an attempt to argue that the "BBFF" name was okay based on previous case law (Playboy playmates billing themselves using the "Playboy" name, etc.). That argument failed. But he was presumably arguing a legal point that he believed in. That doesn't neccesarily mean he's "victimizing" others.

Al helped draft the requirement and agreed to abide by the 20% requirement first then tried to negotiate the fee down to 5% contravening the original requirements and agreement he helped draft as a condition of having a nonexclusive license and only proposed the trademark with additional words name change as a last resort loophole [after he wasn't going to get a license] through which he claimed he wouldn't need a license at all to use the trademark.

Al didn't get to continue with the band because he had already quit, supposedly to record an album with his sons, and because he had tried to arrange a post-Carl's death concert or something with Brian which Brian didn't want to do and because Brian didn't want to do it Mike didn't either and Al tried to go behind Mike's back and arrange it anyway using Peter Cetera as Mike's replacement. Brian wanted Mike to have the band and the trademark with the exclusive license and Carl's estate intervened when Al  threatened a lawsuit over the exclusive license Brian wanted Mike to have.  Al is a victim of only himself and the rest of BRI was also the victim of Al.

That's what I've heard, anybody know different?

I do recall a bunch of stuff going around about doing a show with Peter Cetera, and Al himself did discuss doing symphonic shows with Brian and whatnot. But correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the court documents go into any of that, nor does it stated explicitly that Al "quit" the band.

Based on what we've been told of that 1997 timeframe where business arrangements concerning the production company running BB tours were causing consternation, and Al not being told about David rejoining the band and then, as reported in Jon Stebbins' book, walking off in a huff after learning that Dave was back full time and saying something along the lines of "well that's it, it's all over", all of that suggests to me that the situation deteriorated and Al was forced out. There is also that vague comment in Carlin's book about Mike attempting to oust Al in 1990. None of this paints a picture you're describing of Al "victimizing" others and himself and arbitrarily quitting the band. I have no doubt Al made plenty of bad decisions too, but this casting of him as the true villain in this chapter of their story is silly.

Even the court documents state Al and Mike didn't want to work together (which is kind of an oversimplification, but only to those who care about the interpersonal minutae), not that Al "quit" the band.

Regarding what exactly Al wanted to call his band or what he intended to negotiate, I've seen no evidence that he ever intended to tour under the name "The Beach Boys." He may have negotiated a license to do that in order to do what he actually wanted to do, but I've seen nothing to indicate he wanted to go out and compete with Mike under the same exact name, and as I mentioned before, I find it hard to believe BRI would have wanted that.

I agree that a lot of these articles seem to have writers that are not knowledgable as to the history of the touring band.

I just have to say, I realize there are realities of the situation regarding this reunion, and heck, some people even get off on telling other fans they won't get more reunion stuff.

I'm just puzzled about this near glee about "breaking the news" to fellow fans that everything should just go back to the way it was and the reunion should end, in light of the other members showing an interest in more touring and recording.

It's not silly at all. Mike got jerked around over the license by his co-board members in BRI. Mike did nothing but abide by his agreement and the others did nothing they agreed to until after Al thumbed his nose at them for their trouble which they had made Mike's trouble.

Adding words after a trademark has no effect on use of the trademark. Use of the trademark is use of the trademark. I can't market my cola as "Pepsi and Ice" and expect Pepsico not to object to my use of their trademark amongst my words. It is still trademark use at full value. Besides Al had agreed to abide by the agreement to use the trademark. He doesn't [and didn't] get a pass because it is self-serving.

BRI could do that and already have when they unsuccessfully tried to help Al nonexclusive licenses at Mike's exclusive licnese's expense. Because of Al there is now only an exclusive license held by Mike. BRI could change that because they already did when they jerked Mike around over the nonexclusive licenses while unsuccessfully trying to appease Al.

We'll just continue to disagree because there is no way Al is the good guy or the victim in this particular situation imo.

I think it boils down to the idea that I don't think Mike was a victim. He was in a position of more power, if for no other reason than "getting there first" with his license and having a ready-to-go touring band. Al and Mike didn't just split up and build bands and touring operations from the ground up. Mike basically continued the same operation, just without Al. There is evidence that Al saw this coming for a number of years, and it's either a testament to his inaction, or his lack of power in the matter, that he didn't do anything about it sooner. I'm guessing it's much more the latter. According to the Peter Ames Carlin BW biography, Mike was trying to oust Al from the band as early as 1990.

I agree that we will just continue to disagree.  

I will add regarding the naming/license issue that BRI was considering granting a license to use the BB trademark, but was doing so under a proposal to call it "BBFF", and I think that was the only reason anybody would have even entertained "non exclusive" licenses. Yes, any use of the trademark is the same in the most basic sense of trademark law. But in terms of BRI being willing to grant non-exclusive licenses, I think it only would have been done with the idea of two bands going out with at least somewhat different names and at least slightly different concepts. The fact that they were willing to entertain "better" licensing terms for Al is, simply in my opinion, not just an example of BRI just going out of their way for Al's sake, but of recognizing that a licensing agreement where it is agreed to use an *altered* version of the band's name is something that should result in lower licensing fees.

Considering how much the legal paperwork cites "confusion" among venues/promoters (ironically, similar to what Mike just experienced with the "Nutty Jerry's" debacle), I don't buy that Al would even been allowed to continue with the "BBFF" name on a permanent basis even with a license. It would have fizzled for one reason or another.

Yeah, that sounded the same as every other performance of "...Radio": Teeting on the edge of going off the rails but just barely holding together. This one was mixed a bit differently, but same quality of performance. I think part of the problem, as I've probably said elsewhere, is that it's one of those songs without one single lead vocalist throughout. So it ends up sounding messy, with a bunch of guys popping in and out in unison, then some harmony, etc. Every TV show seems to mix Al down, and then realize he has the sort-of solo line "in my car", and punches his vocal up just soon enough to be a bit too late. 

It was quite a shock for me when they started the tour that Surf's Up or Vega-tables wasn't in the setlists, seemed logical after the huge success of SMiLE and how well loved that song is.

I can't say I was shocked, although something else from "Smile" would have been interesting, and "Vegetables" and "Wonderful" are the only other "Smile" items that any non-Brian touring BB's-related band has done in the last 20-30 years. I suppose the London folks might get a slight more progressive setlist coming up here, although a bunch of the UK-centric hits they usually add to UK setlist are already there ("Then I Kissed Her", "Cottonfields", etc.).

Chances are slim to none, but it would be fun to see Al do "Lady Lynda"!

Back to the new video on youtube, looks like the bit of footage of "Isn't It Time" is from the 6/1 Berkeley show.

If you people are truly interested in the License case, it is not hard to find the case:  Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here is just some of the relevant background from Judge Tashima's opinion:

The parties dispute whether BRI and Jardine entered into a non-exclusive license agreement. After the July 1998 BRI board meeting, Jardine began touring with his own band, using a booking agent and manager that were not included in the list approved by the Love license. On October 25, 1998, Jardine's attorney sent BRI a letter saying that Jardine would be performing as “Beach Boys Family and Friends,” and that therefore, “a license from BRI [was] unnecessary.” On October 28, 1998, BRI told Jardine that his unlicensed use of the trademark would be an infringement.
Jardine then proposed a license that included terms different from those included in the Love license. Jardine's proposal contemplated only a five-percent royalty to BRI on the first $1 million of gross receipts and a 17.5 percent royalty thereafter. BRI proposed a 17.5 percent royalty across the board. Love's license required a royalty of 20 percent of the first $1 million and 17.5 percent of receipts thereafter. Also, Jardine wanted to use a booking agent and manager that were not on the approved list. Jardine stated that, whether or not BRI accepted the proposal, he would continue performing as the “Beach Boys Family and Friends.”
The BRI board scheduled another meeting for November 24, 1998 to discuss Jardine's proposal. Before the meeting, Jardine's attorney sent a letter to the board with a proposed license agreement signed by Jardine. At the meeting, the BRI board voted to reject Jardine's proposal. In the months following the meeting, Jardine both attempted to negotiate an agreement and claimed he had a license.
Jardine and his band continued to perform using names that included “The Beach Boys” trademark. The performances were promoted under names such as: Al Jardine of the Beach Boys and Family & Friends; The Beach Boys “Family and Friends”; Beach Boys Family & Friends; The Beach Boys, Family & Friends; Beach Boys and Family; as well as, simply, The Beach Boys. Jardine and his band performed in locations and on dates close to Love's “The Beach Boys” shows. With two bands touring as The Beach Boys or as a similar-sounding combination, show organizers sometimes were confused about what exactly they were getting when they booked Jardine's band. A number of show organizers booked Jardine's *903 band thinking they would get The Beach Boys along with special added guests, but subsequently canceled the booking when they discovered that Jardine's band was not what they thought it was. Numerous people who attended one of Jardine's shows said that they had been confused about who was performing. During this time period, BRI sent Jardine cease and desist letters objecting to Jardine's use of the trademark.
On April 9, 1999, BRI filed its complaint in the district court alleging that Jardine was infringing its trademark. Jardine answered, asserting the defenses of fair use, laches, estoppel, and unclean hands, and counterclaimed for breach of employment agreement, breach of license agreement, and for a declaratory judgment that Jardine could tour as the “Beach Boys Family and Friends.” On March 28, 2000, the district court issued the preliminary injunction prohibiting Jardine from using “The Beach Boys,” “The Beach Boys Family and Friends,” and other similar combinations, but still allowing Jardine to refer to his past membership in the band “in a descriptive fashion.”

Was and still is interesting reading for sure. Worth noting, and something that may or may not pertain to that particular case, is that Al sued one of his attorneys for malpractice at a later date: http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=3030

My recollection [warning] from the appeals court document is BRI voted to give an exclusive license to Mike. At some point later Al decided he wanted a license so BRI jerked Mike's exclusive license back and offered a nonexclusive license to Mike, Al and Brian if they abided by the terms that had been negotiated for Mike's previously exclusive license. Apparently Brian never sought the nonexclusive license and Al did but he would not agree to the terms established. BRI negotiated and went as far as to offer Al terms sweeter than Mike had been offered but apparently Al would not agree to terms and did write up his own license with his own terms of which he was the only signatory and began to operate using the trademark without a license from BRI. This was a case of Mike getting jerked around by the bandmates he supposedly  bullys.

I guess we could just copy our debates from circa 2000 regarding all of that BB name business. But to suggest Mike was getting "jerked around" is kind of silly. First of all, as we've been told so many times, the legal action was from BRI, not Mike personally. So if Al and Brian were "jerking" anybody around, it was their own BRI company. Similarly, if BRI "jerked" the license from Mike, that was BRI, not any one person.

Another little bit that I'm sure I ended up arguing years ago is that, if Al was offered cheaper/better terms for a license, that would have made sense since he was not calling his band "The Beach Boys", and I don't believe Al ever attempted to go out with a competing band with the exact same name as Mike's "Beach Boys."

Not that it matters (as I often say  ), but I don't think there is any scenario where we would have seen two bands going out as "The Beach Boys" simultaneously, and by mutual agreement. That's why I don't buy that Brian and Al could just go out right now as "The Beach Boys" if they simply abided by terms of an agreement made with Mike.

But, all they (Al & Brian) had/have to do is ask Mike. It's not they never see each other. I know, I know, this is The Beach Boys we're talking about...

Very true, one would think this would be an easily worked-out (or at least understood) issue within the organization. But they clearly haven't always worked that way in the past. Witness the episode described in Jon Stebbins' David Marks book, where, according to the book, David Marks rejoins the band and Al doesn't even know David is "in" the band full time until he just keeps showing up to gigs and Al asks him why he's back.   

It is unpractical to think that Mike and Bruce would stop touring with their outfit when Brian wants to write an album/record/take a break. It's just that since this current reunion has happened, The Beach Boys should be the five living participants. When M&B's band goes out to tour, they should be called something other than The Beach Boys. Mike Love's Beach Boys. The Beach Boys featuring Mike Love and Bruce Johnston. Unleash The Love & Johnston Tour. Anything but "The Beach Boys".

Fans have been saying this/asking for this since 1998. It will never happen. Mike went out as "America's Band" in 1998 and ticket sales and bookings were reportedly poor. Even when Al used a variation on the trademark and went out as "Beach Boys Family & Friends", he wasn't getting a ton of bookings. It's only when a band can use the name "The Beach Boys", with no amendments, or legal wrangling, etc., that it becomes the highly profitable enterprise that it is now.

On top of that, I don't think it's out of line to suggest that Mike also likes using the name because it allows him to sort of claim a part of their legacy in a way the others can't or don't.

But AGD, isn't there more to it than that.  Al can't get a license to tour as the Beach Boys, Brian, David and Al can't tour as the Beach Boys.  So in effect, the license was issued for Mike to tour as the Beach Boys?  Mike sued Al for touring as BB Family and Friends.

If Alan adhered to the terms of the BRI license, he could tour as The Beach Boys (in principle - in reality I just cannot see that happening: cue legal fireworks). Back in 1998, he didn't, and that's when the sh*t hit the fan, repeatedly. And it was BRI who sued Alan (thus he was, strictly speaking, suing himself !), not Mike.

I think the questions people, like me, want to know is:

1. Is there a time limit on Mike's license?
2. Can it be revoked by a BRI vote.
3. Can a license be issued to "Brian, Al and David" to tour as the Beach Boys?

When you say amended, do you mean that, say for example, that the band has to tour with atleast two, or three, original members? (so Bruce wouldn't count).

1 - not that I'm aware
2 - probably, but the income stream would be turned off. You see that ever happening ?
3 - yes, if they adhere to the existing rules. But why would they ?

Er, where did I say "amended" ?

Based on my recollection of various legal paperwork that was available to the public, I don't think there was a "non-exclusive" license that Al or Al/Brian/David could adhere to and tour under while Mike also toured under the name. My recollection is that there was an unclear "non-exclusive" license in 1998/1999, but that after that, Al wasn't simply not abiding by any potential license (one of Al's arguments in the paperwork as I recall is that he didn't need a license to tour under the BBFF name, and that if he did, he had one; and don't shoot the messenger anyone regarding those ideas; they were clearly shot down in court), but he did not have a license.

A lot of the assertions in paperwork revolved around "confusion" regarding multiple bands using the BB name, so I don't think the license would be set up for multiple bands to have a chance to use it. It's "exclusive" now as far as I can tell.

I think there was a blurb written by somebody online that mentioned that Brian gave over control of the name to Mike at some point during one of the lawsuits. We simply don't know if this is the case or not.

Totally untrue, as Brian has never had sole ownership of the name. Someone's misremembereing the 1976-77 power struggle when Brian would sometimes give his vote to Mike, to avoid confrontations.

Yes, that seemed a dubious bit of reasoning that Brian either ever had full ownership over the name, or that he would ever give up his stake in the trademark. I do think in past years, post-1998, there could be an implicit agreement to vote a certain way based on other factors not pertaining to anything to do with touring. But this would not involve Brian giving up his stake in the name.

What??? Seriously???

Some fans have made out that all of the members including Mike get an equal share despite the fact that Mike is the only one on stage??? I`ve never seen that and they would have to be slightly backward to believe that would be possible. Of course Mike is going to get more as he is the one working 100+ nights every year. But if they didn`t think the money was going to be ample then Brian and Carl`s estate wouldn`t have allowed him to do it.

Yes, over the years I've seen fans and even a few articles either imply or outright state that "all of the Beach Boys", or various non-touring members, make an equal cut. I agree, you'd have to have some strange reasoning to believe that Mike makes the same even though he plays the gigs and the others don't. But I've seen it assumed/implied/guessed by fans over the years.

I have to say, I think AGD is way off the mark here.

Fans are unhappy because, at least as it is popularly depicted, Brian, Al and Dave are being excluded from the band they helped create. This is no little matter, and it doesn't matter what the behind the scenes facts are. It matters how it looks, and it looks like Mike behaving -- once again -- like his most negative caricatures.

As I've said in another thread, my suspicion is that Al, Brian and Dave are simply peeved because of the press release coming out before the U.K. appearances, and because they (likely) haven't gotten a firm commitment from Mike to do more full-lineup work in the future. They're not actively working (as far as we know) to keep him from playing the October dates. They just don't want the big show, the one that received raves across the country, to be shelved permanently.

And why would anyone want that? This reunion made Brian decide he wants to be a Beach Boy again.

Shouldn't that count for something?

Well said! The October dates were known of for quite some time. Al and Brian (and/or their "people") didn't start making a fuss about things until after the semi-press release. That tells me that, as you say, they had accepted Mike was doing some gigs in October, and that perhaps that press release in their minds seemed a bit more assertive in the old lineup being the lineup going forward for the forseeable future.

During the fiesty interview Mike gave to Goldmine in Sept. 1992, he was asked about Brian's first solo album. Here's the exchange (dunno if he direct transcript incluidng swearing will make it in this post):


Q Did you like his first solo album?

A: No.

Q: You didn't like it?

A: f*** no.

Q: What didn't you like about it?

A: First of all the lyrics. Second of all the arrangements weren't commercial enough. Third of all it sounded like sh*t compared to what he could sound like.

Good point.  The person who would stand to lose the most is Al.  Brian has proven himself to be a very viable solo commodity.  There is no reason to think that he couldn't simply revert to what he was doing last year... and the year before... and on and on.  Al Jardine, by himself, isn't the live draw of Brian Wilson or even of the Mike/Bruce lead Beach Boys touring band.  In fact, it would seem (to me, at least) that Brian holds most of the cards.  Brian can command higher ticket prices than anyone else (correct?).  Mike and Bruce WITH Brian could command higher ticket prices than they could alone.  The issue is whether or not Brian wants to do that. 

If (and it's a big "if") we are to believe recent comments, both Brian and Al want to do more reunion stuff in some capacity. I think, if Brian is inclined to tour in some capacity, either solo or group, for all we know he may like the reunion setup because he does much less heavy lifting in the live show.

I dunno. There may be some kind of subversive, reverse psychology sort of marketing coming from the BB's right now, but I'm not very sure that the whole thing is a big elaborate plan to build up excitement about more reunion stuff. Mike is coming off bad in the articles, and it's a bunch of "Beach Boys back to their acrimonious ways" headlines.

I don't know. Rolling Stone and Nutty Jerry's statement make it sound like Nutty Jerry's cancelled it because it wasn't the reunion group.

In the grand scheme of things, it probably doesn't matter, but this is what the LA Times article states:

"The shift in the touring lineup also has caused some confusion outside the group itself. Texas club Nutty Jerry's had booked a Beach Boys show, which has since been canceled. Love's manager Jay Jones said it was Love's decision to halt the show because it was being inaccurately promoted as part of the reunion tour with the original members."

What other choice is there? The reunion had an end date. Venues booked the non-reunion group. Is the promoter to take a loss by sending a more expensive group for a smaller group contract or are the Boys supposed to take a loss? I don't really know how it works. I suppose they could do whatever they agreed/agree to do.

Again it's kind of all semantics, but the "50th Anniversary Tour" had a end date, not the "reunion." The "reunion" was kind of open ended apart from vague comments about either possibly doing more things after the tour or this being "one final time" (how long that "one final time" would be is open-ended too of course, one final time for five more years?).

As I've said elsewhere, Mike's own camp stated Mike chose to cancel the "Nutty Jerry's" show, so Mike can apparently cancel gigs if he really wants to (which may include some financial loss, we don't know). But the statement that set this all off did not read like "Mike and Bruce just have a few previously-scheduled engagements with their touring lineup." It wasn't a firm in never doing reunion stuff again either, but it seemed like a "forseeable future" sort of statement to me.

I'd think Brian is in a good spot...he's going to collect touring revenue from the Mike and Bruce Show AND he can still go out and do his own thing...with the possibility of still working with Mike and Bruce again.  Does Al have a similar agreement?  Does he collect a percentage of the touring band's revenue?

Bruce has said in the past that Brian, Al and Carl`s estate all get paid.

But this has been twisted by some fans into those parties making an equal cut of the revenue. They only get their share of the licensing fee. The licensing fee would presumably be split between Brian, Mike, Al, and Carl's estate. What is the licensing fee? We obviously don't know. In general terms in these sort of cases, it can be something like X number of dollars against or in additional to a percentage of revenue. Long story short, they all make money off the tour, but far less than if they were in the touring band splitting it equally. I don't think it's the same setup at all as in the old days when the Mike/Carl/Al/Dennis lineup was sharing some proceeds with Brian while Brian wasn't on the road.

I think these are some of the issues that some fans prefer to ignore.

For example, when Al was banned from touring as Beach Boys Family and Friends there was a lot of anti-Mike comment. What people forgot was that it was Al who was using the name without permission and that he wasn`t paying the other band members for it. The fact that money was a key issue for Brian (or his management) can be seen from the fact that he was happy to stop that band, which included his daughters, from touring.

Al came out on the wrong side of those name-related lawsuits for the most part, but I think it's worth noting that he did make legal arguments to attempt to support it. That whole "Family and Friends" thing was pretty hazy, even after reading the lawsuit documents that were available to the public. There were "non-exclusive" licenses potentially floating out there for awhile, and then seperate issues regarding Al simply being able to bill himself as a "Beach Boy", or "of the Beach Boys." Al eventually did retain that right, to simply call himself a Beach Boy.

Most of the anti-Mike sentiment back around that time didn't have anything to do with who had licenses to use the trademark and whatnot. It simply had to do with Mike using the name based on the lineup that had, in a matter months to a year and a half, dwindled from four to two Beach Boys.

I don't see that making them look poorly to the public. the public just sees the BBs as whomever shows up these days. 
as to voting,  they're not going to vote away the source of income; each vote gets a share of the tour income. Mike gets more as a performer, but he's also tied into the tour income

I agree. If Mike doesn't even come off as looking bad to the "general public" due their lack of intertest in any details of the situation, then certainly they wouldn't be paying attention to Brian and Al's votes within the corporate BB structure, etc. I suppose if they tried to pull the license and it devolved into all sorts of lawsuits, that would make everybody look bad on both sides.

The general idea that's been put around among fans over the years is that the "corporate" members are Brian, Mike, Al, and Carl's estate. But we obviously don't know what they vote for, or when they vote for it.

Online articles have sometimes stated Mike owns or controls the name. I think usually those articles are just simplifying it or not understanding the licensing arrangement, simply assuming that since he has used the name for umpteen years, he owns it.

I think there was a blurb written by somebody online that mentioned that Brian gave over control of the name to Mike at some point during one of the lawsuits. We simply don't know if this is the case or not. I do remember hearing from some folks online several years ago that Brian had not given over control of the name or actual ownership, but simply was voting along with Mike due to various degrees of leverage being asserted due to past lawsuits. I got the sense that there was nothing contractually obligating Brian to vote with Mike or anything along those lines, but simply that it was mutually beneficial for Brian to do so (and I'm talking outside of the normal reasons; e.g. Brian making a percentage of the proceeds of Mike's licensing fee).

In any event, I highly doubt Brian ever gave up his ownership stake in the "Beach Boys" trademark.

Once the tour ended it was known that Michael still had the license to use the name. I'm sorry but I don't see what's making the fan base go absolutely ape over this. I don't know if it's idealism, good old fashioned ignorance, or just the fact that people look for reasons to hate on Michael.

Some fans don't like the decison specifically because the other three guys want to keep the reunion going. It's pretty simple; that's the one fact that is irking some fans. It's not what a lot of us expected. If Brian didn't care, and was back to his sort of ambivalent attitude about Mike using the name and Brian wanted to do more solo stuff, then it would be more palatable to see Mike go back to his own tour.