Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Justice_MJ]

No matter if you think the songs are fake or not, one thing is sure: this album has harmed Michael's legacy. What a shame!

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

that could be true for you but let's not act like everyone acts like that.

I agree with you there. Love Is Magical IS a barbarian.

On this thread we have seen parody videos some tasteful and some not. and I have seen Teddy being cursed out on twitter, Cascio's being called every name under the sun. Even I was harassed in multiple places due to my opinion. so let's not act like everyone is being respectful and trying to learn.

and knowing who they were probably wouldn't make any difference. they would be hired by sony and estate and their reports would have been proprietorial information that they wouldn't be able to indulge on without the authorization of sony and estate.

I am not saying they have to unveil the report. I am saying, let's hire the same guys, but how? And then instead of them doing all over again the same job, let's pay them just for the report. But again, how?

every human has the same freedom of speech and him being an expert doesn't say that he can't have an opinion.

This doesn't change the fact that the freedom of speech ends there where you start slandering others. So, I think Seth Riggs has more reason not to intervene, than to intervene.

Many musicians gave their opinion one way or another.

But no famous musician stated clearly whatsoever. And that's not just a coincidence.

Seth Riggs could do the same as well. And he couldn't be sued for slander for his opinion. Being an expert, or his opinion being "damaging" wouldn't give them any grounds for slander. Has any of the Jackson's sued for slander? Has any of the musicians that said they don't think it's Michael is sued for slander? Has any one of you being sued for slander? No. Like I said there was nothing stopping Seth Riggs to give an opinion one way or another.

But he could damage the Estate/SONY more than any of us and could be requested in court to either rephrase or prove by SONY/Estate. Saying that inhis opinion it is not MJ would be the same as saying SONY/Estate tricked us and are responsible for fraud. I don't think Estate/SONY would let anyone say anything they want. As I said you and I can slander, but they wouldn't care about us. It is not a questopn of being a human being, but of the reputation and business.

it means that those people have agreed to put their names on the statement. some didn't see this part "The Cascio tracks were also played for two very prominent persons in the music industry who played crucial roles in Michael’s career." who these 2 people are is also never mentioned. so it seems like these 2 people didn't want their names to be out in the public.

Those who don't want to be known must be available via a third party, which in this case is NOT the case. When you work as a forensic, you cannot hide your identity, you can hide your private data, but not your public one. We're not talking about national security agents or spies, they're only musicologists for heaven's sake.

one thing that you are forgetting is or was the possibility of the lawsuit and how those musicologists would become the expert witnesses. Protecting their names could be due to not show their hand and to also protect that these witnesses aren't tampered with (for example with attacks and threats)

You cannot be both, forensic and anonymous. I know what I am talking about.

 

[classic]

No matter if you think the songs are fake or not, one thing is sure: this album has harmed Michael's legacy. What a shame!

How exactly has Michael's legacy been harmed?

If this is what it took to harm his legacy, then the legacy wasn't that strong-standing in the first place.

From what I hear, Michael's work is still respected; Michael the person is still respected. This did nothing--absolutely nothing--to damage his legacy.

People said that about the Invincible period and about the trial and post trial era. And what followed that? His being requested by many to get back and tour with their backing, his working on more music with many of the "in demand" producers, etc., his selling out a major concert series event like the majority could only dream of doing, and his making the phone calls to get whomever he wanted as far as choreographers, directors, etc.

If people truly want the Estate or others to seriously listen to them and engage in the dialogue that you want, then the extreme statements and reactions have got to stop.

 

[ivy]

This doesn't change the fact that the freedom of speech ends there where you start slandering others. So, I think Seth Riggs has more reason not to intervene, than to intervene.

bumper don't argue with me. There's nothing slandering in saying "I don't think it's Michael". It's a fact.

But no famous musician stated clearly whatsoever. And that's not just a coincidence.

jennifer batten did. and one another producer did (ahh can't remember his name). 3T, Jermaine, Randy, Latoya, Cory Rooney etc etc.

Saying that inhis opinion it is not MJ would be the same as saying SONY/Estate tricked us and are responsible for fraud.

It's not the same. saying that he doesn't think the vocals to be michael's would be a personal opinion and not fact. it wouldn't put blame of fraud to anyone as it's his opinion and he might be wrong. plus even if the vocals aren't michael's that doesn't mean that sony or estate are part of the fraud. they might be unknowing fooled parties. so you cannot jump 10 steps and come up with conclusions that people didn't say or imply.

differentiate between these two statements

"I don't think it's Michael singing" - perfectly fine opinion with no slander

" These songs are faked by xyz for profit" - claim of fraud and problematic can be slander if it causes damages.

 

[Graf]

it means that those people have agreed to put their names on the statement. some didn't see this part "The Cascio tracks were also played for two very prominent persons in the music industry who played crucial roles in Michael’s career." who these 2 people are is also never mentioned. so it seems like these 2 people didn't want their names to be out in the public.

Yeah.. But the names they did mention aren't 'afraid' or whatever it may be..Why would those two people not want to be mentioned? All they are doing is here verifying the authenticity of Michael Jackson songs not giving information about a crime lord or something..

one thing that you are forgetting is or was the possibility of the lawsuit and how those musicologists would become the expert witnesses. Protecting their names could be due to not show their hand and to also protect that these witnesses aren't tampered with (for example with attacks and threats)

So your saying that the executors felt that it was/is a possibility that they are going to be sued by fans that they didn't reveal the musicologists name? Aren't the musicologists results are the most important aspect of trying to prove it's Michael on the tracks? That doesn't really show a high level of trust with the fans does it? :lol:

 

[Arklove]

How exactly has Michael's legacy been harmed?

If this is what it took to harm his legacy, then the legacy wasn't that strong-standing in the first place.

From what I hear, Michael's work is still respected; Michael the person is still respected. This did nothing--absolutely nothing--to damage his legacy.

People said that about the Invincible period and about the trial and post trial era. And what followed that? His being requested by many to get back and tour with their backing, his working on more music with many of the "in demand" producers, etc., his selling out a major concert series event like the majority could only dream of doing, and his making the phone calls to get whomever he wanted as far as choreographers, directors, etc.

If people truly want the Estate or others to seriously listen to them and engage in the dialogue that you want, then the extreme statements and reactions have got to stop.

How exactly does this HELP Michael's legacy? I see what you're saying, and I don't think it's going to damage it in the long run..However, having these songs (whether you believe it's him singing or not) on a album with Michael Jackson's name on it, gives the impression that Michael is easily replaceable with processed computerized sounds OR an imposter. And this is all being done over his dead body. Michael wanted his music to live on long after he was gone. I don't think this is what he would have had in mind.

It's the principle of the whole matter. Michael Jackson had a high level of perfectionism and crafted and moulded his music; it was his life. He felt most comfortable on stage. His face lit up whenever he was asked about his music. He's not just a product that is easily replaceable. That's why it's important to uphold his legacy. It's the fact that he's gone now and this is happening. He didn't put his blood, sweat and tears into his craft for the majority of his life only for people to piss on it with these bogus tracks and do nothing to represent his talent and what he worked for (again, regardless of if you believe the songs are real or not)

 

[ivy]

Yeah.. But the names they did mention aren't 'afraid' or whatever it may be..Why would those two people not want to be mentioned? All they are doing is here verifying the authenticity of Michael Jackson songs not giving information about a crime lord or something..

personal choice. in my line of work I'm asked to review books. after that I'm asked if i give my authorization for my name included in the reviewers lists. sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. it's a personal choice. My work has a personal internal pages that allows me to post my home contact information or not. Some people post that information, I don't. Again a personal choice.

So your saying that the executors felt that it was/is a possibility that they are going to be sued by fans that they didn't reveal the musicologists name? Aren't the musicologists results are the most important aspect of trying to prove it's Michael on the tracks? That doesn't really show a high level of trust with the fans does it? :lol:

i was more thinking in the terms of Jackson's filing a lawsuit and not the fans. I also believe that they wanted to protect such people from fans harassment. Look to this thread multiple people said that they contacted Seth Riggs - I did too. I also contacted Bruce Swedien. I'm sure these people whose names were mentioned got hundreds to thousands of emails asking questions. so what if these people wanted to remain anonymous?

 

[love is magical]

Sometimes, I wonder whether the Estate realized they have underestimated the negative goodwill these songs have brought.

For my own personal experience, before the album Michael, I had much more faith in the Estate in reinforcing Michael's artistic legacy. I'd support every official release. Now, I'm very skeptical. I can't say for sure whether I'll buy the next album. I'm not trying to blackmail them. But, if the song Soldier Boy is to be included, then count me out. This is how much I cannot stand the song. I regret buying two copies of the album MICHAEL.

I'm not sure if the album Live at the Forum is approved by the Estate. I guess not because it's a Jackson Five release not a Michael Jackson release. But, that album is more tastefully done than MICHAEL. For sure the live album is not aimed to the general public, but hard core Jackson Five fans and Michael Jackson fans. An album with no pretentious songs that follow today's music trend is entirely possible.

The album MICHAEL definitely makes more money for Sony than the album Live at the Forum for Universal. But, the tradeoff for profit is unnecessary stress in the fanbase.

 

[love is magical]

How exactly does this HELP Michael's legacy? I see what you're saying, and I don't think it's going to damage it in the long run..However, having these songs (whether you believe it's him singing or not) on a album with Michael Jackson's name on it, gives the impression that Michael is easily replaceable with processed computerized sounds OR an imposter. And this is all being done over his dead body. Michael wanted his music to live on long after he was gone. I don't think this is what he would have had in mind.

It's the principle of the whole matter. Michael Jackson had a high level of perfectionism and crafted and moulded his music; it was his life. He felt most comfortable on stage. His face lit up whenever he was asked about his music. He's not just a product that is easily replaceable. That's why it's important to uphold his legacy. It's the fact that he's gone now and this is happening. He didn't put his blood, sweat and tears into his craft for the majority of his life only for people to piss on it with these bogus tracks and do nothing to represent his talent and what he worked for (again, regardless of if you believe the songs are real or not)

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[Graf]

personal choice. in my line of work I'm asked to review books. after that I'm asked if i give my authorization for my name included in the reviewers lists. sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. it's a personal choice. My work has a personal internal pages that allows me to post my home contact information or not. Some people post that information, I don't. Again a personal choice.

i was more thinking in the terms of Jackson's filing a lawsuit and not the fans. I also believe that they wanted to protect such people from fans harassment. Look to this thread multiple people said that they contacted Seth Riggs - I did too. I also contacted Bruce Swedien. I'm sure these people whose names were mentioned got hundreds to thousands of emails asking questions. so what if these people wanted to remain anonymous?

I get what you mean Ivy..but I'm just disappointed that I haven't seen or heard any interview with these people named talking about the tracks..They are the ones who agreed to 'analyze' these songs and I think with that they have the task of having to deal with people who have questions about their 'confirmation'. You never know, if someone involved had actually agreed to do an interview to answer the primary questions then this whole thing might have been prevented. *shrug* Just IMO

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

bumper don't argue with me. There's nothing slandering in saying "I don't think it's Michael". It's a fact.


jennifer batten did. and one another producer did (ahh can't remember his name). 3T, Jermaine, Randy, Latoya, Cory Rooney etc etc.




It's not the same. saying that he doesn't think the vocals to be michael's would be a personal opinion and not fact. it wouldn't put blame of fraud to anyone as it's his opinion and he might be wrong. plus even if the vocals aren't michael's that doesn't mean that sony or estate are part of the fraud. they might be unknowing fooled parties. so you cannot jump 10 steps and come up with conclusions that people didn't say or imply.

differentiate between these two statements

"I don't think it's Michael singing" - perfectly fine opinion with no slander

" These songs are faked by xyz for profit" - claim of fraud and problematic can be slander if it causes damages.

I could very easily answer every single point that you stated in your post, but you seem angry with me Ivy. So I don't want you to think that I am arguing. If this is what you wanna hear, there you are: YOU ARE RIGHT, I AM WRONG. But you missed my point though: I was not focusing on the difference between one's opinion and a fact, but on what could one's opinion cause as damage, especially when it comes from somene as Riggs.

 

[love is magical]

I get what you mean Ivy..but I'm just disappointed that I haven't seen or heard any interview with these people named talking about the tracks..They are the ones who agreed to 'analyze' these songs and I think with that they have the task of having to deal with people who have questions about their 'confirmation'. You never know, if someone involved had actually agreed to do an interview to answer the primary questions then this whole thing might have been prevented. *shrug* Just IMO

True. I wonder if fans heard directly from Bruce Swedien's mouth saying "It's Michael Jackson. No doubt." Then, may be this debate was over months ago. Yes, the statement stated his name. But, they have to understand a mere statement with no further support is not sufficient to answer people's question. The Estate is pretty much telling us "We have support. But, you know what? If you want to see them, then sue us first. We'll only show you the support in court." And, with such attitude, they expect fans to have faith in them and respect them?

 

[ivy]

I could very easily answer every single point that you stated in your post, but you seem angry with me Ivy. So I don't want you to think that I am arguing. If this is what you wanna hear, there you are: YOU ARE RIGHT, I AM WRONG. But you missed my point though: I was not focusing on the difference between one's opinion and a fact, but on what could one's opinion cause as damage, especially when it comes from somene as Riggs.

I'm not angry with you, why would I be? I just cant stand the misinformation about the law. In United States freedom of speech is everything and people can express their opinions - negative or positive - freely. Being Seth Riggs wouldn't make any difference. Also you cannot make assumptions about what their statements equal to when there's multiple possibilities.

We talked about this before, some of the Jackson's openly and clearly stated that they didn't believe the vocals to be Michael's. What happened? Nothing. because it was a personal opinion nothing more and they were entitled to like or hate, support or protest anything just like any person from the street. Jackson's even went further to state that "money" was the goal for some actions but they never pointed any finger to anyone specifically. It's always general or "they". so who is this they? Sony, Cascio, Estate, Riley, the sound engineer or your grandmother? See what I'm saying?

Also any slander would require actual damages. In this instance they would need to show that people aren't buying the album because of what Seth Riggs or Jackson's said. Don't you all say that this is your opinion and you didn't give any credence to what Jackson's said? guess what by that you are removing them from any liability for their statements.

If he wanted he could have commented. Would his opinion had more weight than other people? Absolutely but it wouldn't make it open to a slander lawsuit.

True. I wonder if fans heard directly from Bruce Swedien's mouth saying "It's Michael Jackson. No doubt." Then, may be this debate was over months ago. Yes, the statement stated his name. But, they have to understand a mere statement with no further support is not sufficient to answer people's question. The Estate is pretty much telling us "We have support. But, you know what? If you want to see them, then sue us first. We'll only show you the support in court." And, with such attitude, they expect fans to have faith in them and respect them?

another thing that was mentioned before. acceptance by silence. as swedien hasn't denied saying that or asked his name to be removed, legally it's assumed that he indeed said those. does that change your opinion? (I don't think so)

 

[twinklEE]

No matter if you think the songs are fake or not, one thing is sure: this album has harmed Michael's legacy. What a shame!

To be frank here I haven't hear one single person talk about the Cascio songs or how those songs/the album have harmed Michael's legacy.
People who casually enjoy Michael's music who are not online, have hardly time to discuss those ''fake songs''. They just live their lives.
Most of the people have even forgotten these songs exist. But like always everything's blown out of prorportion in the MJ fan community.
Hate so say it, but some MJ fans have always been drama queens seems like nothing's changed much apart from the fact that since MJ's death the community is divided like never before.

 

[love is magical]

another thing that was mentioned before. acceptance by silence. as swedien hasn't denied saying that or asked his name to be removed, legally it's assumed that he indeed said those. does that change your opinion? (I don't think so)

I understand the concept of acceptance by silence. Bascially, we are asked to accept the songs are genuine based on claims and assumptions.

1. The Estate claimed they engaged the services of top mucisologists to analyze the vocal. As we have never seen any report from the musicologists, we can only ASSUME they did. We can also just ASSUME the musicologist examine the raw vocals, not the copied and pasted ad libs from Michael's prior recordings.

2. The Estate claimed Bruce Swedien and others are of the opinon that the songs are Michael's. As these engineers/producers have not given any direct confirmations themselved, we can only ASSUME they indeed said those.

3. Teddy Riley said he saw text from Michael and had other proofs. Since we never saw such proof, we can only ASSUME what Teddy said is true.

How am I going to change my opinon when I have never seen any tangible proof? All I have gotten in the past seven months are nothing but claims and assumptions.

I said that before many people will change their minds and accept they are wrong if they see corroborative evidence. It's not that I reject everything provided by the Estate. It's not like they show me a video clip of Michael singing "mama mama says mama got you in a zip zap" and I shouted "fake." It's not like they show me a handwritten note from Michael that said "Eddie, take #2 of Breaking News sounds good." and I shouted "fake."

May I say all the so-called evidence they provided are just claims and assumptions? If such claims are coming from people other than the Estate, we might view them as heresay. Just because the claims came from the Estate, the claims weight more?

 

[Arklove]

^^ @twinklEE - read my post #14109, and maybe you'll understand where we're coming from and that it's not a 'drama queen' issue....

 

[love is magical]

To be frank here I haven't hear one single person talk about the Cascio songs or how those songs/the album have harmed Michael's legacy.
People who casually enjoy Michael's music who are not online, have hardly time to discuss those ''fake songs''. They just live their lives.
Most of the people have even forgotten these songs exist. But like always everything's blown out of prorportion in the MJ fan community.
Hate so say it, but some MJ fans have always been drama queens seems like nothing's changed much apart from the fact that since MJ's death the community is divided like never before.

To be frank here, I'm bothered by comment like this. Are you saying people who keep talking about the Cascio tracks have no lives?

So, it's a good thing that most people forget the existence of those songs. Or, more accurately, the existence of the album MICHAEL?

Are we blowing this out of proportion? Different people have different perspectives. For many of us, we are fans of Michael Jackson because of his musical genius. His music is what makes us fans. To see his artistic legacy being disrespected is painful and hard to swallow.

People are still talking about some comments made by LaToya Jackson that nobody knows and nobody cares or some mediocre performances of Jermaine Jackson that noboy watches. Are they drama queens?

 

[Arklove]

People who casually enjoy Michael's music who are not online, have hardly time to discuss those ''fake songs''. They just live their lives.
Most of the people have even forgotten these songs exist. But like always everything's blown out of prorportion in the MJ fan community.

Why would people who casually listen to Mike's music come online to discuss these songs to the point where it's impeding on their lives? lol

Most people have forgotten these songs exist - Thank gawd for that! If you're talking about the general public, then yes, they've likely forgotten the songs exist....Which is great because the less people know about these songs, the better...Lack of promotion on Sony's part have strongly to do with this as well, obviously lol

Defending Mike's legacy is hardly blowing anything out of proportion ...

 

[The Healer]

It is so hard to understand that Sony would do the stuff they did..because they are about making money. And Michael brings money.
If the next single is The way you love me......eventhough I love the song...a strange choice.
Out of so many genious songs he made..idk.
It is like their goal is to bring him down.

 

[bluesky]

How exactly does this HELP Michael's legacy? I see what you're saying, and I don't think it's going to damage it in the long run..However, having these songs (whether you believe it's him singing or not) on a album with Michael Jackson's name on it, gives the impression that Michael is easily replaceable with processed computerized sounds OR an imposter. And this is all being done over his dead body. Michael wanted his music to live on long after he was gone. I don't think this is what he would have had in mind.

It's the principle of the whole matter. Michael Jackson had a high level of perfectionism and crafted and moulded his music; it was his life. He felt most comfortable on stage. His face lit up whenever he was asked about his music. He's not just a product that is easily replaceable. That's why it's important to uphold his legacy. It's the fact that he's gone now and this is happening. He didn't put his blood, sweat and tears into his craft for the majority of his life only for people to piss on it with these bogus tracks and do nothing to represent his talent and what he worked for (again, regardless of if you believe the songs are real or not)

So , what about the song "Take me away" from the Nathan guy posted on You tube?
it's heavy-autotuned, and the vocal does not sound good or easy to recognize as MJ, but some of the doubters comment that it's better than Cascio tracks and asking him to finish and submit to Sony.
It's also a fabricated-song. do you think that Michael would want that to release? would that help MJ's legacy?

It's just a matter of opinion and preference. I don't think Cascios songs does anything to MJ's legacy. The only disruptive thing is the fighting betweens the fans.

 

[love is magical]

So , what about the song "Take me away" from the Nathan guy posted on You tube?
it's heavy-autotuned, and the vocal does not sound good or easy to recognize as MJ, but some of the doubters comment that it's better than Cascio tracks and asking him to finish and submit to Sony.
It's also a fabricated-song. do you think that Michael would want that to release? would that help MJ's legacy?

It's just a matter of opinion and preference. I don't think Cascios songs does anything to MJ's legacy. The only disruptive thing is the fighting betweens the fans.

I don't think it's a good comparison at all. That Take Me Away song is not labelled as an official Michael Jackson song that Michael worked on in the final years of his life. The intention is clear. The creator admitted it's not a Michael Jackson song, but a song he created using Michael's a capella.

Take Me Away, unlike the Cascio tracks, will never be part of Michael Jackson's discography.

Also, is the distrust among fans caused by the Cascio tracks not bad enough? Such negative goodwill is irreversible.

 

[Arklove]

^^ Well, that song, to me, is easily identified as Michael....Heavily processed or not, it still sounds exactly like him....And, no I don't think it should be released...Michael had nothing to do with it, and to me, it's just a fun fan-made song,..that's it lol ...If other doubters think it should be released, well, then fine, they can think that...I don't agree...

You may think these songs don't do any damage to his legacy, but knowing how he viewed his musicianship and work, I think he'd be disgusted that these songs are included as part of his near perfect discography...I really do believe that...My post that you quoted sums up how I feel about Michael's material and how his legacy is being treated.....It was important to him to have his music live on long after he's gone and it's important to his fans that give a crap...

 

[bluesky]

^^ Well, that song, to me, is easily identified as Michael....Heavily processed or not, it still sounds exactly like him....And, no I don't think it should be released...Michael had nothing to do with it, and to me, it's just a fun fan-made song,..that's it lol ...If other doubters think it should be released, well, then fine, they can think that...I don't agree...

You may think these songs don't do any damage to his legacy, but knowing how he viewed his musicianship and work, I think he'd be disgusted that these songs are included as part of his near perfect discography...I really do believe that...My post that you quoted sums up how I feel about Michael's material and how his legacy is being treated.....It was important to him to have his music live on long after he's gone and it's important to his fans that give a crap...

STill, it does not change the fact that it's an fabricated-song, the voice sounds robotic. You said about his perfectionism, what he want or not... If Sony releases it , it will be on a Michael Jackson album.

I think people have differences in taste and opinion and they cannot please everyone. And seems to me, that is the case.

 

[mjjesamor]

Ivy- with reference to 'freedom of speech' in America Is it not irrelevant in this case as those people named by the Estate in their statement and those that worked on the tracks signed non-disclosure contracts?

 

[Arklove]

^^ Well, in the same token that I don't believe the Cascio songs should have been released, I don't believe the Take Me Away song should be released either....Simple as that...

 

[love is magical]

STill, it does not change the fact that it's an fabricated-song, the voice sounds robotic. You said about his perfectionism, what he want or not... If Sony releases it , it will be on a Michael Jackson album.

I think people have differences in taste and opinion and they cannot please everyone. And seems to me, that is the case.

But, the song will never be released on a Michael Jackson album. It's not a Michael Jackson song. Take Me Away will never become part of Michael Jackson's discography. Period.

Again, it's comparing apples and oranges here. You are comparing a known fan-made song (which the creator admitted Michael Jackson had nothing to do with it) to songs with questionable vocals (which the creator claimed Michael was highly involved). See the difference?

Of course different people have different taste. But, the situations are totally different.

 

[mjjesamor]

^^ Well, in the same token that I don't believe the Cascio songs should have been released, I don't believe the Take Me Away song should be released either....Simple as that...

Absolutely agree arklove, Take me Away is a nice fan made project, a video that could go viral on youtube but that's it. It's honest and it is what it says on the tin, i love the animation but i am not keen on the 'vocals'

 

[ivy]

Ivy- with reference to 'freedom of speech' in America Is it not irrelevant in this case as those people named by the Estate in their statement and those that worked on the tracks signed non-disclosure contracts?

why would it be irrelevant? so what if they worked on the album and signed a confidentiality agreement? for example if bruce swedien didn't say he thinks it's Michael , they couldn't have included his name on that statement and if his name was included without his consent he could have objected to it.

let me clarify this once again non disclosure / confidentiality contracts cannot be used to protect and do illegal actions. In other words no confidentiality agreement can help anyone to cover any fraud and or use anybody's name without their permission.

Plus seth riggs wasn't working on the tracks and I don't see any reason for him to have any confidentiality agreements.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I'm not angry with you, why would I be?

You sounded so by saying not to argue with you. You actually stick to the theory and lose sight of the reality.

I just cant stand the misinformation about the law. In United States freedom of speech is everything and people can express their opinions - negative or positive - freely.

That's a bit of exaggeration Ivy. I wasn't misinforming anyone about the law. I was merely talking about the damages that Seth Rigg's statement could cause.

People can express their opinions, I know that very well, but people can also be sued for phrasing their opinions as facts. No major artist wants to venture there against what has been established by SONY and Estate as "the truth".

Being Seth Riggs wouldn't make any difference.

It could make a damagable difference to Estate's/SONY's reputation who claim the contrary.

Also you cannot make assumptions about what their statements equal to when there's multiple possibilities.

Yes I can, I just did. And those assumptions are calculated ones, not random ones.

We talked about this before, some of the Jackson's openly and clearly stated that they didn't believe the vocals to be Michael's. What happened? Nothing.

And what do you think would have happened if the Estate had sued them? More negative publicity for the Estate! It's not what they want, nor do they weigh as much as Seth Riggs in this area.

because it was a personal opinion nothing more and they were entitled to like or hate, support or protest anything just like any person from the street.

That's false Ivy. They did not express simply an opinion, they expressed it as a fact. Read again what 3T stated on Twitter. But suing them for slander would just attract more negative publicity. It wouldn't be worthy.

Jackson's even went further to state that "money" was the goal for some actions but they never pointed any finger to anyone specifically. It's always general or "they". so who is this they? Sony, Cascio, Estate, Riley, the sound engineer or your grandmother? See what I'm saying?

I believe that "they" is referred to the Estate. SONY (Branca?) is just an opportunist in this mess. It could be any other company, but the Estate will always remain the ones who will have the final word before signing the contracts with companies.

Also any slander would require actual damages. In this instance they would need to show that people aren't buying the album because of what Seth Riggs or Jackson's said.

It would be difficult to prove, indeed, but none of them have immunity. The Estate could sue them if they wanted to.

Don't you all say that this is your opinion and you didn't give any credence to what Jackson's said? guess what by that you are removing them from any liability for their statements.

The Jacksons' opinion does matter as well, but what we were saying is that their opinion did not influence us. At the same time their opinion doesn't seem to harm Michael's sales. However, Janet's opinion --who is silent-- would probably be treated differently by the Estate, as Janet's opinion (against the musicologists') could cause more damage and controversy than all Jacksons' united. The same goes for Riggs's opinion.

If he wanted he could have commented. Would his opinion had more weight than other people? Absolutely but it wouldn't make it open to a slander lawsuit.

No one's opinion is considered as a slander, unless the plaintiff accuses you of stating your opinion as a fact and not as an opinion. So, there is always a risk, depending on who says what and how and who decides to sue and why.

another thing that was mentioned before. acceptance by silence. as swedien hasn't denied saying that or asked his name to be removed, legally it's assumed that he indeed said those. does that change your opinion? (I don't think so)

Swedien probably said what was in the report, yet we haven't seen the musicologists' report, so we have no idea what was Swedien talking about.


Now, just for the clarification that I was not misinforming anyone about law, nor the freedom of speech, nor slander vs opinion:


Injury to reputation - As in any civil case, there must be a showing of some injury. In this case, the injury must be to the defamed person’s reputation. However, slander (oral defamation) per se is actionable without proving special harm. Slander per se includes utterances relating to the commission of a crime, the plaintiff’s business or occupation, or other inflammatory statements such as having a sexually transmitted disease or being morally corrupt

Defense

The primary defense to a claim of defamation is that the statement is true. A true statement that is derogatory is not a defamatory statement. The same applies with a statement that involves an opinion. An opinion is not considered a statement alleging an objective fact but is rather a personal observation. If a defendant claims he or she was expressing a personal opinion* and not a statement of fact regarding the plaintiff, he or she can avoid liability. Privilege also avoids liability for defamation.

Source:http://www.personalinjurylawyer.com...nder/what-the-steps-proving-defamation-oregon

*In other words, someone's opinion could be interpreted as a statement of a fact damaging the reputation of a company which had already established "the truth" about a given matter.

p.s.

Defamation​

Defamation (libel is written defamation; slander is oral defamation) is the
intentional communication of a falsehood about a person, to someone other than that
person, that injures the person’s reputation. The injured person may sue and recover
damages under state law, unless state law makes the defamation privileged (for
example, a statement made in a judicial, legislative, executive, or administrative
proceeding is ordinarily privileged). Being required to pay damages for a defamatory
statement restricts one’s freedom of speech; defamation, therefore, constitutes an​

exception to the First Amendment.

Source: Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment
CRS Report for Congress
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/95-815.pdf

 

[ivy]

@Bumper

add to that search "public figure". you'll see that any defamation of public figure would require "actual malice". in this example it would require these people to know that the vocals are Michael's but yet go around saying they are fake.

Unless that's is present there wouldn't be any grounds for any slander lawsuit. So I'm still standing by my opinion and say that there's no possibility for any slander lawsuit against anyone.