gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 06:25:37 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 35 Go Down Print
Author Topic: New Mike interview in HuffPost  (Read 131876 times)
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #400 on: October 27, 2013, 09:14:49 PM »

Oh look, Nicko's pulling that "I think you need a rest" thing again. Was it all those pesky facts that were hard to refute?

Of course, the defenders of Endless Summer must NEVER rest -- not even for a moment. Quick, someone is sneering at his dress sense in aisle seven! To the Lovemobile!



Nicko can spin it however he wants, but he did the "you need a rest" thing to say "hey, chill out bro, you're taking it way too seriously!", while he himself was basically arguing just as much.
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #401 on: October 28, 2013, 12:38:28 AM »



Nicko can spin it however he wants, but he did the "you need a rest" thing to say "hey, chill out bro, you're taking it way too seriously!", while he himself was basically arguing just as much.

Of course it means 'chill out'. What else could it mean? The fact that I quoted one of The Beach Boys CDs  indicates I wasn't exactly

We will probably never get the whole truth about the lawsuit as another poster has said so no point in taking the 'facts are facts' thought processes too seriously.

The interview that this thread is about was all about the lawsuit though so of course people are going to spend 17 pages discussing it. Smiley
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #402 on: October 28, 2013, 12:47:11 AM »

A lot of interesting  Shocked eye-popping information -- and contrary to placing blame on Brian...continues to paint the Lovester as Solider-of-Fortune, though a not very brave one -- he never took any action on his own until Cousin Brian ventured out into the morass of legal waters and won some money.

Then the next month SWOOOP like a vulture to the prey.



So Brian was strong and capable enough to be able to 'enter into the morass of legal waters'?

Or he was so weak and pathetic that he was the 'prey' to 'Big Bad Mike Love'?

Brian's lawyers won some money and then Brian's lawyers lost him a fortune by not settling out of court for $750K. This is despite the fact that California Girls on its own was worth a fortune. A ludicrous situation.
Logged
runnersdialzero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5143


I WILL NEVER GO TO SCHOOL


View Profile
« Reply #403 on: October 28, 2013, 01:14:39 AM »

« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 01:19:18 AM by runnersdialzero » Logged

Tell me it's okay.
Tell me you still love me.
People make mistakes.
People make mistakes.
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #404 on: October 28, 2013, 03:44:56 AM »

OK, Brian was found liable and ordered to pay compensatory damages to Mike but only Brian's lawyers were ordered to pay punitive damages. How did that make Mike a jerk again?

Did we relieve Brian of any responsibility for properly crediting Mike in the first place yet?





Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #405 on: October 28, 2013, 05:51:29 AM »

OK, Brian was found liable and ordered to pay compensatory damages to Mike but only Brian's lawyers were ordered to pay punitive damages. How did that make Mike a jerk again?

Did we relieve Brian of any responsibility for properly crediting Mike in the first place yet?
Suing one's family is so counter-intuitive.  One expects one's parent to safeguard work done by the next generation, and not exploit it.  Could something have been done that was fairer? Ya, in my view. Murry could have made a lot of money working "for the band" instead of making himself an "owner." There are many forms that the corporation could have taken.  

In the end, a divisive mess was made.  And we only know what has been published.  The rest isn't our business.  That said, looking objectively at Murry, he did get them in the door.  And, he belonged to that old world model.  But, the record company was a villain here, too.  They knew, or should have known that Mike was a lyricist from the outset.  And, they became disloyal when the Fab 4 blew into the scene, although the two bands were more collaborators than adversaries.

It is always good for another entity to challenge your work product.  Look at them, now. They belonged to a "class of elite musicians and lyricists" who did change music, and for the better.

That said, it appears that the court found Brian's lawyers were not behaving ethically. And, assigned (as I've read in the public domain) punitive damages to "send a message." That is the point of those damages.  And, it would be interesting to know what stuff was already in the "common understanding of the jury" where an "expert witness" would have had a lesser role.  And, if an expert was used, and what was the scope of inquiry.  

You'd have to have lived under a rock, on a deserted island not to be able to identify a "Brian melody" with "Mike's lyrics." By the 1990's the music was used for commercials that were on TV all the time. 4-0-9, "cleaner" for one.  

Unfortunately, it was necessary for any equitable result to occur.  By that time, Murry was deceased.  It probably was not possible before then.  Had Murry been on "the payroll" instead of making himself an "owner" in what appears to have been somewhat underhanded, it might be a different story.  

But, without doubt, Mike's lyrics have a DNA that is his, not unlike Brian's melodies.  JMHO  Wink

« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 05:54:09 AM by filledeplage » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #406 on: October 28, 2013, 06:34:53 AM »


But, without doubt, Mike's lyrics have a DNA that is his, not unlike Brian's melodies.  JMHO  Wink


Every writer usually has characteristics that we can focus in on. But in the case of either Brian's melodies or Mike's lyrics, those characteristics aren't so overpowering that one can listen to a song and know without doubt that one or both had a hand in writing them. The apparent musical or lyrical DNA in a song is not at all useful in hashing out a lawsuit.  

I don't get some of the debate on the songwriting lawsuit. The business motives and machinations behind the lawsuits are interesting and open to a lot of interpretation (I for one recall talking to one "insider" around 1999/2000 who claimed that some of the business-related politics as far as the license to the BB name were directly related to the songwriting lawsuit, but that's another story).

But there isn't much debate over who actually wrote what, at least as far as who wrote enough of a given song to warrant credit. Clearly, Mike's name should have been on a bunch of those songs. Not even as a 50/50 split, which I don't think is what he even got on some or most of those songs as a result of the lawsuit. But he wrote enough lyrics on many of those songs to warrant having his name put on them, and getting some percentage of royalties. It also seems that in a few isolated cases, such as "Wouldn't It Be Nice", his input in the eyes of some was not up to the standard of warranting a songwriting credit.

Mike sued when he did because he had the opening to. There was potential money more easily in reach, and he had a relatively soft target to sue (not villifying Mike in this case; it's simply true that Brian was a soft target due both to his condition and his representation at the time).

Has Mike ever sued McCartney or Sony/ATV (or whatever conglomerate owns those Beatles songs now) for writing credit on "Back in the USSR?" No, even though by the evidence at hand he probably contributed more to that song than he did to "Wouldn't It Be Nice." Why hasn't he sued? I don't know, but the fact that McCartney and the publisher have enough money and lawyers to send the entirety of BRI and every individual Beach Boy running away in tears probably is one potential reason.

It's funny. That Goldmine 1992 Mike interview is really interesting, an in some ways ironic. I think that's the same interview where he talks about Al being angry and getting hung up on the past, yet Mike seems the angry one in that interview (maybe with good reason, but who's to say others don't have good reason to be angry?). Just as Al felt liberated in the 2000's to be more to-the-point and blunt about other Beach Boys, in that era Mike was all full of piss and vinegar, so all of a sudden he's spouting off about how Brian's solo album sucks, Al's a d**k and needed group therapy with the rest of the band, and so on. It's funny.

I can't remember if it's that interview of another one around the same time where the interviewer asks Mike about the band's CD album reissues, the two-fers and whatnot, and Mike pleads ignorance about such releases, and then seems annoyed that the interviewer laughs about how Mike doesn't know or care about that stuff.  LOL
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 06:36:56 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
leggo of my ego
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1453


Beach Boys Stomp


View Profile
« Reply #407 on: October 28, 2013, 06:50:35 AM »

Mike sued when he did because he had the opening to. There was potential money more easily in reach, and he had a relatively soft target to sue (not villifying Mike in this case; it's simply true that Brian was a soft target due both to his condition and his representation at the time).

It takes Good Timin'  Wink

The Vulture knows easy money when he sees it:  SWWWoOOOP!
Logged

Hey Little Tomboy is creepy. Banging women by the pool is fun and conjures up warm summer thoughts a Beach Boys song should.

Necessity knows no law
A bootlegger knows no law
Therefore: A bootlegger is a necessity
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #408 on: October 28, 2013, 07:13:12 AM »

Aren't some of you forgetting that Mike sued when he did because he was promised but not delivered restitution by Brian in exchange for helping Brian in his suit.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #409 on: October 28, 2013, 07:20:01 AM »

But, without doubt, Mike's lyrics have a DNA that is his, not unlike Brian's melodies.  JMHO  Wink
Every writer usually has characteristics that we can focus in on. But in the case of either Brian's melodies or Mike's lyrics, those characteristics aren't so overpowering that one can listen to a song and know without doubt that one or both had a hand in writing them. The apparent musical or lyrical DNA in a song is not at all useful in hashing out a lawsuit.  

I don't get some of the debate on the songwriting lawsuit. The business motives and machinations behind the lawsuits are interesting and open to a lot of interpretation (I for one recall talking to one "insider" around 1999/2000 who claimed that some of the business-related politics as far as the license to the BB name were directly related to the songwriting lawsuit, but that's another story).

But there isn't much debate over who actually wrote what, at least as far as who wrote enough of a given song to warrant credit. Clearly, Mike's name should have been on a bunch of those songs. Not even as a 50/50 split, which I don't think is what he even got on some or most of those songs as a result of the lawsuit. But he wrote enough lyrics on many of those songs to warrant having his name put on them, and getting some percentage of royalties. It also seems that in a few isolated cases, such as "Wouldn't It Be Nice", his input in the eyes of some was not up to the standard of warranting a songwriting credit.

Mike sued when he did because he had the opening to. There was potential money more easily in reach, and he had a relatively soft target to sue (not villifying Mike in this case; it's simply true that Brian was a soft target due both to his condition and his representation at the time).

Has Mike ever sued McCartney or Sony/ATV (or whatever conglomerate owns those Beatles songs now) for writing credit on "Back in the USSR?" No, even though by the evidence at hand he probably contributed more to that song than he did to "Wouldn't It Be Nice." Why hasn't he sued? I don't know, but the fact that McCartney and the publisher have enough money and lawyers to send the entirety of BRI and every individual Beach Boy running away in tears probably is one potential reason.

It's funny. That Goldmine 1992 Mike interview is really interesting, an in some ways ironic. I think that's the same interview where he talks about Al being angry and getting hung up on the past, yet Mike seems the angry one in that interview (maybe with good reason, but who's to say others don't have good reason to be angry?). Just as Al felt liberated in the 2000's to be more to-the-point and blunt about other Beach Boys, in that era Mike was all full of piss and vinegar, so all of a sudden he's spouting off about how Brian's solo album sucks, Al's a d**k and needed group therapy with the rest of the band, and so on. It's funny.

I can't remember if it's that interview of another one around the same time where the interviewer asks Mike about the band's CD album reissues, the two-fers and whatnot, and Mike pleads ignorance about such releases, and then seems annoyed that the interviewer laughs about how Mike doesn't know or care about that stuff.  LOL
We don't agree. Generally, people have an artistic style.  Monet, Picasso, Chopin, have styles that self-identify and almost self- authenticate.  You can just pick out who did what and that is what makes the lyric content and style identifiable to a certain artist.  Brian, has a unique talent to make the harmony "full-sounding" in a way that is unique to him.  Imitated, but not "replicated."

If Brian took the lead with the initial suit, and I think some new company was in the mix, at the time, that might have "opened the door." And, there is nothing wrong, with Mike going in to claim a percentage of the proceeds, and subtract out expenses.

If Mike's work product was involved, he had every right to stake a claim.  If there was fraud, (from the outset) he would have to meet whatever legal standards required and disgorge profits which should have gone to him.  

And Brian might have been under the "undue influence" of Murry in a coercive manner.  I haven't read the case line, so I don't know more than what everyone else has posted.  JMHO, as always!  Wink
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #410 on: October 28, 2013, 07:35:06 AM »

Aren't some of you forgetting that Mike sued when he did because he was promised but not delivered restitution by Brian in exchange for helping Brian in his suit.

Cam, consider that this sentiment is targeting "Brian" and "Mike" as the individuals rather than the entities involved in a legal case. As entities being sued and suing, the names "Brian" and "Mike" are more accurately applied to their legal teams and in some cases the individual lawyers representing them. In one case, (and this, Sheriff Stone, is where the conservator issue comes in), the person being sued over a judgement he had just won was placed under the control of a conservator who was making all of these decisions.

To assume Mike could call Brian and ask for a certain fee, and Brian could say "sure, I'll write a check and we'll meet tomorrow" was not a realistic possibility in Fall 1992 and for the years to follow as Brian (the person) had all of his affairs under the decision-making authority of the entity being represented by his legal team.

Same with Mike, as the one suing for his credits and payments, his legal team was more responsible for the actions at many points than Mike himself.

Lawyers always shoot high and wide for the biggest payment and reward they can muster. Acting "in the best interests of their client", they often pull legal and other moves that the client doesn't even know about as it's buried in hundreds of pages of legal filings and procedures. It gets dirty, it gets nasty, and the "client" is directly involved in a small portion of these dealings and disputes.

Can this be any more clear? Again, I keep repeating it because the inaccuracy and the perhaps false perceptions of what happened between Mike and Brian in these legal cases continues to be brought up...and it's brought up assuming "Mike" and "Brian" are the two human beings and cousins involved in the case who could have ended the whole thing over breakfast with a hug and a handshake, along with a check.

At what point does the simple notion that the legal teams take over from the individuals in nearly every major case like this start to sink in and broaden the understanding of these issues beyond Mike versus Brian, as individuals?

I don't understand it, seriously, because even part of the jury's decision makes note of Brian's legal team being "punished" through punitive damages where the actual defendant Brian carries no such responsibility in the judgement.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #411 on: October 28, 2013, 07:45:43 AM »

Guitarfool2002 - Brian wouldn't have had the Backgound, Education, and Training in law to make informed strategic decisions, apparently. 

As I said earlier, in the absence of reading the transcrips and exhibitits, it would be impossible to know the facts and circumstances of the decisions.  But, at least there was some resolution to some of the issues in question. 

We know Mike didn't write "columnated ruins domino."  LOL

Sorry, I could not resist!  Wink
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #412 on: October 28, 2013, 08:03:25 AM »

Guitarfool2002 - Brian wouldn't have had the Backgound, Education, and Training in law to make informed strategic decisions, apparently. 

As I said earlier, in the absence of reading the transcrips and exhibitits, it would be impossible to know the facts and circumstances of the decisions.  But, at least there was some resolution to some of the issues in question. 

We know Mike didn't write "columnated ruins domino."  LOL

Sorry, I could not resist!  Wink

It's not even that deep - In 1992 he was under a court-ordered conservator because a judge agreed with the petition filed by his family members that he was not mentally competent enough to make these legal and financial decisions on his own. So the 10 million check came at a time when his own family petitioned to place all of the man's financial and legal decisions under someone else's charge.

I'm not saying this to make a joke, but it was just in the news this week that Britney Spears is now facing a similar issue as Brian in the 90's, where she is trying to get out of a similar court-ordered conservatorship that was petitioned and granted when she was not in a positive mental state and was not fit to make those decisions (and had been hospitalized), but several years later she feels she is now competent and able to live her life and wants that control back.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #413 on: October 28, 2013, 08:03:40 AM »

Craig, I understand all of that but at the base of all this legalism is a cousin, Brian, not doing right by his cousin, Mike in the early 60s. The uncle was there, he may or may not have had knowledge Mike was being left out of the credits, he may or may not be partially or fully at fault for being Mike left off of the paperwork. IMO Murry's style was to under-credit coauthors but not leave them off all together.  IMO Brian is the only one who had full knowledge of who belonged on the paperwork and ever time he signed the paperwork without Mike credited as a coauthor Brian deserves blame.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #414 on: October 28, 2013, 08:36:57 AM »

Craig, I understand all of that but at the base of all this legalism is a cousin, Brian, not doing right by his cousin, Mike in the early 60s. The uncle was there, he may or may not have had knowledge Mike was being left out of the credits, he may or may not be partially or fully at fault for being Mike left off of the paperwork. IMO Murry's style was to under-credit coauthors but not leave them off all together.  IMO Brian is the only one who had full knowledge of who belonged on the paperwork and ever time he signed the paperwork without Mike credited as a coauthor Brian deserves blame.

Cam, I see that side of the whole thing, I also see other elements coming into play that are either affecting the perception of the whole saga negatively where the negativity is somewhat unwarranted, or slanting it to read in favor of one over another despite some rather large unknowns, if not skeletons in the family closet that simply get ignored.

Murry's style can also be summed up by the outcome of the Sea Of Tunes sale to A&M/Irving Almo. All accounts point to Murry pocketing the *entire sum* of the check. Not only taking Brian's share - as he was an agreed partner in the formation of the company - but also anyone else who had a creative or financial interest in that song catalog.

Take that one action, of Murry pocketing the entire sum of money paid for the song catalog and not splitting it with anyone, and consider what kind of situation the band and band members were dealing with.

Special note - Cam, you had asked earlier about some details. One of the issues filed by Brian's legal team in 1989 was that under the law at the time he and Murry agreed on forming Sea Of Tunes, Brian was a minor and therefore unable to agree to a legal contract. Therefore, if the terms of that contract were used by Murry in 1969 to assume he had the legal authority to sell the full catalog, the original contract's validity would be called into question. Since a minor cannot legally agree to a contract. Take that for what it's worth.

And, another issue was that the law firm representing Brian and the Boys in 1969 had given them (or him as in Brian) faulty legal representation and wrong advice in the matter, which led to agreements that were not what was described to the client. And it also got bizarre, introducing points like Murry and the glass eye, as well as charges that on some papers, Brian's signature had been forged, not to mention he had signed other documents that his legal team failed to properly advise him on, therefore he agreed to terms he wasn't fully informed about. Then they introduced mental state at the time, which is where the glass eye part was brought in.

Ultimately, just like in Mike's case, Brian's team won that 1989 case and the court found that indeed he had been duped and misled, not just by his own father but also by the legal firm and specific lawyers he and BRI was paying to represent their interests. The exact details are far more involved, again there were multiple suits in several courts which many of them got consolidated during the actual process.

There was enough blame and bad behavior to go around in the whole affair, even before Mike's team filed their claim. Unfortunately Murry was not alive to answer for these issues, and the burden fell on Brian who was the entity in the case that determined the *original* award for such misdeeds and wrongdoing.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
clack
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


View Profile
« Reply #415 on: October 28, 2013, 08:49:40 AM »

If Mike could get a co-write on WIBN for ad-libbing "good night my baby, sleep tight my baby" on the fade, why don't Tony and Brian get a co-write on 'Brian's Back', which uses a bit of 'You Still Believe in Me' during its fade?
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #416 on: October 28, 2013, 09:06:22 AM »

So if Brian was a co-owner of Sea Of Tunes as claimed in reports of Brian's suit against Irving, that would only make it worse in my opinion.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #417 on: October 28, 2013, 09:24:31 AM »

So if Brian was a co-owner of Sea Of Tunes as claimed in reports of Brian's suit against Irving, that would only make it worse in my opinion.

It's not that simple. The case suggested it was some kind of a legal partnership that wasn't actually legal from its inception since Brian was legally a minor at the time it was agreed to. And the definition of a "minor" gets really confusing too, because in some states it's 18, in others it's 21...all kinds of legal nonsense notwithstanding.

Take the issue of the law firm in 1969 which was named in the suit alongside A&M, Irving, et al. This was the same firm, if you recall, that represented the Boys in their suit against Capitol in 1967, when they sued successfully and the results helped form Brother Records. The advice and counsel they gave Brian and all involved was flawed, the charges said, and the rights Brian may or may not have had were not made clear.

What Brian thought he had rights to may not have been so, what he thought he was signing may not have been what he was told he was signing, and those advising him and having him sign or agree to things he wasn't clearly advised of back in 1969 ended up on the hook for millions based on those issues as decided in June 1992.

So, I'd suggest narrowing it down to one sentence in order to form an opinion about the Sea Of Tunes situation isn't productive and sort of clouds the much bigger issues at play, if not ignoring or whitewashing them completely.

Like Murry. At what point does Murry pocketing and not splitting any of the profits become at least worth noting before pointing all the fingers at Brian?

Just consider what came out during and what helped Brian's team win their case(s) before forming such definitive opinions about who-is-to-blame-for-what. And consider Murry's actions as they related to both Mike and Brian and Tony Asher or any of those involved in the writing process.

More on this and the Goldmine interview to come. Just note for now when Mike is asked directly about Murry's role in the crediting issue, prior to his own lawsuit being filed, Mike says this:

Was this more Murry Wilson or Brian?

Either that or Brian didn't tell him because of his ego. It's a bloodbath. It's millions and millions of dollars' worth of damage. Other songs, he arbitrarily assigned me a percentage which was fairly nominal. Basically, when I wrote 100 percent of the words he'd give me like 30 percent of the tune, as opposed to a split.


So, Mike, was it Brian's ego or Murry's actions to blame for this?

There is a reason for that kind of reply, I think, especially at that exact time in 1992. Stay tuned.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #418 on: October 28, 2013, 09:46:24 AM »

Those are all side issues and Murry can be responsible for whatever he is also responsible for, if anything. I'm just saying imo that still leaves Brian thinking he is a co-publisher [allegedly], signing forms he knows are incorrect and incomplete [as he has admitted], regardless of whatever Murry or conservators or lawyers did or didn't do.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
BB Universe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


View Profile
« Reply #419 on: October 28, 2013, 09:53:04 AM »

If one can step back for a moment from being a BB fan and look at this subject, you'd come away saying something like that would make an interesting fictional plot line for some type of show - its got to be made up! Unfortunatly, the basic underlying facts are true (forget about trying to ascribe motives to individuals and all that stuff).

This would make a great fact pattern on a state bar exam!
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #420 on: October 28, 2013, 10:01:09 AM »

Those are all side issues and Murry can be responsible for whatever he is also responsible for, if anything. I'm just saying imo that still leaves Brian thinking he is a co-publisher [allegedly], signing forms he knows are incorrect and incomplete [as he has admitted], regardless of whatever Murry or conservators or lawyers did or didn't do.

Brian signing forms he knows are incorrect or incomplete...If this were entirely the case, as you suggest, Brian's 1989 lawsuit which specifically named the law firm who represented both Brian and Brother as having been to blame for faulty counsel which helped lead to the whole mess would have been tossed out of court, right? One of the main components of the case which eventually won that case (cases, actually) was the sale had been enacted based on false information and fraud. If not outright forgery, as has also been charged, not to mention the mental state of parties involved and the legality of the Sea Of Tunes contract to begin with.

Let's twist this just a bit. Let's put blame on Brian for signing these documents agreeing to whatever they said. Mike also signed documents giving him 30% or less credit for his lyrical contributions, yet he came back later and claims he was due more of a share of the credit than the 30% he agreed to at the time. Remove that from the issue of those songs where he received no credit at all, isn't that charging Mike with some of the same blame being pointed at Brian for inaction or being guilty of signing something you knew wasn't right?

Again, the blatant issues of Mike's not being credited at all are one thing that got sorted out in court, coming back and claiming you're due more of a cut than the contract you signed and agreed to at the time is another issue. Much like saying Brian knew exactly what he was signing away, yet got not profit, no payment, or nothing at all from the supposed "agreement" that saw Murry cash the entire check himself...Mike signed those papers in the 60's.

Is it then Mike's fault for signing something with Murry he agreed to at the time but 25 years later found was costing him potentially millions in lost profits? And Brian is the one person to blame for Murry's terms which were also applied to Tony Asher for the sum of his work on Pet Sounds? Doesn't add up.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #421 on: October 28, 2013, 10:11:55 AM »

If one can step back for a moment from being a BB fan and look at this subject, you'd come away saying something like that would make an interesting fictional plot line for some type of show - its got to be made up! Unfortunatly, the basic underlying facts are true (forget about trying to ascribe motives to individuals and all that stuff).

This would make a great fact pattern on a state bar exam!

Yes it might be an interesting question depending on whether they were looking at age to contract, capacity to contract, duress, unjust enrichment, fraud, illegality and property rights.

The actual "intellectual property" stuff, probably not.  That isn't part of the six substantive areas tested on the multistate. (Multiple choice exam) unless a state has detailed intellectual property tested on its essay exam.

But with that stuff left out, it might make a good essay question, covering torts, contracts, evidence and property.  

Maybe a little intellectual property mention under constitutional law;

ART I, Section 8, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"


Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #422 on: October 28, 2013, 10:19:54 AM »

Those are all side issues and Murry can be responsible for whatever he is also responsible for, if anything. I'm just saying imo that still leaves Brian thinking he is a co-publisher [allegedly], signing forms he knows are incorrect and incomplete [as he has admitted], regardless of whatever Murry or conservators or lawyers did or didn't do.

Brian signing forms he knows are incorrect or incomplete...If this were entirely the case, as you suggest, Brian's 1989 lawsuit which specifically named the law firm who represented both Brian and Brother as having been to blame for faulty counsel which helped lead to the whole mess would have been tossed out of court, right? One of the main components of the case which eventually won that case (cases, actually) was the sale had been enacted based on false information and fraud. If not outright forgery, as has also been charged, not to mention the mental state of parties involved and the legality of the Sea Of Tunes contract to begin with.

Let's twist this just a bit. Let's put blame on Brian for signing these documents agreeing to whatever they said. Mike also signed documents giving him 30% or less credit for his lyrical contributions, yet he came back later and claims he was due more of a share of the credit than the 30% he agreed to at the time. Remove that from the issue of those songs where he received no credit at all, isn't that charging Mike with some of the same blame being pointed at Brian for inaction or being guilty of signing something you knew wasn't right?

Again, the blatant issues of Mike's not being credited at all are one thing that got sorted out in court, coming back and claiming you're due more of a cut than the contract you signed and agreed to at the time is another issue. Much like saying Brian knew exactly what he was signing away, yet got not profit, no payment, or nothing at all from the supposed "agreement" that saw Murry cash the entire check himself...Mike signed those papers in the 60's.

Is it then Mike's fault for signing something with Murry he agreed to at the time but 25 years later found was costing him potentially millions in lost profits? And Brian is the one person to blame for Murry's terms which were also applied to Tony Asher for the sum of his work on Pet Sounds? Doesn't add up.

No, I'm saying in an unclear way, regardless of anything Murry or lawyer or conservator, Brian signed songwriter authorship forms that he admits he knew were incomplete and wrong. Thinking he was also a co-owner [whether true or not or any later sales or suits] of SOT only makes it more wrong of Brian.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #423 on: October 28, 2013, 10:32:17 AM »

No, I'm saying in an unclear way, regardless of anything Murry or lawyer or conservator, Brian signed songwriter authorship forms that he admits he knew were incomplete and wrong. Thinking he was also a co-owner [whether true or not or any later sales or suits] of SOT only makes it more wrong of Brian.

And I'm saying Mike Love as cowriter willingly signed those documents with Sea Of Tunes that said he would get a cut around the figure of 30% for his lyrical contributions to the songs, and he received that amount, then he comes back decades later thinking he was entitled to more of the cut. So, like you're saying why did Brian sign the papers in question, not getting into opinions of his ulterior motives but looking at the fact he signed, Mike signed and agreed to *his* terms and conditions as well.

And in the cases of those songs where Mike claimed an under-credit rather than a no-credit, however many of the 35 or 48 or 79 songs in question that may have been involved that way, if you put that standard on Brian "knowingly and willingly" signing papers he knew were either wrong or unfair or damaging, that same standard can be applied to Mike as well. Since he willingly signed the contracts and accepted payment of that agreed 30% at the time, whether it was right or wrong he signed them.

I've seen the same point "well, he signed it, didn't he?" being used when someone questions the whole use of the Beach Boys name contract from recent years, especially regarding Brian or Al or whoever else. And that's right, 100% right: They all signed it. It's hard to challenge the details if everyone signed it, unless fraud or misconduct can be proven.

Just like Mike signed with Sea Of Tunes for a certain agreed split back in 1965 or whenever. And Mike signing it is Brian's fault when he feels he didn't get the 50-50 split he thought he deserved for the lyrics?

I hope we're not suggesting Mike was threatened into signing a bad deal, like the stories of Suge Knight hiring goons to rough up Vanilla Ice and hang him by the ankles outside a hotel balcony until he agreed to sign over his rights to the music... Grin
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #424 on: October 28, 2013, 11:42:48 AM »

No, I'm saying in an unclear way, regardless of anything Murry or lawyer or conservator, Brian signed songwriter authorship forms that he admits he knew were incomplete and wrong. Thinking he was also a co-owner [whether true or not or any later sales or suits] of SOT only makes it more wrong of Brian.

And I'm saying Mike Love as cowriter willingly signed those documents with Sea Of Tunes that said he would get a cut around the figure of 30% for his lyrical contributions to the songs, and he received that amount, then he comes back decades later thinking he was entitled to more of the cut. So, like you're saying why did Brian sign the papers in question, not getting into opinions of his ulterior motives but looking at the fact he signed, Mike signed and agreed to *his* terms and conditions as well.

And in the cases of those songs where Mike claimed an under-credit rather than a no-credit, however many of the 35 or 48 or 79 songs in question that may have been involved that way, if you put that standard on Brian "knowingly and willingly" signing papers he knew were either wrong or unfair or damaging, that same standard can be applied to Mike as well. Since he willingly signed the contracts and accepted payment of that agreed 30% at the time, whether it was right or wrong he signed them.

I've seen the same point "well, he signed it, didn't he?" being used when someone questions the whole use of the Beach Boys name contract from recent years, especially regarding Brian or Al or whoever else. And that's right, 100% right: They all signed it. It's hard to challenge the details if everyone signed it, unless fraud or misconduct can be proven.

Just like Mike signed with Sea Of Tunes for a certain agreed split back in 1965 or whenever. And Mike signing it is Brian's fault when he feels he didn't get the 50-50 split he thought he deserved for the lyrics?

I hope we're not suggesting Mike was threatened into signing a bad deal, like the stories of Suge Knight hiring goons to rough up Vanilla Ice and hang him by the ankles outside a hotel balcony until he agreed to sign over his rights to the music... Grin

First, does it say somewhere that Mike asked for or was awarded more credit on under credited songs he had signed or just credit on uncredited songs he never had the chance to sign? Second, either way it leaves Brian signing papers that he knew and admits were wrong in not crediting Mike at all.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 35 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.752 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!