Michael Jackson's charges
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: archives: Michael Jackson's charges

Crazydog

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 07:30 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Well now Michael Jackson is claiming that instead of his declining popularity, the reason his latest album sold so poorly is because the record industry as a whole is racist. It is interesting to me that this man who spent years of his life trying to look whiter and whiter with the plastic surgery and skin bleachings is now all of a sudden a black man. I also recall him playing the race card when he was charged with child molestation. Does anyone else find this a little curious? Why doesn't he just accept the fact that he's no longer as big a star as he once was? His antics are puzzling.

I know that he supposedly has vitilglo (sp.), but I thought that was a condition in which patches of your skin lack melanin and appear white. I sure don't remember him having this condition when Thriller was big in the 80s. I didn't know it could onset in adult life. And if he does indeed have this condition, to me it makes much more sense to treat the white patches to match the rest of his skin rather than bleaching the entire rest of his body.

link to CNN article

Kaili

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 08:58 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Maybe he just has mental problems because he became so famous at such a young age. Now (well, a long time ago actually) he has become "yesterdays" star and I think it's something he can't handle maybe. Who is he without being famous? I've watched life stories on him and it seems he and his brothers and sisters had so much pressure on them. I'm really not excusing him, but I think he's just screwed up kind of.

Not even going to get into the race or skin disease issues. I don't know about the disease- he obviously had a nose job and the dimple put into his chin- again probably more to do with being a mentally weak person or something.

But then again, I've NEVER been a fan!

Seamonkey

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 02:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
He had such talent, but he's pretty loopy, (and sad and fragile) IMO and yes, since HE got into race, he's definitely way paler than I am.. he's paler than Nicole Kidman .. and he's had so much plastic surgery that he doeesn't look African American.. he looks Alien (as in extraterrestrial) American. It is somewhat worriesome that he has sole control over two small children.

But he's quite the dancer..

Webkitty

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 03:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Seamonkey, he had a cameo in MIB2, as an alien agent for the agency! He was just himself, and looked soooo bizarre!

I was a fan briefly when his Thriller album came out, but that whole child molestation thing really turned me off.
Then he started getting REALLY weird with the surgery and all.
I do think he his mentally unstable and I also worry about those two kids of (supposidly) his.

He just gives me the creeps now, too bad, I heard the song he did (a long time ago) with Paul McCartney today, he was unique in his time, but his time is over.

Twiggyish

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 03:25 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Yup I agree, Webkitty. It's a pity because he's a very talented man.

Webkitty

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 03:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Twiggy! I missed you

Kaili

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 07:09 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
He did try to adapt to changing tastes, but was just unsuccessful. I wonder if there is jealousy of Janet and the fact that she still remains relatively popular (or at least has a lot more respect than he does)...anyone know about that?

Oregonfire

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 07:39 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Have you seen that one extended video of his where the angry parents and their kids storm the "freaky" castle to run him out of town? They play it on VH1 on occasion. Michael and his ghosts proceed to entrance the kids--all little boys, BTW, while the parents look on in horror. If ever there was a window into Michael's twisted worldview, this video is it.

Highdesertgal

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 08:24 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
An alliance with Al Sharpton and Johnny Cochran does nothing to gain credibility or sympathy from me. If it was,say... Jesse Jackson and Danny Glover who were speaking out in Michael's favor, I would be more open to hearing about his complaints.

Grooch

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 08:42 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I remember reading a few months ago that Michael had taken out loans from Sony and he put up the Beatles catalog, that he owns, as collateral.

The article also said that Sony is not interested in being repaid the loan and was in fact trying not to promote his new album so it would fail. This way, Sony could then get the Beatles music and make a ton more money of it, compared to the amount Micheal owes.

Maybe this is what is about to happen, and Michael is upset and desperate.

Remember this, Prince was so upset at his music company because he believed that they were trying to take advantage of him, that he always wore the word slave on his face (or was it a symbol?), and that was why he changed his name to "The Artist".

Marhiah Carey claimed that Sony was trying to do the same thing (ok, maybe it was a divorce thing)

Green Day tried to play concerts at places that didn't use Ticketmaster because they said it was a monopoly and unfair to fans. They finally had to quit.

TLC & Toni Braxten had to declare bankruptcy because of unfair recording deals that they said was leaving them penniless.

Courtney Love has a lawsuit against the recording companies because she feels the deals they give to artists are very unfair. When a new artist has a hit album, you think they are rolling in the dough, but they have to pay for everything. And it often leaves them with nothing.

And as a last point, when Sharon Osbourne was giving MTV a hard time with signing for a second season, MTV finally said, if you don't sign, then Kelly (the daughter) will never have any of her videos ever played on MTV. To me, that is blackmail.

So, in defense of Michael (which I never thought I would do) I do believe he has a side to his story that we don't know about. I have a hard time believeing that Tony Motolla called him the N word, but I do believe something is going on behind the scenes and Michael is against the ropes.

Look at everyone here calling him a freak. He may have had to team up with Cochran and Sharpton only because they are the only ones willing to listen to him.

<just some food for thought.>

Highdesertgal

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 09:01 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Grooch, those are exactly the kind of facts I can relate to, and want to read about when such a story comes out. Unfortunately we may not see such cohesive arguments gathered together in the regular media. I appreciate your information and really only disagree in that I didn't call Michael a freak.

Seamonkey

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 09:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Yes, he has a point to make, but he just doesn't come across as credible.. Sharpton <shudder>

I'd recommend the book Shakedown about Jesse Jackson before wanting him to represent me..

But, yeah.. I doubt that Sony is one bit innocent in this matter :(

Misslibra

Monday, July 08, 2002 - 11:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Twiggy I missed you too! :)

I guess if he feels he has a good case go for it. But I think the real reason there was a decline in sales of his last album is because he just isn't as popular as he was before.

Crazydog

Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 05:33 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I'm sure there could very well be some questionable business at Sony. But I agree with Misslibra that he's just not as popular, and he's having a hard time accepting it. If he charged the recording industry with unfair business practices, then I might listen and be more sympathetic. However, for a man who has spent his life denying his race and attempting to appear whiter than white, I think the charges of racism are ludicrous and not credible. He's just trying to bring attention to his failing career.

Kaili

Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 07:07 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Right- I'm sure big companies screw people over nonstop and all that, but they said on TV his last album sold 2 million copies, cost $30 million to make and $25 million to promote. Why would Sony go all out to promote an album that isn't likely to have great sales when they probably have newer, more popular artists to promote who they will get more of a return from.

If you're a popular artist, people will buy your music without a lot of promotion. For example, Dave Matthews has a new CD coming out next week. Tons have been PRE-ORDERED already. So there are fans who will buy the music no matter what. That's probably the bulk of that 2 million MJ sold. Other sales come from people hearing songs and deciding they want to buy it. That obviously didn't happen a lot for him this time.

Why didn't people hear the songs? They were probably played a few times on the radio and didn't get a lot of support or requests. The station won't keep playing something people don't like- it's too easy to change the station.

So yes, I'm sure Sony isn't innocent, but whining about poor sales and placing the blame for that on Sony is ridiculous.

Grooch

Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 10:35 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Here's the article about Michael that I was thinking about. 2933,50695,00.html,Link


Jacko Pawned $2 Million Watch to Raise Dough; Banker Claims: 'I've Kept Him Alive'


FNC
Friday, April 19, 2002
By Roger Friedman


Jacko Pawned $2 Million Watch to Raise Dough

How dire is Michael Jackson's financial situation? Last year he was forced to put up a $2 million diamond watch in order to borrow money from a bank.

This revelation comes at a crucial time in Jackson's roller-coaster career. It's already been acknowledged that he's used the Beatles song catalog to borrow $200 million from Sony Music. At the same time, Jackson is struggling with poor sales of his latest album, Invincible, and Internet rumors that Sony is ignoring the album in order to force Jackson's hand in turning over the catalog.

This column reported several weeks ago that Jackson was in constant touch with Richard Rowe, head of Sony Music Publishing, who wants to negotiate a settlement on the loan and take possession of the Beatles catalog. Sony issued a strangely worded denial at the time, saying it did not seek "to buy" ATV Music Publishing from Jackson. But, as a Sony business insider confirmed for me, "foreclose" would have been the appropriate word since Sony technically already owns the songs.

Now the news that Jackson, who lives on borrowed money, needed to pawn a diamond watch.

Strange but true: On June 14, 2001 — three days after Jackson played the finished version of Invincible for Sony executives — he borrowed money from Bank of America. In a financing statement filed with the state of California, Michael used for collateral a "King Kalla" watch made by the tony house of Vacheron Constantine. The watch is valued at roughly $1.9 million.

The very same watch was the basis of a lawsuit filed against Jackson 11 months earlier by Beverly Hills jeweler David Orgell. Jackson, Orgell claimed, had taken the watch home with him on approval. When Jackson did not return the watch or calls from Orgell, the jeweler sued him for $1.45 million, plus $15,000 for other items Jackson hadn't returned.

Jackson then did return the watch, but in court papers Orgell claimed the watch was a mess.

"The watch, when it was returned, had lotion on it," Orgell spokesman Ali Soltani said in a TV interview at the time. "The watch was scratched ... had food particles intertwined. This is a gem of a watch, and it was obviously used."

On June 13, 2001, Craig Marcus, attorney for Orgell, filed a notice with the court that the case had been settled.

The next day Jackson — evidently in possession of the watch — used it as collateral for a loan from the Bank of America. The implication is that Jackson did not have the money for the watch, and immediately needed to replace the money he had to pay Orgell.

Call it the largest pawnshop deal on record. Presumably the watch is sitting in a vault somewhere, ticking away.

Marcus did not return calls. Calls for this story to Jackson's manager, Trudy Green, and his attorney, John Branca, were not returned either.



AP
Michael Jackson
Jacko's Banker: 'I Kept Him Alive'

Jackson's penchant for borrowing money does not stop there. On June 26, 2001, he filed another Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Financing Statement. This time, possibly because his credit was tapped out at conventional banks, he took a loan from an outfit called Royalty Advance Funding of Beverly Hills, Calif. (From their Web site: "There is no minimum or maximum amount that can be advanced. Any songwriter, publisher, composer, or producer is welcome to take advantage of our music royalty/residual advancement service. No questions asked.")

The collateral was his music catalog, which contains hit songs such as "Billie Jean" and "Beat It," as well as songs Jackson purchased some time ago written by Sly Stone including classics such as "Everyday People," "Family Affair" and others.

Parviz Omidvar, the owner of Royalty Advance Funding, told me: "He doesn't blow the money. He doesn't misuse the money. He's not a very big spender. If you had the same kind of money he has, you'd have the same Neverland. He makes a ton of money, that's why he has to pay his taxes. For him, he's in a different category than you and I."

Jackson has used that same catalog, as well as the Beatles catalog, consistently over the last 10 years to raise cash to support his bizarre lifestyle. Some of his expenses (besides staggering legal and accounting fees) include maintenance of a zoo on the Neverland estate; a staff of 120 people; and at least one multimillion-dollar settlement to the family of a boy who claimed Jackson molested him.

The financing statement about the watch turned up in a stack of other filings — all under the UCC — that show the King of Pop in constant need of cash. Throughout the 1990s Jackson used his Neverland Valley Ranch near Santa Barbara, Calif., and his own song catalogs to borrow millions of dollars.

These loans, mostly from Bank of America and NationsBank, as well as Sony Music, were separate from loans he took using the Beatles song catalog as collateral. Those loans, still outstanding, are said to be in the $200 million range.

Although it's not unusual for wealthy people to use their assets as collateral, it is unusual for them to put up jewelry.

One banker, a senior vice president at the Bank of America who has worked closely on Jackson's accounts, told me yesterday: "I've kept him alive for 20 years. And it's not that the advice he gets is bad. It's him. He's his own worst enemy."

N.Y. Real Estate Broker Jacko's New Pal

But right now Jackson is depending on the advice of James Meiskin, owner of Plymouth Partners, a New York commercial real estate broker. Meiskin, who was formerly married to Jerry Seinfeld's sister-in-law Rebecca Sklar and is a dead ringer for the comedian, met Jackson in November 2000 at the home of public relations guru Howard Rubenstein when Jackson was introducing his new charity with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. I know this because I met him there. Meiskin subsequently joined the board of the charity.

When I called him last week to ask about his involvement with Jackson, Meiskin rudely told me he knew nothing about the charity or anything about Jackson. When I mentioned that he had introduced himself to me at Jackson and Boteach's Carnegie Hall charity fundraiser in 2001 — and that the money from the event had never gone to charity — Meiskin said, "I don't know what that is." And hung up.

But sources tell me that Meiskin has approached money people in New York, asking for names of people he might introduce Jackson to as a way of raising cash.

The pattern of Jackson's borrowing may be cause for alarm — and reason to think he's been getting if not bad advice over the years, then he is not as smart as he was once portrayed.

Jackson borrowed money using Neverland as collateral in late 1997. When that loan terminated, he again used his famous ranch to raise cash in October 1999. According to statistics on file in California, Neverland occupies a little over 2,500 acres. It's assessed at $12 million with another $9 million in listed improvements. But a local realtor in Los Olivos told me the property could be worth as much as $30 million by now "if the right buyer came along."

The total land value of Neverland is assessed at about $2 million.

Jackson's banker said of the Neverland loans: "DO you have a mortgage? Well, that's his mortgage."

Jacko Borrows Against Everything He Owns

But it's the song catalogs that keep Jackson going. They seem to be his only currency.

In August 1994 — five months after Time magazine reported Jackson had paid a multimillion-dollar settlement after a 14-year-old boy claimed he had molested him — the King of Pop signed loan papers with Sony Music in which he used his catalog of songs to secure a loan.

But apparently that loan didn't solve Michael's problems. In 1995, Jackson used the same catalog to borrow money from NationsBank (now Bank of America). In a separate filing with NationsBank that year, he also put up the Beatles catalog. In 1996 he again put up the MIJAC songs — including "We Are the World," the proceeds of which were supposed to go to charity.

In 1997, Neverland was used as collateral with NationsBank, while Michael borrowed money from Sony using proceeds from his deal with a Saudi prince who promised to build theme parks with him. He also borrowed money from Sony in 1997 against the MIJAC catalog. What was happening was obvious — a shell game in which Jackson kept using his copyrights as assets against which he was constantly securing cash. As one deal expired, a new one would take its place.

In October 1999, a day after Jackson took out a new loan on Neverland, for example, he borrowed more money from Bank of America using his song catalogs. The former application was made in Jackson's name; the latter was done under "MJ Publishing Trust."

Bank of America and Royalty Funding are not Jackson's only sources for getting loans. Sony Music has also been there for Jackson. A check of UCC's filed by Sony in California show that this sort of dealing is unusual for the music company. The only other artist's name that turns up with regularity is Luther Vandross.

According to filings, Jackson also borrowed money from Sony Music on Sept. 22, 1997, in a separate filing. In that loan, he used any money due him from a deal he'd made with Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal to start a number of business ventures. None of those businesses — including theme parks and restaurants, TV programming and films — panned out.

"You realize that by taking the loans from Sony, Michael was getting advances without having to pay taxes," says one source knowledgeable about Jackson's affairs. "Eventually, when the loans are called, taxes will have to be paid."

The same could be said of Jackson's outstanding loan from Sony concerning the Beatles. However, a Sony insider told me recently that the company is not interested in recouping the principal of the $200 million loan. "They just want the interest and the Beatles songs," he said.

But now rumors have surfaced — in what seems to be an organized Internet campaign — that Sony purposely backed away from Jackson's Invincible album when the singer refused to renegotiate his loan. This very column wrote something similar several months ago.

I said then that it was odd that Sony had refused to release any commercial singles from Invincible, and also refused to release Jackson's planned charity single, "What More Can I Give?" Even though Invincible wasn't the greatest album in the world, it had potential hits in "Cry" and "Butterflies." In neither case did the record company make an effort to promote them. For all intents and purposes, Invincible, with domestic sales of around 2 million copies, is now dead.

Grooch

Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 10:38 am EditMoveDeleteIP
And here is another one.

{http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55539,00.html,Link}

Michael Jackson Divorcing Sony Music


AP
Michael Jackson
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
By Roger Friedman


Michael Jackson, Sony Music Getting Divorced

It's over. And I mean, officially. Michael Jackson is leaving Sony Music.

At an event in London over the weekend, Jackson told his British fan club that he was done with Sony. All he had left to fulfill his contract, he said, was a greatest hits album with three new tracks. The new tracks were done, he said, and that was it. He bragged that he was leaving with his half of the Beatles catalog.

My inside sources at Sony told me yesterday that essentially what Michael told his fans was true. With the failed sales of Invincible (2 million copies), Sony's refusal to put out Jackson's charity single "What More Can I Give?" and Jackson's recent bonding with Al Sharpton and Johnnie Cochran in an effort to embarrass Sony, the party is over. Jackson is now free to shop for a new label.

But don't be fooled by Jackson's declarations about the Beatles catalog. Even though he retains a 50 percent interest in Sony/ATV Music Publishing, he has, as my source knowledgeable about the business side of things at Sony says: "A lot of debt with us here at Sony. We have no interest in foreclosing on it as long as Michael fulfills the terms of his agreement with us. He's paying off the interest as far as I know, and that's what's going to happen."

In other words: Jackson will be in hock to Sony for the rest of his life. I think I've told readers of this column many times that Sony would not foreclose but instead let Jackson have a graceful exit from the company. To foreclose on the catalog would have been a public relations nightmare for Sony.

But this solution also has its drawbacks for Michael, who called Sony's Tommy Mottola "the devil" during his well-chosen remarks over the weekend. He remains highly leveraged, borrowing money against the Beatles and his own song catalog as well as against Neverland. As I reported here exclusively a couple of months ago, Jackson had to borrow money from a bank last year by using a $2 million watch as collateral — so he could pay for the watch.

As Jackson exits Sony, he also leaves behind his catalog including the hit albums Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad, and Dangerous — not to mention the less successful HIStory, Blood on the Dance Floor and Invincible. The earlier albums were all remastered for CD and re-released by Sony last year at an astounding cost — a cost attributed to Jackson's debt and probably totaling over $50 million. This means that wherever Michael goes label-wise, he has nothing but his talent to offer prospective investors.

Jackson — the man who sold more albums than anyone — leaves Sony after 20 years with his hat and his glove and not much else. How did this happen? Jackson has been represented over the last two decades by all the Hollywood so-called experts: attorneys John Branca and Gary Stiffelman; by managers including his best friends John McClain and David Gest; by Trudy Green, Sandy Gallin, Louis Levin, Jeff Kwatinetz; by that banker Jane Heller, whom this column interviewed and who told me, "I've kept Michael alive all these years."

Next up for Michael is an appearance in Men in Black 2. More about that in the days to come.

Grooch

Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 10:45 am EditMoveDeleteIP
One about Courtney Love.
1,7885,00.html,Link

Courtney Love Takes on Universal
by Mark Armstrong
Feb 28, 2001, 5:15 PM PT

To hear Courtney Love talk about the music biz, you'd think she was ready to jump right out of her celebrity skin.

Hole's outspoken, unflinching lead singer is now ready for the ultimate Celebrity Deathmatch: Love has filed a blistering cross-complaint against Universal Music Group, seeking to break her contract with the megalabel and expose what she claims is a corrupt system that enslaves artists and cheats them out of royalties.

To be exact, Love tells the Los Angeles Times that the major labels' business tactics are "unconscionable and unlawful." And she's embarking on a potentially landmark legal fight to give her music-making colleagues more freedom.

In a hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court Wednesday, Love won the right to file her countersuit against Universal, which sued her and bandmate Eric Erlandson last January seeking damages for five undelivered albums (which she refuses to record for the company).

Vivendi Universal executives are not commenting on Love's suit. But in court papers, the company described the complaint as a "meritless, inflammatory diatribe" designed to "attract media attention."

And knowing Love, there oughta be plenty of attention.

"I could end up being the music industry's worst nightmare: a smart gal with a fat bank account who is unafraid to go down in flames fighting for a principle," Love, never one to get trapped in boring legalese, tells the Times. "Look, you show a music industry contract to any attorney in any other business, and their jaw just hits the floor. Somebody has to put a stop to this crap.

"I've been evangelized," she says. "I'm ready to take this thing all the way to the Supreme Court."

According to some music lawyers, the singer-actress, and widow of grunge hero Kurt Cobain, may just have a case.

"It's an issue frequently discussed in the music business," says Howard King, an attorney who represents artists like Metallica and Dr. Dre. "The lawsuit has been filed many times...We brought one on behalf of [rock group] 311 three months ago. Metallica brought one six or seven years ago. But up until now, they've always been resolved, either by modifying the band's agreement or letting the band go."

Love's complaint contends Universal Music Group hid profits, defrauded the band out of royalties and held the band to an unrealistic contract that would require seven albums over seven years. Love, however, claims record labels make that requirement impossible--what with artists pressured into doing long-term tours, constant promotional work and music videos.

The 36-year-old singer also claims the band's relationship with its label, Geffen Records, changed dramatically when Geffen was folded into Universal Music Group in 1995. Hole is currently under Universal's Interscope label (which, incidentally, Love says her band initially turned down for a deal back in the early '90s).

In her legal crusade, Love is hoping to invoke the so-called "De Havilland Law," a 1945 state statute created after actress Olivia de Havilland won a legal battle helping to free actors from long-term movie studio contracts. But the law--which prevents artists from being tied to any company for seven years--specifically excluded musicians, after record labels argued that musicians required a longer-term investment.

"The end result could rock the socks off the music industry," says A. Barry Cappello, a Santa Barbara-based trial lawyer representing Love. "Movie performers don't have the same hammer being held over their heads. They can get out of their contracts under the seven-year rule. I think Courtney wants to do something good for recording artists, and this is her way of doing it."

Love's suit also condemns the Recording Industry Association of America for "quashing" musicians' attempts to form unions and protect their rights. The RIAA has refused to comment on Love's lawsuit. (But for Love and those artists who support her, it has seemed especially ironic to watch the RIAA speak out for artists' rights in its legal battles against song-swapping service Napster.)

If Love truly is willing to take her case all the way to the Supreme Court, the industry will be watching closely.

"These [lawsuits] always involve a successful group wanting freedom from their label," says King. "And on the other side, they always involve the label wanting to hold onto the group saying, 'We made this huge investment.'

"I think the record labels have a history of aggressively protecting their turf," he adds, "and this is a pretty important part of their turf."


Courtney Love Takes on Universal
by Mark Armstrong
Feb 28, 2001, 5:15 PM PT

To hear Courtney Love talk about the music biz, you'd think she was ready to jump right out of her celebrity skin.

Hole's outspoken, unflinching lead singer is now ready for the ultimate Celebrity Deathmatch: Love has filed a blistering cross-complaint against Universal Music Group, seeking to break her contract with the megalabel and expose what she claims is a corrupt system that enslaves artists and cheats them out of royalties.

To be exact, Love tells the Los Angeles Times that the major labels' business tactics are "unconscionable and unlawful." And she's embarking on a potentially landmark legal fight to give her music-making colleagues more freedom.

In a hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court Wednesday, Love won the right to file her countersuit against Universal, which sued her and bandmate Eric Erlandson last January seeking damages for five undelivered albums (which she refuses to record for the company).

Vivendi Universal executives are not commenting on Love's suit. But in court papers, the company described the complaint as a "meritless, inflammatory diatribe" designed to "attract media attention."

And knowing Love, there oughta be plenty of attention.

"I could end up being the music industry's worst nightmare: a smart gal with a fat bank account who is unafraid to go down in flames fighting for a principle," Love, never one to get trapped in boring legalese, tells the Times. "Look, you show a music industry contract to any attorney in any other business, and their jaw just hits the floor. Somebody has to put a stop to this crap.

"I've been evangelized," she says. "I'm ready to take this thing all the way to the Supreme Court."

According to some music lawyers, the singer-actress, and widow of grunge hero Kurt Cobain, may just have a case.

"It's an issue frequently discussed in the music business," says Howard King, an attorney who represents artists like Metallica and Dr. Dre. "The lawsuit has been filed many times...We brought one on behalf of [rock group] 311 three months ago. Metallica brought one six or seven years ago. But up until now, they've always been resolved, either by modifying the band's agreement or letting the band go."

Love's complaint contends Universal Music Group hid profits, defrauded the band out of royalties and held the band to an unrealistic contract that would require seven albums over seven years. Love, however, claims record labels make that requirement impossible--what with artists pressured into doing long-term tours, constant promotional work and music videos.

The 36-year-old singer also claims the band's relationship with its label, Geffen Records, changed dramatically when Geffen was folded into Universal Music Group in 1995. Hole is currently under Universal's Interscope label (which, incidentally, Love says her band initially turned down for a deal back in the early '90s).

In her legal crusade, Love is hoping to invoke the so-called "De Havilland Law," a 1945 state statute created after actress Olivia de Havilland won a legal battle helping to free actors from long-term movie studio contracts. But the law--which prevents artists from being tied to any company for seven years--specifically excluded musicians, after record labels argued that musicians required a longer-term investment.

"The end result could rock the socks off the music industry," says A. Barry Cappello, a Santa Barbara-based trial lawyer representing Love. "Movie performers don't have the same hammer being held over their heads. They can get out of their contracts under the seven-year rule. I think Courtney wants to do something good for recording artists, and this is her way of doing it."

Love's suit also condemns the Recording Industry Association of America for "quashing" musicians' attempts to form unions and protect their rights. The RIAA has refused to comment on Love's lawsuit. (But for Love and those artists who support her, it has seemed especially ironic to watch the RIAA speak out for artists' rights in its legal battles against song-swapping service Napster.)

If Love truly is willing to take her case all the way to the Supreme Court, the industry will be watching closely.

"These [lawsuits] always involve a successful group wanting freedom from their label," says King. "And on the other side, they always involve the label wanting to hold onto the group saying, 'We made this huge investment.'

"I think the record labels have a history of aggressively protecting their turf," he adds, "and this is a pretty important part of their turf."

Grooch

Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 10:49 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I just found out that her court case is supposed to be today.

Link

Courtney Love Gets A Court Date
Friday May 31, 2002 @ 05:30 PM
By: ChartAttack.com Staff


The rumble in the jungle starring little ol' Courtney Love versus recording giant Universal Music has advanced forward one more round. In a battle that is sure to be better than any Celebrity Boxing match you can think of, Love's legal fight against Universal Music has been assigned a court date for June 11.

For any of you missing out on this epic stand-off, the whole thing has gone down like this:

Universal Music sues Love for breach of contract after her band Hole failed to deliver the five albums assigned to them under their existing contract with Universal.

Love then countersues the label, claiming among other things, that the California labour statute allowing labels to keep recording artists tied to a contract for seven years, is unfair.

Recently, according to a Reuters report, a Los Angeles judge discarded Love's labour statute argument. The judge did, however, allow Love to proceed with the sections of her lawsuit against Universal that alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and faulty accounting.

The trial is set to begin June 11 in the event that no settlement can be reached between the two parties by that time.

Barry Cappello, Love's lawyer told Reuters that he thought the possibility of settlement was very slim. "These parties have not been able to agree that black is black and white is white," he says. "We don't see eye to eye on the basics, so I don't see them settling."

This case is an important one for the recording industry, as it is the first time an artist has challenged the accounting and contractual practices of record companies.

To fight the recording industry on the seven year statute specifically, Love has formed a tag-team with Don Henley called the Recording Artists Coalition. If Love wins the lawsuit, the way labels and artists interact legally with each other will likely change fundamentally.

We're not sure who in the recording industry has allegedly posed a bigger threat to the industry — Shawn Fanning or Courtney Love? Now there's a Celebrity Death Match.

Grooch

Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 11:14 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Part of an article in The NY Times about how MTV threatened the Osbournes.

Link

Thrilled as they were with the show's success, the executives knew that the huge ratings would only create more leverage for the Osbournes.

The battle for leverage led MTV to respond in some unusual ways, at one point blocking the show from beginning its run on MTV's outlet in Britain and thus preventing Mr. Osbourne from gaining publicity when he was about to embark on a concert tour there. MTV insisted later that until a new deal was signed, it would not begin playing a music video by the Osbournes' teenage daughter, Kelly, in which she sings a slickly produced version of the Madonna song "Papa Don't Preach."

The ban on the video was meant to send a message to Sharon Osbourne, the family matriarch and business manager, who had set a goal of creating a music career for Kelly. The message, as explained by one MTV executive, was: "She has to sign the deal."

Indeed, securing a signature from Ms. Osbourne, by all accounts a master of unpredictable brinkmanship — and extraordinary chutzpah — throughout the negotiations, became an almost quixotic quest for MTV executives. The reason was understandable: MTV relied on what it called an agreement but never actually had a signed deal with the Osbournes for the first season, leaving the network open to bigger demands during the recent negotiations because of the show's unanticipated success.

Almost daily, Ms. Osbourne promised to sign a deal for next season but repeatedly put off doing so. "I don't think she's ever going to sign," one executive said last week.

Van Toffler, the president of MTV, made it clear that she would have to. "I told her: `Sharon, I love you, but we're not doing handshakes anymore,' " he said.

He added that when he pressed Ms. Osbourne, she playfully replied that she would indeed come through. "She told me she was going to sign in blood," Mr. Toffler said.

Several executives said they thought for a time that there might not be a second season of "The Osbournes."

One executive said of the talks, "I did fear the world would not see any more episodes because it would just at some point self-destruct."

MTV faced a changing roster of Osbourne representatives. Creative Artists Agency, which had handled the Osbournes in the first season, began the negotiations for the second season.

In the midst of those talks, Ms. Osbourne told MTV she was sending in Colin Newman, her longtime British accountant. Then things changed again as the family's lawyers took over.

Finally, Ariel Emanuel, the head of the Endeavor Agency in Hollywood, called MTV to say that he was taking over the deal.

Mr. Toffler said before the deal was finished: "It was confusing because of the bevy of representatives who were all declaring that they knew what Sharon wanted. At this point we don't know which end is up."

Mr. Emanuel, one of the most aggressive agents in Hollywood, said that Ms. Osbourne had called him and that he told her he could make a "precedent-setting deal."

A short time later, MTV got word that the next season of "The Osbournes" was being shopped around to the broadcast networks. "We contacted every network," Mr. Emanuel said. "They were all interested."

At least two broadcast networks were interested enough to commission extensive research into how "The Osbournes" would play as a weekly prime-time series. One network was convinced. "It would have been huge," a senior executive there said. "We were definitely bidding on it. We were led to believe it was available. We had a real plan for how we would put it on."

One plan the Osbourne side suggested would have allowed MTV to run episodes after they had first run on a network.

Infuriated, MTV's lawyers responded with a letter to the networks saying it held the legal rights to the show and would sue to keep them if the networks persisted. MTV agreed that the ultimate card the Osbournes held was to stop production on the series; according to the initial agreement, they always had the right to do that, if, for example, the family thought that the children were being upset in some way.

But no one really wanted the show to stop production, not with MTV getting its biggest price ever from advertisers on the show and the Osbournes looking at what some people were telling them was an opportunity to become "the MTV version of the Cosby family."

Mr. Emanuel said he intended to create a new economic model, with the Osbournes becoming the equivalent of a studio in controlling all rights to their show. He called for MTV to allow the show to go up for sale in syndication almost immediately, years before a television series normally would.

In fact, the deal struck yesterday will permit the Osbournes to begin selling episodes to local stations for first use in the fall of 2004. But the show made only 10 episodes last season and only 20 more are guaranteed so far for the next. Syndication typically requires 88 to 100 episodes.

The Osbourne camp won the novel right, however, to carve out new episodes from outtakes. MTV agreed to that arrangement, convinced that the real value of the show is in the initial broadcast of the episodes. Reality shows typically do not do well in syndication because the intense interest in them wears out quickly.

Even with the syndication issue mostly resolved, the deal was still hung up for weeks as new wrinkles emerged. Earlier, the network had turned down the demand for pet therapy. But the Osbournes suddenly asked to be able to appear three times a year on shows on other networks. MTV resisted because any show in which the Osbournes appeared as themselves would compete with the MTV show.

Mr. Toffler admitted to be being "at wits' end" on several of these occasions. Still, he never lost his affection for the woman at the center of the talks.

"You've got to love Sharon," he said. "There's something very lovable about her. She has several sides of her brain going at once."

Lovable to an extent. Last week, in negotiations over breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Manhattan, Ms. Osbourne, who is no fan of delicate language, unleashed enough colorful and loud invective that she drove all other patrons out of the restaurant, one customer said.

Ms. Osbourne was in England yesterday and her press representative did not respond to requests to speak with her. In her official comment on the settlement as quoted in a MTV release, Ms. Osbourne said, "It's been absolutely bleeping amazing."

And she did in fact finally sign the new deal, Mr. Toffler said, along with the other members of the family, including Ozzy, who used his real name, John Michael Osbourne.

"But it's a faxed copy of the deal," Mr. Toffler said. "So I can't tell if it's signed in blood."