Did Mike ever try to get the legal right to record under the BB name (post '98)?

[Nicko1234]

I guess you weren't able to figure out the search function. You don't PM, can't use the search function, and apparently,  can't use Google.

I was just reviewing that old thread. Funny,  back then, given links, you continued to argue and argue. Like a broken record. Believe what you want Nicko.

So you went back over an old thread and couldn`t be bothered to simply copy and paste the documents here? It`s not about what I want to believe. After all, whether Mike`s licence is exclusive or not reflects neither positively or negatively on any of the members. I would be genuinely interested if the often mentioned statement that Mike`s licence is exclusive is shown to be false.

If we are talking about the same thread then the only arguments I can remember making were that Mike pays 20% for the use of the name (which you initially refused to believe) and that Brian and Al were not about to revoke Mike`s licence to tour as The Beach Boys themselves. Not sure you can dispute either of those things now.

[southbay]

Regarding your documentation claiming to prove Mike's license is non-exclusive, it does nothing of the sort, as it all refers to the original 1998 case and it's (considerable) fallout. The later awarding Mike of an exclusive license isn't so much as alluded to in the papers because, understandably, it has nothing to do with the original plaint as brought by Alan. To bring it down to a basic level, it doesn't say Mike has an exclusive license but neither does it say he hasn't, because it has no relevance to the case in question, viz., Alan's attempt to evade playing BRI the sums required for a non-exclusive license as proposed in late 1998. I note you've avoided commenting on Mike's own statement, in the LA Times no less, that in 2012 he'd had an exclusive license for over a decade. In his reply, Brian contested several of Mike's statements, but having an exclusive license wasn't one of them.

"I would refer you to something MORE offical, such as the multiple Court rulings re: Love vs. Jardne. Each and every ruling states Mike was issued a "non-exclusive license"."

Yes, they surely do - in every single case, in reference to the 1998 agreement:

"In 1998, BRI issued a non-exclusive license to Michael Love, an original member of The Beach Boys, to use the band's trademark." (432 F. 3d 939 - Brother Records Inc v. Jardine, Filed December 19, 2005 - note, BRI, not Mike Love)

"BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”)." (Brother Records v Jardine, No. 01-57095. Decided: January 28, 2003)

This one, also from the document quoted above, is especially interesting (emphasis mine): "The district court concluded that Jardine raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Jardine had a non-exclusive license, which expired by its own terms on December 31, 1999" So, any and all non-exclusive license issued by BRI in fall 1998 automatically ended by the end of the next year. That BRI then proceeded to take legal action against Alan in January and March of 2000 to prevent him using the BB name in his bands and advertising could be taken as an indication that Mike's exclusive license was granted in early 2000.

Or not, but the fact is, Mike has an exclusive license and has for some years. 

There you go, December 31, 1999.  I knew the non-exclusive licenses had a set date upon which they expired, just couldn't recall the exact date.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Regarding your documentation claiming to prove Mike's license is non-exclusive, it does nothing of the sort, as it all refers to the original 1998 case and it's (considerable) fallout. The later awarding Mike of an exclusive license isn't so much as alluded to in the papers because, understandably, it has nothing to do with the original plaint as brought by Alan. To bring it down to a basic level, it doesn't say Mike has an exclusive license but neither does it say he hasn't, because it has no relevance to the case in question, viz., Alan's attempt to evade playing BRI the sums required for a non-exclusive license as proposed in late 1998. I note you've avoided commenting on Mike's own statement, in the LA Times no less, that in 2012 he'd had an exclusive license for over a decade. In his reply, Brian contested several of Mike's statements, but having an exclusive license wasn't one of them.

"I would refer you to something MORE offical, such as the multiple Court rulings re: Love vs. Jardne. Each and every ruling states Mike was issued a "non-exclusive license"."

Yes, they surely do - in every single case, in reference to the 1998 agreement:

"In 1998, BRI issued a non-exclusive license to Michael Love, an original member of The Beach Boys, to use the band's trademark." (432 F. 3d 939 - Brother Records Inc v. Jardine, Filed December 19, 2005 - note, BRI, not Mike Love)

"BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”)." (Brother Records v Jardine, No. 01-57095. Decided: January 28, 2003)

This one, also from the document quoted above, is especially interesting (emphasis mine): "The district court concluded that Jardine raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Jardine had a non-exclusive license, which expired by its own terms on December 31, 1999" So, any and all non-exclusive license issued by BRI in fall 1998 automatically ended by the end of the next year. That BRI then proceeded to take legal action against Alan in January and March of 2000 to prevent him using the BB name in his bands and advertising could be taken as an indication that Mike's exclusive license was granted in early 2000.

Or not, but the fact is, Mike has an exclusive license and has for some years.  

It said Al's license expired, not Mike's. If Mike had an exclusive license,  that would have been a slam dunk argument that Mike'-s attorneys suely would have made a motion on. They did not. That is why the Courts SOLEY refers to Mike's non exclusuve license. Even in the 2003 rulings.

Anyway Andy, I am done beating this dead horse for you and Nicko. If you can  come up with definitive proof that you a newer, exclusive license was issued, do share it. All you offer is speculation. 

[Nicko1234]

It said Al's license expired, not Mike's. If Mike had an exclusive license,  that would have been a slam dunk argument that Mike'-s attorneys suely would have made a motion on. They did not. That is why the Courts SOLEY refers to Mike's non exclusuve license. Even in the 2003 rulings.

Anyway Andy, I am done beating this dead horse for you and Nicko. If you can  come up with definitive proof that you a newer, exclusive license was issued, do share it. All you offer is speculation. 

Meaning that you can`t prove that it wasn`t? Just post the proof and it ends any debate.

[Andrew G. Doe]

It said Al's license expired, not Mike's.

Said nothing of the sort, if you care to read it properly. The document stated a triable issue was raised as to whether or not Alan ever had any such license, then described the terms of said license. All the non-exclusive licenses issued (like, one, to Mike) expired 12/31/99. That was the whole crux of the suit - Alan maintained he didn't need a "Love License" to use the marquee name while touring, BRI begged to differ. Serious legal sh*t ensued, which wasn't totally settled for quite a few years.

As for the issuing of an exclusive license, I tend to believe the three different people who told me. People who would surely know.  

And finally...



Just a reminder. A very wise, eloquent man.

[Pretty Funky]

But shame on you for delving into my family background and posting about it. This is none of your business sir! It is beyond me how OSD gets banned while you continually insult people in a multitude of ways.

Didn't delve - you told me.  

Via PM. Bad, bad boy. But you did delve, as you well know!

Ouch!

Rule 5.5

[Nicko1234]

But shame on you for delving into my family background and posting about it. This is none of your business sir! It is beyond me how OSD gets banned while you continually insult people in a multitude of ways.

Didn't delve - you told me.  

Via PM. Bad, bad boy. But you did delve, as you well know!

Ouch!

Rule 5.5

ORR actually posted this information about his uncle on the message board for everyone to see a long time ago. If he`s trying to get AGD banned now then it is pretty poor form.

[CenturyDeprived]

Regarding your documentation claiming to prove Mike's license is non-exclusive, it does nothing of the sort, as it all refers to the original 1998 case and it's (considerable) fallout. The later awarding Mike of an exclusive license isn't so much as alluded to in the papers because, understandably, it has nothing to do with the original plaint as brought by Alan. To bring it down to a basic level, it doesn't say Mike has an exclusive license but neither does it say he hasn't, because it has no relevance to the case in question, viz., Alan's attempt to evade playing BRI the sums required for a non-exclusive license as proposed in late 1998. 

Unless I'm mistaken (and maybe I am), it doesn't seem that Alan's ejection from the band in 1998 has ever really been publicly addressed by Mike at any point since it happened, am I correct? I know that post C50, Mike has repeatedly said "Al is doing his thing...", but what was Mike's official response/position in 1998/1999 when Al suddenly stopped being part of "The Beach Boys", and this was a recent development? Was this ever asked of Mike (or of Alan) in an interview at the time?

[Nicko1234]

Unless I'm mistaken (and maybe I am), it doesn't seem that Alan's ejection from the band in 1998 has ever really been publicly addressed by Mike at any point since it happened, am I correct? I know that post C50, Mike has repeatedly said "Al is doing his thing...", but what was Mike's official response/position in 1998/1999 when Al suddenly stopped being part of "The Beach Boys", and this was a recent development? Was this ever asked of Mike (or of Alan) in an interview at the time?

Mike did make a comment to Peter Ames Carlin about Al trying to organize his own symphonic tour with Brian and Peter Cetera:

"Love reserves most of his current animosity for the other living original Beach Boy, Al Jardine, who he alleges tried to orchestrate a Beach Boys symphonic tour with Peter Cetera and Brian – but without Mike – the week Carl Wilson died from lung cancer in 1998. There's a snide quality in his voice but still no real sense of anger. "Carl was always the mediator in The Beach Boys, so his absence created a very big void. I didn't feel like continuing with Al after that,  so that launched the whole thing where Al went off and did his own thing and I did mine with Bruce. It definitely created a schism which has lasted to this day. Alan has repeatedly brought lawsuits against Brother Records. But we've been successful at defending ourselves and so his antagonistic approach hasn't gotten him anywhere."

Obviously this isn`t the whole truth though.

[Andrew G. Doe]

"What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer."

Francis Bacon, The Essays: Of Truth (1625)

[Niko]

But shame on you for delving into my family background and posting about it. This is none of your business sir! It is beyond me how OSD gets banned while you continually insult people in a multitude of ways.

Didn't delve - you told me.  

Via PM. Bad, bad boy. But you did delve, as you well know!

Ouch!

Rule 5.5

ORR actually posted this information about his uncle on the message board for everyone to see a long time ago. If he`s trying to get AGD banned now then it is pretty poor form.

No, he's not - you're drawing that conclusion yourself 

[Nicko1234]

No, he's not - you're drawing that conclusion yourself 

Well if it had been true that AGD had posted information from a private message then that would presumably have been the outcome.

[CenturyDeprived]

Unless I'm mistaken (and maybe I am), it doesn't seem that Alan's ejection from the band in 1998 has ever really been publicly addressed by Mike at any point since it happened, am I correct? I know that post C50, Mike has repeatedly said "Al is doing his thing...", but what was Mike's official response/position in 1998/1999 when Al suddenly stopped being part of "The Beach Boys", and this was a recent development? Was this ever asked of Mike (or of Alan) in an interview at the time?

Mike did make a comment to Peter Ames Carlin about Al trying to organize his own symphonic tour with Brian and Peter Cetera:

"Love reserves most of his current animosity for the other living original Beach Boy, Al Jardine, who he alleges tried to orchestrate a Beach Boys symphonic tour with Peter Cetera and Brian – but without Mike – the week Carl Wilson died from lung cancer in 1998.

So Mike gets to complain about another member of the band organizing a 1998 BB-related project without his (Mike's) involvement, and Mike gets to have animosity against Al over it... but it's ok when he does essentially the same thing 14 years later (and Mike continually reminds the press until the end of time that nobody else is allowed to have an ounce of animosity when he himself does it). Riiiight.

[Niko]

Social disagreements aside it's an interesting argument.

[Andrew G. Doe]

So Mike gets to complain about another member of the band organizing a 1998 BB-related project without his (Mike's) involvement, and Mike gets to have animosity against Al over it... but it's ok when he does essentially the same thing 14 years later (and Mike continually reminds the press until the end of time that nobody else is allowed to have an ounce of animosity when he himself does it). Riiiight.

Way past my bedtime plus I'm having a severe attack of accelerated dimness... I can't figure out what you're referring to. Kindly enlighten a slightly befuddled old man, please. 

[CenturyDeprived]

So Mike gets to complain about another member of the band organizing a 1998 BB-related project without his (Mike's) involvement, and Mike gets to have animosity against Al over it... but it's ok when he does essentially the same thing 14 years later (and Mike continually reminds the press until the end of time that nobody else is allowed to have an ounce of animosity when he himself does it). Riiiight.

Way past my bedtime plus I'm having a severe attack of accelerated dimness... I can't figure out what you're referring to. Kindly enlighten a slightly befuddled old man, please.  

I realize that it's somewhat of an apples/oranges thing, with 2 sets of circumstances ('98 vs '12).... but that said, the way I see it is that Mike seemed to be butt-hurt (and rightfully so) that Al was trying to organize some BB stuff without Mike's involvement. Mike in 2012 goes ahead and starts booking shows and planning an escape from his stripped-from-being-the-sole-head-honcho C50 role... even if he somehow can justify a "right" to be doing so, there's clearly several BB members who (despite prior statements to the contrary), now want to talk things through and renegotiate where things are heading.  

Anyhow, it comes down to the feeling of a BB member feeling left out, possibly conspired against, or at the very least feeling that wheels are in motion for activities under the BB name/banner in some fashion that said BB member has not been invited to. I'm sure it's not a cool feeling.

So it's established that Mike apparently felt it was lame of Al to make maneuvers in 1998 for a Mike-less symphonic tour with Brian and Peter Cetera, right? I'd think he'd realize there are a few similarities to Mike's own actions 14 years later, but there doesn't seem to be any self-awareness of this. And he never stops reminding the world that nobody who feels hurt by his 2012 actions has any morsel of a right to feel hurt by his 2012 actions.  That's the latter-day centerpiece of every. single. interview.

I'd have more relative respect if he just owned up to hurting others, and said "sorry, but I wanted to have my way again irregardless of what other people had in mind, and that's just the way it is". That's self-centered, but at least honest. I like the dude's music, but to put it mildly, his blatant hypocrisy bugs me to no end.  Unless there's some giant flaw in my logic (and I'm all ears if someone thinks there is), let's just all agree that this represents some pretty blatant hypocrisy on a general level.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Ah, understand. Thing is, Alan was apparently doing his thing on the sly (please correct if I'm libeling him, it's 6.10am here and the tea's not kicked in yet) while Mike had the written agreement of the rest of the band to book shows with the BRI-sanctioned band post C50, and they knew about it (as noted in Rolling Stone).

There are currently three things in the BB world that, assuming I ever had one, I would sell my mortal soul to the Devil to gain access to:

- the files of AFM Local 47...
- the files of the LA chapter of AFTRA (for the vocal sessions)...
- the email correspondence between the C50 principals, June to October 2012.

A fully functional TARDIS would also be useful. 

[HeyJude]

Ah, understand. Thing is, Alan was apparently doing his thing on the sly (please correct if I'm libeling him, it's 6.10am here and the tea's not kicked in yet) while Mike had the written agreement of the rest of the band to book shows with the BRI-sanctioned band post C50, and they knew about it (as noted in Rolling Stone).

There are currently three things in the BB world that, assuming I ever had one, I would sell my mortal soul to the Devil to gain access to:

- the files of AFM Local 47...
- the files of the LA chapter of AFTRA (for the vocal sessions)...
- the email correspondence between the C50 principals, June to October 2012.

A fully functional TARDIS would also be useful.  

Sounds like the problem in 2012 could well have been that they *weren’t* e-mailing each other as much as they should have been.

As for that Peter Cetera tour situation, I always got the sense that was much more an idea/pipe dream from Al. Kind of like the 2012 Charlie Rose interview where he suggests touring every other year. Or bringing up recording “Waves of Love” with the group. Al has ideas, sometimes grandiose, and sometimes it appears nobody else in the figurative or literal room is paying much attention. I think it’s a bit telling that that Rolling Stone article depicts Al being pretty flatly rejected by Brian in trying to record “Waves of Love”, but we never saw Al get all butt-hurt about it in subsequent interviews, during or after the reunion. I think the co-writer of the song, Larry Dvoskin, on the other hand, seemed quite butt-hurt about it and stated that, interestingly, he blamed Mike for blocking Al and Bruce songs from the album. However absurd it may have been, he offered one of the more hilarious quotes of recent times on that situation: “Mike 1000% c*ck blocked Al Jardine & Bruce from having any of their songs on the record out of self interest.” I had not previously seen Mike (or anybody!) accused of “c*ck blocking” a song before.  

But I digress. Al mentioned the “symphonic tour” idea in the 2000 Goldmine interview. He of course didn’t mention not including Mike. But it’s a bit rich for Mike to be outraged even if Al was working on something without Mike. The Stebbins/Marks book suggests that *prior* to Mike’s own stated timeline regarding Al attempting that Cetera tour, there were already moves afoot to edge Al out of the band. If Al did actually try to engineer a “Beach Boys” tour without Mike around this time, he was simply doing what Mike had already started to do. Difference was, as per the usual, Al had less clout/power/leverage to actually accomplish anything like that.

[guitarfool2002]

There are currently three things in the BB world that, assuming I ever had one, I would sell my mortal soul to the Devil to gain access to:

- the files of AFM Local 47...
- the files of the LA chapter of AFTRA (for the vocal sessions)...
- the email correspondence between the C50 principals, June to October 2012.

A fully functional TARDIS would also be useful. 

At this point the TARDIS would appear to be the most attainable of those items. 

My list is more media-centric: The late-66, early-67 Sony Porta-Pak video footage featuring Brian and the Smile crew doing talk shows and skits, and of course the unused Inside Pop footage, late '66.

Even then, I have a better chance of getting a TARDIS than that film footage.

[CenturyDeprived]

Ah, understand. Thing is, Alan was apparently doing his thing on the sly (please correct if I'm libeling him, it's 6.10am here and the tea's not kicked in yet) while Mike had the written agreement of the rest of the band to book shows with the BRI-sanctioned band post C50, and they knew about it (as noted in Rolling Stone).

There are currently three things in the BB world that, assuming I ever had one, I would sell my mortal soul to the Devil to gain access to:

- the files of AFM Local 47...
- the files of the LA chapter of AFTRA (for the vocal sessions)...
- the email correspondence between the C50 principals, June to October 2012.

A fully functional TARDIS would also be useful.  

I cannot imagine that Brian would have felt hurt enough to publicly make multiple C50-breakdown related statements (pertaining to the fired feeling - I reiterate, the "feeling" of being in such a situation, even after having changed his mind) if he hadn't felt that there was some scheming going on behind his back by Mike. Or at least Mike simply ignoring/stonewalling any discussions that were desired from a certain point in C50. Something happened, but we just don't know the details.

And Mike/Bruce's absence at the farewell dinner just further seems to confirm - there had to have been some stuff that Brian and his people wanted to discuss, wanted to negotiate, etc... and they were denied, shut out by Mike in some way - in other words, Mike had to have made some maneuvers (the details of which we may never know) in a way that felt backhanded to Brian, despite Mike having signatures "allowing" him to do so. Somewhere along the way, Mike consulted with lawyers, who told him he can legally proceed with returning to the M&B show, and Mike made the conscious decision at some point thereafter that he would ignore any resistance from the other BBs to this plan, even though there was now resistance/questions brewing.   If that isn't a  passive aggressive "f-you", I don't quite know what is.

While it's not identical, I'm just saying that in general it seems similar to what Mike experienced (and Mike felt totally justified in complaining about) from Al's 1998 actions. The situations may have been different, but there had to have been similar feelings of a BB feeling "shut out" to other "BB" activity. Whether or not Mike had papers based on BW's previous agreeing to such terms that "allowed" Mike to get away with it is not particularly relevant to the point I'm making. For Mike to absolve himself from any responsibility as he wants to do, he'd have to have been a person who has never changed his mind about a single given situation (that he at one point agreed to) during his entire life. I think fans would be able to "take" Mike's behavior if he just owns it.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Chances are I'm missing something, but as I recall, Brian made just the one post-C50 statement, in the LA Times in response to Mike's letter a few days earlier. I'm pretty sure every other item just quoted that. May be wrong of course and if so, welcome correction.

[HeyJude]

Chances are I'm missing something, but as I recall, Brian made just the one post-C50 statement, in the LA Times in response to Mike's letter a few days earlier. I'm pretty sure every other item just quoted that. May be wrong of course and if so, welcome correction.

Brian was quoted in the recent July 18th, 2014 Rolling Stone article:

Brian Wilson was deep into writing songs for a new Beach Boys album when Mike Love pulled the plug on the group's 2012 reunion tour. "It was a shock," Wilson says. "I was so proud of how the Boys were singing. Then it just ended."

For a while, Wilson let the music go: "I was writing for the Boys, so I thought, 'What am I gonna do without them?'"

[Andrew G. Doe]

I stand duly corrected, and thank you.

Ah... wait... isn't that the Jason Fine article ?

[HeyJude]

I stand duly corrected, and thank you.

Ah... wait... isn't that the Jason Fine article ?

Yep! However biased the guy's reports may be, Brian did say those words though.

[smile-holland]

But shame on you for delving into my family background and posting about it. This is none of your business sir! It is beyond me how OSD gets banned while you continually insult people in a multitude of ways.

Didn't delve - you told me.  

Via PM. Bad, bad boy. But you did delve, as you well know!

Ouch!

Rule 5.5

ORR actually posted this information about his uncle on the message board for everyone to see a long time ago.

Okay, just to make clear that the mods take this seriously, we looked into it.... Posted publically last December.

....
As to the gambling, my Uncle recently lost his family fortune to it at the track, leaving them stunned and penniless.Thus, it bothers me greatly that the M/B show play so many casinos.

Case closed, no rules were broken. But I do want to say 2 more things, before we go back on topic.

1. If you have a suspicion that a boardrule is broken, because of publically posting PM stuff, make VERY sure that that's the case. If you're right, then - yes - the accused one has a big problem. But if the accusation is false, but we did take action on it (a.i. we banned someone)... and we find out later on, the accuser has a big problem (plus we will undo the other ban of course).

2. Specifically for ORR and AGD: I have advised this before, and I'll say it again: please avoid each other or stop discussing with each other, when you notice that it's going the wrong direction. You both have the talent, to bring out the worst in eachother, each of you in your own unique way. And it's not necessary, nor is it fun to watch. And I don't want to see it happen that one (or both) of you end up being banned during a similar future discussion.