Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[AndrewHickey]

Mike had "standing" as a beneficial owner to bring the action.  It was not dismissed at the outset, so the trial judge must have considered some evidence advanced, otherwise it would never have gone to trial.  

Plenty of things go to trial which are ridiculous on the face of it. The SCO vs IBM case, for example, which has dragged on for thirteen years but which any unbiased observer would have said, back in 2013, was a clear-cut case. Something not being dismissed at the outset doesn't make it any less blatantly wrong.

 And his photo/the band was used, albeit allegedly small, was used on the packaging.  So, there was some kind of a tie to support the claim.  

That, and that alone, is the one tiny aspect of Mike's claim that is justifiable. Whoever designed that cover shouldn't have used a photo of the Beach Boys without their permission. That doesn't justify any of the other nonsense in Mike's suit.

[filledeplage]

Mike had "standing" as a beneficial owner to bring the action.  It was not dismissed at the outset, so the trial judge must have considered some evidence advanced, otherwise it would never have gone to trial.  

Plenty of things go to trial which are ridiculous on the face of it. The SCO vs IBM case, for example, which has dragged on for thirteen years but which any unbiased observer would have said, back in 2013, was a clear-cut case. Something not being dismissed at the outset doesn't make it any less blatantly wrong.

 And his photo/the band was used, albeit allegedly small, was used on the packaging.  So, there was some kind of a tie to support the claim.  

That, and that alone, is the one tiny aspect of Mike's claim that is justifiable. Whoever designed that cover shouldn't have used a photo of the Beach Boys without their permission. That doesn't justify any of the other nonsense in Mike's suit.

Andrew - over time, crazy or inappropriate time-wise photos have been used for their promotion; things over which there may be little or no control. 

Here, someone seems to have had some control.  It would not have gone to trial if first, Mike had no standing (your right to sue based on some injury or damage) or it survived a motion to dismiss, for any number of "testing' motions that test the "sufficiency of the complaint." It would not have gone to trial if there was nothing of merit.  Just not enough to prevail. 

You are saying it is wrong.  Or I could say it is wrong.  But both of those "opinions" are not what the "referee" or trial judge is looking at.  I might disagree with a holding in a case, or you might.   On the top of p. 9787 and the first full paragraph do give standards and case law for the Lanham Act to enforced outside of the US.   

At any rate, it is done and over with, for over 10 years.  Smile came out since, and C50 happened.  It is water under the bridge and simply an answer that the interviewer asked.   
Appeal courts generally don't like to disturb lower case decisions.  Most are affirmed.   

[filledeplage]

Not sue the living day lights out of cousin BW and instead go after Murry's estate.

20 years after he is dead? 

What estate? 

[SMiLE Brian]

But these lawsuits tie into this article well, Mike is an emotionally ill man who will try to rewrite history and take money from BW at all costs if his ambulance chaser lawyers are available.

[filledeplage]

But these lawsuits tie into this article well, Mike is an emotionally ill man who will try to rewrite history and take money from BW at all costs if his ambulance chaser lawyers are available.

Smile Brian - on what basis are you giving Mike a diagnosis?  Medical school?

Ambulance chaser lawyers! 

And, I think that is not considered ethical now. 

[drbeachboy]

But these lawsuits tie into this article well, Mike is an emotionally ill man who will try to rewrite history and take money from BW at all costs if his ambulance chaser lawyers are available.

So, if Mike is emotionally ill, will you now carry the same compassion for him as you do Brian?

[SMiLE Brian]

Not until he owns up to it and stops blaming others for his problems. He has a serious  addiction to lawyers to harass other people.

[HeyJude]

 In dispute was Love's residence and whether California or Nevada, whether "the business" or the "where you vote" and other indicia was weighed and how.  It is not as simplistic as some would like to think.
          

According to the July 8, 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Love had already been "strongly admonished" by the court regarding this issue:

Over the course of the proceedings, Love filed three complaints. In his first amended complaint, he alleged that he was domiciled in Nevada. In his second amended complaint, he removed that line, and claimed to be “an individual with a residence in California.” The district court “strongly admonishe[d]” Love for alleging to have a residence in California and, based on this “legal nullity,” claiming in papers that “Love is a California resident.” (emphasis in original).

When an issue is a sort of 50/50, very debatable issue that the court just didn't happen to rule on in favor of the plaintiff, courts typically don't "admonish" plaintiffs in relation to said issue.

[HeyJude]

Also from that July 8, 2010 Court of Appeals ruling (which is easily Google-able):

The district court awarded attorney's fees after finding that the copyright claims “bordered on frivolous and were not objectively reasonable” and that they “contributed to the bloat” of a “vastly overpled ․ case.” The district court saw Love's theory of the case to be fatally flawed from the outset. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1530601.html#sthash.9HzYcM99.dpuf

While I don't want to overstate the use of such language, it isn't as though you see *in every case* the court throwing around terms like "bordered on frivolous", "bloat", and "vastly overpled."

Also very troubling is an entire entry in the complaint back from 2005 that basically just rips Al Jardine a new one, even though he's not even a party (not even indirectly through BRI) to the lawsuit. For no apparent reason other than to provide "background" to the group's history, Jardine is characterized thusly; after which Brian is then compared and equated:

5. In the same time frame following Carl Wilson’s death, Alan Jardine misappropriated the trademark, bastardized The Beach Boys name, altered the traditional Beach Boys harmonies, line-up and music, defamed Mike Love and The Beach Boys in the media, and then overtly infringed upon the trademark by using it to perform live concerts while duping ticket-buyers into believing it was the BRI-licensed Beach Boys. Jardine wreaked havoc in the marketplace causing BRI to sue for a permanent injunction which was granted and then upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Brother Records, Inc. v Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003). Although Jardine is still a 25% shareholder and a Director of BRI (receiving 25% of the license revenues), he is an adjudicated infringer who has breached his fiduciary duties to BRI.

 6. Like Jardine, Brian Wilson has now with the “give-away” scheme, pursued a path to promote himself, destroy The Beach Boys trademark, and breach his fiduciary duties to BRI and to Mike Love. Historically, these breaches are the continuation of over thirty-five years of conduct by Brian Wilson to damage The Beach Boys and BRI. Between 1961 and 1966 Mike Love and Brian Wilson successfully collaborated with Carl and Dennis Wilson in the creation of hit after hit and album after album in the rapidly growing world of rock and roll music. Mike and Brian are recognized as prodigious song-writing pioneers in the early development of this musical genre. But beginning in 1965, drugs began to destroy Brian Wilson. By 1967, Brian lived either in his bed or in his sand-box in his Beverly Hills mansion. While Mike Love and The Beach Boys were touring without him, Brian was surrounded by drug addicts, drug dealers, parasites, and plagiarizers. In 1967, while Brian was living in an environment of drugs and physical and mental illness, Brian and The Beach Boys created the “Smile” album pursuant to their contract with Capitol Records, and paid for by Capitol. Brian also consulted some of the hangers-on that surrounded him at the time.

I have to say, reading the original 2005 complaint, it's just a really ugly, nasty document. I'm AMAZED Brian or Al wanted to get back on the stage with the guy that okayed that document. It drips with vindictiveness, sour grapes, decades-old grudges, and so on. Reading the 2005 complaint actually makes this recent Rolling Stone piece all the more telling.

[guitarfool2002]

Reading the appeals decision, not only was there the admonishment mentioned (and others including court fees being ordered paid to eight defendants by the plaintiff), but other points were dismissed "with prejudice", which also does not happen lightly when written in court decisions. Several of the main points seem to have been based on fabricated evidence or otherwise, including the issue of the CD giveaway which is the crux of the case and the issue of where the plaintiff (Love) was a legal resident in order to file the suit under specific guidelines depending on the state. When it was found a different state of residence had been filed in the lawsuit than was actually the case, it was not only dismissed but got "strongly admonished" by the court.

The takeaway is, among other points and inaccuracies, the evidence of the plaintiff's witness who claimed confusion over buying the CD on Ebay turned out to have been a fabrication on several levels, and the attempt to claim legal residence in California was called out by the court decision because they found the actual residence at that time was established in another state. So trying to claim a violation under the California unfair business practices banner isn't valid unless there is a legal residence in California, and the court found no basis to claim a California residence in order to file under that California guideline.

What was surprising is how much was dismissed outright, with prejudice, with admonishment, etc...including defendants named in the suit who the courts found had no reason to be named, yet the case continued to be appealed up to the 2010 9th Circuit opinion that ended it.

I have to wonder what was behind the decision to continue appealing a case that on nearly every point from the original filing was subject to so much rejection, dismissal, and even punitive actions against those filing it by just about every court that had to decide on it.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I have to say, reading the original 2005 complaint, it's just a really ugly, nasty document. I'm AMAZED Brian or Al wanted to get back on the stage with the guy that okayed that document.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Cam Mott]

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

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

[filledeplage]

In dispute was Love's residence and whether California or Nevada, whether "the business" or the "where you vote" and other indicia was weighed and how.  It is not as simplistic as some would like to think.
          

According to the July 8, 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Love had already been "strongly admonished" by the court regarding this issue:

Over the course of the proceedings, Love filed three complaints. In his first amended complaint, he alleged that he was domiciled in Nevada. In his second amended complaint, he removed that line, and claimed to be “an individual with a residence in California.” The district court “strongly admonishe[d]” Love for alleging to have a residence in California and, based on this “legal nullity,” claiming in papers that “Love is a California resident.” (emphasis in original).

When an issue is a sort of 50/50, very debatable issue that the court just didn't happen to rule on in favor of the plaintiff, courts typically don't "admonish" plaintiffs in relation to said issue.

Hey Jude - I was very clear in exactly the text I used.  I did not wander into another court phase.  It had page numbers which I provided.  

The test is generally "where you intend to return."  

[KDS]

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

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

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

[guitarfool2002]

In dispute was Love's residence and whether California or Nevada, whether "the business" or the "where you vote" and other indicia was weighed and how.  It is not as simplistic as some would like to think.
          

According to the July 8, 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Love had already been "strongly admonished" by the court regarding this issue:

Over the course of the proceedings, Love filed three complaints. In his first amended complaint, he alleged that he was domiciled in Nevada. In his second amended complaint, he removed that line, and claimed to be “an individual with a residence in California.” The district court “strongly admonishe[d]” Love for alleging to have a residence in California and, based on this “legal nullity,” claiming in papers that “Love is a California resident.” (emphasis in original).

When an issue is a sort of 50/50, very debatable issue that the court just didn't happen to rule on in favor of the plaintiff, courts typically don't "admonish" plaintiffs in relation to said issue.

Hey Jude - I was very clear in exactly the text I used.  I did not wander into another court phase.  It had page numbers which I provided.  

The test is generally "where you intend to return."  

It is as basic as the 9th circuit decision spelled it out. The first amended complaint in the district court listed a Nevada residence for the plaintiff, the second amended complaint had changed that to a California residence (ostensibly so a legality specific to California's unfair business practices which does not apply in Nevada could be referenced in the case), the court "strongly admonished" the plaintiff Love for those actions.

[Ang Jones]

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

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

I know Mike had to sue for credits which even the article suggests was Murry's fault and Mike admits Brian was cowed by his father. Of course, this was put right.  What is the other 'awful' thing?Mike complains of so much - Dennis cheating  with Mike's wife for example.

But I don't accept that wrongs that have been righted are more serious than an attitude that seems to persist today. The court case was one sign of that attitude but though that case didn't succeed Mike still seems to bear considerable ill feeling towards Brian and Al.

It seems to me that the difference between what was done to Brian and Al by Mike and what was done to Mike by Brian or at least Brian's father is that Brian and Al were subject to a malicious attack which failed to succeed because it lacked truth and Mike was denied credit but then reparation was made in full.  The wrongs to Mike have been righted. Has Mike ever apologised or shown remorse for the 2005 case? Apparently not.

[filledeplage]

In dispute was Love's residence and whether California or Nevada, whether "the business" or the "where you vote" and other indicia was weighed and how.  It is not as simplistic as some would like to think.
          

According to the July 8, 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Love had already been "strongly admonished" by the court regarding this issue:

Over the course of the proceedings, Love filed three complaints. In his first amended complaint, he alleged that he was domiciled in Nevada. In his second amended complaint, he removed that line, and claimed to be “an individual with a residence in California.” The district court “strongly admonishe[d]” Love for alleging to have a residence in California and, based on this “legal nullity,” claiming in papers that “Love is a California resident.” (emphasis in original).

When an issue is a sort of 50/50, very debatable issue that the court just didn't happen to rule on in favor of the plaintiff, courts typically don't "admonish" plaintiffs in relation to said issue.

Hey Jude - I was very clear in exactly the text I used.  I did not wander into another court phase.  It had page numbers which I provided.  

The test is generally "where you intend to return."  

It is as basic as the 9th circuit decision spelled it out. The first amended complaint in the district court listed a Nevada residence for the plaintiff, the second amended complaint had changed that to a California residence (ostensibly so a legality specific to California's unfair business practices which does not apply in Nevada could be referenced in the case), the court "strongly admonished" the plaintiff Love for those actions.

GF - if I had to guess, that probably would have been on the lawyer.  

Mike might "draft lyrics," but I highly doubt he "drafted the complaint."  And, he may have thought that owning property would or even living part-time in  CA (as people do with summer residences, even longer time-wise than the main residence) may have supported it.   We only know what is fed to us in the decision with the minutiae in the middle. Just sayin'.  

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

Umm... not quite.

"Brian" (aka "Thank You") fingers Mike, Murry, and others, even though it's unreleased (but released on promo cassettes).
"Looking Back With Love" (song) has a Charles Manson reference, kept in/signed off by Mike even if he may not have written it.
 

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike approved every word of that 2005 lawsuit.

[drbeachboy]

Not until he owns up to it and stops blaming others for his problems. He has a serious  addiction to lawyers to harass other people.

Oh, I thought you had diagnosed him formally.

[CenturyDeprived]

Not until he owns up to it and stops blaming others for his problems. He has a serious  addiction to lawyers to harass other people.

Oh, I thought you had diagnosed him formally.

Do you honestly think Mike would be way, way far off from an NPD diagnosis? That this is a completely absurd assumption to think he's even a little bit on that scale? None of us are doctors, but that doesn't negate an NPD assumption from seeming pretty likely, even if you want to be outraged by it. I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely his fault either.

[drbeachboy]

Not until he owns up to it and stops blaming others for his problems. He has a serious  addiction to lawyers to harass other people.

Oh, I thought you had diagnosed him formally.

Do you honestly think Mike would be way, way far off from an NPD diagnosis? That this is a completely absurd assumption to think he's even a little bit on that scale? None of us are doctors, but that doesn't negate an NPD assumption from seeming pretty likely, even if you want to be outraged by it. I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely his fault either.

Maybe you can convince him to seek help, since you already have him diagnosed. Good luck with that.

[drbeachboy]

Good thing you guys aren't accusing Mike of horse thievery. You'd have him strung up without a trial.

[Doo Dah]

6. Like Jardine, Brian Wilson has now with the “give-away” scheme, pursued a path to promote himself, destroy The Beach Boys trademark, and breach his fiduciary duties to BRI and to Mike Love. Historically, these breaches are the continuation of over thirty-five years of conduct by Brian Wilson to damage The Beach Boys and BRI. Between 1961 and 1966 Mike Love and Brian Wilson successfully collaborated with Carl and Dennis Wilson in the creation of hit after hit and album after album in the rapidly growing world of rock and roll music. Mike and Brian are recognized as prodigious song-writing pioneers in the early development of this musical genre. But beginning in 1965, drugs began to destroy Brian Wilson. By 1967, Brian lived either in his bed or in his sand-box in his Beverly Hills mansion. While Mike Love and The Beach Boys were touring without him, Brian was surrounded by drug addicts, drug dealers, parasites, and plagiarizers. In 1967, while Brian was living in an environment of drugs and physical and mental illness, Brian and The Beach Boys created the “Smile” album pursuant to their contract with Capitol Records, and paid for by Capitol. Brian also consulted some of the hangers-on that surrounded him at the time.

Could you imagine if that segment was quoted verbatim in Mike's forthcoming book? Could you imagine the fall out among the general music (non message board) public? I mean - he signed off on it. What a brush fire. And to think that he would be oblivious to the blow back. He would...witness the RS article. The man just doesn't GET IT.

[Empire Of Love]

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

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

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

Thanks, Custom Machine, for this.  At about 6:00 Al talks about how, first, Dennis conceived the original idea from surfing, second, Brian wrote the music, and third, Mike wrote the lyrics.  (I surely hope this was included for the court in the lyric lawsuit as evidence coming from within the band.)  

And, despite the magic synergistic quality from within the origins, and the live performance, poison is flowing from Murry's pen, undermining the band members.

The Capitol PR is generally focused on Brian Wilson songs because Murry is in bed with them.    

Two things I can't pass up in this post:

1. It is unclear from Al's statements whether he is talking about the very first song or so that they wrote, or every song they had written up to that point, or if he is just steam-of-conscious/semi-nervously answering the question.  At one point he does say Brian wrote the songs and Mike the lyrics, but then the context seems to be the very first song.  And since Mike had not written all of the lyrics up to this point there is clearly some limitation to the statement anyway.  I can't see any court giving too much weight to his statements in this context.

2. "Capitol PR is generally focused on Brian Wilson songs because Murry is in bed with them."

This is historical revisionism of the worst sort.  If you believe Capitol PR focused on Brian's songs because of Murry, you have lost all credibility, at least in my eyes.  

This is an absurd claim.  Capitol focused on Brian's songs because (a) no one else could do what Brian was doing and (b) relatively speaking, lyricists of Mike's caliber (on the early songs) were a dime a dozen.  Those lyrics, as much as I personally like many of them, really aren't very special.  Brian's music makes them come alive.  Further, it's been said by several that Brian wasn't bringing a blank page to Mike, in many cases.  He had song titles, ideas, and sometimes lyrics that Mike tweaked.  Do we even know how many of the hits he wrote from scratch?  Maybe his real claim to fame isn't even being a good lyricist, maybe it is being a pretty darn good lyrics tweaker.  Do we really even know.  Regardless, Capitol PR focused on Brian's songs because nobody really wanted songs written by the other guys - because they couldn't compare in the slightest.

Let's keep it real, don't re-write history, it is repulsive.

EoL