Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

By the way, a little birdie told me that the Estate tried to have fakemichael.com removed but couldn't prove their case. So consider that a little victory.
 
Hey Bumper - Soldier Boy was copyrighted in 2005 yet Cascio claims he co-wrote it with Michael and Porte in 2007. Thoughts?
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Who copyrighted what? Lyrics? Music? Vocals? Is it the same song? etc.
Click to expand...


Relevance:
Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: PAu002970608 / 2005-06-29
Title: Just be Angelikson wire-soldier boy compilation.
Copyright Claimant: James Porte, 1972-
Date of Creation: 2005
Authorship on Application: James Porte, 1972-, Edward Cascio, 1982-.
Copyright Note: Cataloged from appl. only.
Words & music.
Names: Porte, James, 1972-
Porte, James, 1972-
Cascio, Edward, 1982-
 
StellaJackson said:
By the way, a little birdie told me that the Estate tried to have fakemichael.com removed but couldn't prove their case. So consider that a little victory.
Click to expand...

ask that birdie how did they try to do that. Getting ownership of a domain name is done through internet arbitration and their records are public - there's no record for fakemichael from Estate or Sony. I think someone is making stuff up to create more anger.

Estate tried to remove teammichaeljackson.com (a website against Estate) based on 1)trademark (michael jackson) 2) confusion with Estate online team and 3) donations (financial gain). They won on first 2 lost on the last one hence the website remains.

edited to add

http://domains.adrforum.com/decision.aspx

enter fakemichael.com to the domain and hit search cases to see there's been no complaint.
do the same for teammichaeljackson.com to see a complaint from triumph inc.
 
StellaJackson said:
Relevance:
Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: PAu002970608 / 2005-06-29
Title: Just be Angelikson wire-soldier boy compilation.
Copyright Claimant: James Porte, 1972-
Date of Creation: 2005
Authorship on Application: James Porte, 1972-, Edward Cascio, 1982-.
Copyright Note: Cataloged from appl. only.
Words & music.
Names: Porte, James, 1972-
Porte, James, 1972-
Cascio, Edward, 1982-
Click to expand...

So the music and the words were copyrighted in 2005. What is meant by words? Text/lyrics or voice singing them?

Could it be that the vocals were credited afterwards in 2007? Or that there was a sort of update (is there any?)
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
So the music and the words were copyrighted in 2005. What is meant by words? Text/lyrics or voice singing them?

Could it be that the vocals were credited afterwards in 2007? Or that there was a sort of update (is there any?)
Click to expand...

There is no update. There are several registrations that relate to Cascio and Porte, including the 2008 JPEC collection. Frank Cascio is credited as a co-writer on some of those too.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
So the music and the words were copyrighted in 2005. What is meant by words? Text/lyrics or voice singing them?

Could it be that the vocals were credited afterwards in 2007? Or that there was a sort of update (is there any?)
Click to expand...

PA is performing arts and music is written lyrics and music - such as sheet music. there's no audio submitted with that registration. any audio recording would make it a SR - sound recording.

there's no updated registrations.

it simply shows that "soldier boy" was written before Michael came into the picture - which we already knew through roger friedman.

Michael could have made changes to it and recorded it later on.


StellaJackson said:
By the way, a little birdie told me that the Estate tried to have fakemichael.com removed but couldn't prove their case. So consider that a little victory.
Click to expand...

ask that birdie how did they try to do that. Getting ownership of a domain name is done through internet arbitration and their records are public - there's no record for fakemichael from Estate or Sony. I think someone is making stuff up to create more anger.

Estate tried to remove teammichaeljackson.com (a website against Estate) based on 1)trademark (michael jackson) 2) confusion with Estate online team and 3) donations (financial gain). They won on first 2 lost on the last one hence the website remains.

edited to add

http://domains.adrforum.com/decision.aspx

enter fakemichael.com to the domain and hit search cases to see there's been no complaint.
do the same for teammichaeljackson.com to see a complaint from triumph inc.

second edit

they could have sent a cease and desist notice but it's obvious that they never followed it through because in domain related disputes there should be first an complaint and arbitration request and then a trial. As there's no complaint as it can be seen above, it shows that they didn't even start to process to remove fakemichael.
 
pushukrystian said:
??? I said I don't BELIEVE he is a lawyer that's all. I don't have any proof of that and that's why I never wrote he isn't a lawyer. It is easy to understand.But it is not debate about Kapital. He is or he isn't a lawyer - doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Well when he says he believes there is a fraud, it doesn't make him less a lawyer either. Does he have proof? No. Does he have an opinion, yes, like we all do?

I am just saying one's profession and the professional ethics is one thing, one's opinion, regardless of the profession and its ethics, is another thing.
 
StellaJackson said:
There is no update. There are several registrations that relate to Cascio and Porte, including the 2008 JPEC collection. Frank Cascio is credited as a co-writer on some of those too.
Click to expand...

ivy said:
PA is performing arts and music is written lyrics and music - such as sheet music. there's no audio submitted with that registration. any audio recording would make it a SR - sound recording.

there's no updated registrations.

it simply shows that "soldier boy" was written before Michael came into the picture - which we already knew through roger friedman.

Michael could have made changes to it and recorded it later on.
Click to expand...

Regardless of my opinion that MJ doesn't sing on that track, in order to have an opinion regarding the copyrighted material by the Cascio, I need to know all the elements before issuing my opinion.

I personally have never dug up copyrighted documents by the Cascios or Michael, but as far as I see what you are telling me is that:

"Soldier Boy" was copyrighted on the paper without any sound in 2005, right?

At the same time, because there is no "SR" registration, it seems there is no trace of copyrighted sound, but it could be created any time without necessarily copyrighting it, since the music theory sheets are copyrighted? Or am I missing something here?
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
"Soldier Boy" was copyrighted on the paper without any sound in 2005, right?
Click to expand...

correct.

but it's important to note that even though the song names could be same , it doesn't mean the 2005 and 2009 registrations are the same song , in other words it could be two different songs or an edited/ modified version, there's simply no way of knowing (for us).

At the same time, because there is no "SR" registration, it seems there is no trace of copyrighted sound, but it could be created any time without necessarily copyrighting it, since the mucis theory sheets are copyrighted?
Click to expand...

yes they could have recorded it anytime after 2005 without copyrighting it as it dates the existence of the song - if of course is the same song.
 
ivy said:
correct.

but it's important to note that even though the song names could be same , it doesn't mean the 2005 and 2009 registrations are the same song , in other words it could be two different songs or an edited/ modified version, there's simply no way of knowing (for us).



yes they could have recorded it anytime after 2005 without copyrighting it as it dates the existence of the song - if of course it's the same.
Click to expand...

Given the fact that there is no "SR" update, we can assume that it's the same/similar song/track/creation. I don't see any conflictual situation then, except if Eddie indeed claimed that he wrote (in the sense of creating) it with Michael in 2007 instead of saying that he edited or completed it with Michael in 2007.

I mean, other than Eddie's inappropriate terminology of "writing/creating" and "editing/completing", I don't see anything that would or could change or reinforce my opinion on those tracks.

p.s. Welcome back Ivy, it's like drugs, huh? :D
 
BUMPER SNIPPET;3577745 said:
p.s. Welcome back Ivy, it's like drugs, huh? :D
Click to expand...

I have no desire to comment or write any personal opinions / answers.

I'm just here to write about technical, legal and verifiable stuff such as copyright registrations or domain complaints (or actually lack of such complaints) - or in short just legal blabla.

When he wrote that Cascios june registration was only for lírics some dont want to believe him. When he wrote about Soldierboy before Mj came , we use him.
Click to expand...

he's a human and that means he can be wrong. We have the copyright registration that we can see with our own eyes which clearly states "sound recording". We can either be sheep and take Friedman's word as gospel, or use our brain to see that he was wrong about "lyrics only" part. It's just natural as he's human and doesn't know everything and can be wrong.

I personally cannot comprehend how anyone could read "sound recording" and still mistakenly think it was "lyrics only". doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
 
ivy said:
I have no desire to comment or write any personal opinions / answers.

I'm just here to write about technical, legal and verifiable stuff such as copyright registrations or domain complaints (or actually lack of such complaints) - or in short just legal blabla.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's like cigarettes. You take one to socialize, and you end up addicted.
 
ivy said:
I have no desire to comment or write any personal opinions / answers.

I'm just here to write about technical, legal and verifiable stuff such as copyright registrations or domain complaints (or actually lack of such complaints) - or in short just legal blabla.



he's a human and that means he can be wrong. We have the copyright registration that we can see with our own eyes which clearly states "sound recording". We can either be sheep and take Friedman's word as gospel, or use our brain to see that he was wrong about "lyrics only" part. It's just natural as he's human and doesn't know everything and can be wrong.

I personally cannot comprehend how anyone could read "sound recording" and still mistakenly think it was "lyrics only". doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
Click to expand...

Trapped and caught :D
 
ivy said:
I personally cannot comprehend how anyone could read "sound recording" and still mistakenly think it was "lyrics only". doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
Click to expand...
Do u really believe Roger wasted his time looking for database of copyright to write only LYRICS?. I really believe he received all the info from Cascios or Frank Dileo.. Glad to see u again. :)
 
Kapital77 said:
Do u really believe Roger wasted his time looking for database of copyright to write only LYRICS?. I really believe he received all the info from Cascios or Frank Dileo.. Glad to see u again. :)
Click to expand...

I don't care what Friedman did or didn't do. I don't speculate and then act like it's a fact. I have my own brain to come to conclusions.

My eyes can see "sound recording and music" from the government copyright website and I can read detailed explanation of what sound recording is (again "sound" and "recording" doesn't really need an explanation) and can see it needs submission of 2 phonorecord. It's not rocket science to conclude it had an audio file (also there was performance credit) but hey you want to believe it's lyrics only be my guest.

Trapped and caught :)
Click to expand...

you classify it as a personal opinion? fine however I disagree. However I really cannot tolerate misconceptions and made up stuff and I only wanted to correct "legal blabla".

Copyright rules are written and public and easy to understand. Even the explanations aren't read, "Sound recording" is self explanatory it's recorded sound hence an audio. I really really cannot understand how anyone can look to it and still argue that it's "lyrics only".

Similar can be said for domain complaints. in USA 99% of legal stuff is public - if you know where to look for- I don't appreciate made up stories in that regard as well.

so if you want to see it as "personal opinion" again fine but I see as technical and legal corrections so that people won't have misconceptions.

but perhaps it's futile as well, for example the more I see "lyrics only" written I feel perhaps that doubters are so in depth in this that they aren't in a position to accept that they are wrong even when you show them a written irrefutable fact. I guess whatever rocks your boat.

you'll see I won't be part of this debate, heck if it's not wanted I'll even stop these as well - which I only saw as corrections of misconceptions- and let everyone to imagine whatever they please.
 
ivy said:
I don't care what Friedman did or didn't do. I don't speculate and then act like it's a fact. I have my own brain to come to conclusions.

My eyes can see "sound recording and music" from the government copyright website and I can read detailed explanation of what sound recording is (again "sound" and "recording" doesn't really need an explanation) and can see it needs submission of 2 phonorecord. It's not rocket science to conclude it had an audio file (also there was performance credit) but hey you want to believe it's lyrics only be my guest.



you classify it as a personal opinion? fine however I disagree. However I really cannot tolerate misconceptions and made up stuff and I only wanted to correct "legal blabla".

Copyright rules are written and public and easy to understand. Even the explanations aren't read, "Sound recording" is self explanatory it's recorded sound hence an audio. I really really cannot understand how anyone can look to it and still argue that it's "lyrics only".

Similar can be said for domain complaints. in USA 99% of legal stuff is public - if you know where to look for- I don't appreciate made up stories in that regard as well.

so if you want to see it as "personal opinion" again fine but I see as technical and legal corrections so that people won't have misconceptions.

but perhaps it's futile as well, for example the more I see "lyrics only" written I feel perhaps that doubters are so in depth in this that they aren't in a position to accept that they are wrong even when you show them a written irrefutable fact. I guess whatever rocks your boat.

you'll see I won't be part of this debate, heck if it's not wanted I'll even stop these as well - which I only saw as corrections of misconceptions- and let everyone to imagine whatever they please.
Click to expand...

When someone says "I personally cannot comprehend", well yes that's a personal opinion. But nevermind Ivy. I said it in a good mood, and apparently I see you don't share the same mood. Suit yourself.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
When someone says "I personally cannot comprehend", well yes that's a personal opinion. But nevermind Ivy. I said it in a good mood, and apparently I see you don't share the same mood. Suit yourself.
Click to expand...

you were nitpicking on what I wrote.

Would you prefer to believe a non-existing domain complaint and false copyright registration claims or would you want some information?

and yes I personally cannot believe how people tend to believe to everything as long as it fits with their way of thinking without even checking to see if it's indeed true. and that's not an opinion about authenticity - which I will stay away- it's an opinion about misconceptions / misinformation.
 
ivy said:
I don't care what Friedman did or didn't do. I don't speculate and then act like it's a fact. I have my own brain to come to conclusions.

My eyes can see "sound recording and music" from the government copyright website and I can read detailed explanation of what sound recording is (again "sound" and "recording" doesn't really need an explanation) and can see it needs submission of 2 phonorecord. It's not rocket science to conclude it had an audio file (also there was performance credit) but hey you want to believe it's lyrics only be my guest.



you classify it as a personal opinion? fine however I disagree. However I really cannot tolerate misconceptions and made up stuff and I only wanted to correct "legal blabla".

Copyright rules are written and public and easy to understand. Even the explanations aren't read, "Sound recording" is self explanatory it's recorded sound hence an audio. I really really cannot understand how anyone can look to it and still argue that it's "lyrics only".

Similar can be said for domain complaints. in USA 99% of legal stuff is public - if you know where to look for- I don't appreciate made up stories in that regard as well.

so if you want to see it as "personal opinion" again fine but I see as technical and legal corrections so that people won't have misconceptions.

but perhaps it's futile as well, for example the more I see "lyrics only" written I feel perhaps that doubters are so in depth in this that they aren't in a position to accept that they are wrong even when you show them a written irrefutable fact. I guess whatever rocks your boat.

you'll see I won't be part of this debate, heck if it's not wanted I'll even stop these as well - which I only saw as corrections of misconceptions- and let everyone to imagine whatever they please.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a made up story about the fakemichael.com website. It was stated by another fan. I have no idea whether it is true or not. It came from a reputable source, but I don't know where he got it from.
 
Last edited:
ivy said:
you were nitpicking on what I wrote.

Would you prefer to believe a non-existing domain complaint and false copyright registration claims or would you want some information?

and yes I personally cannot believe how people tend to believe to everything as long as it fits with their way of thinking without even checking to see if it's indeed true. and that's not an opinion about authenticity - which I will stay away- it's an opinion about misconceptions / misinformation.
Click to expand...

I wasn't nitpicking, I was just opening my big mouth to offer a smile and a little joke, and I already regret it.
 
-.- no arguing guys. Cant we just get along and go off topic for a bit so we can bond as Mj fans should?
 
They should have released the original version of All I Need then Yoko Ono could have sued the Estate ;)
 
StellaJackson said:
It wasn't a made up story about the fakemichael.com website. It was stated by another fan. I have no idea whether it is true or not. It came from a reputable source, but I don't know where he got it from.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't made it up but you also have no idea if what the other fan is saying true or not. So it can be made up by someone else or be wrong.

I was actually on twitter and saw Charles Thomson - who I love btw - tweet that " http://www.fakemichael.com -Comparison videos; Malachi's voice against Cascio tracks. Estate tried to pull it down but couldn't prove its case."

I knew from samhabib that Sony - not Estate - has sent that website a cease and desist but the owners didn't care. However there was no previous information about a case or actually trying to get control of the website.

I did what any responsible person should do and I checked to verify if the story was true. There's no domain complaint in national arbitration forum - which handles such disputes worldwide & a lot cheaper and quicker than a lawsuit and there's no lawsuit filed by MJ Estate in USA. So as far as I can see it didn't happen.

It's possible that Charles is confusing the other website (teammichaeljackson) Estate tried to take over or making the cease and desist email something more than it was. I would also think if doubters won anything against Estate / Sony about these songs it would be widely publicized and not just tweeted by one fan.

(Also another tweet from Charles "The owner of fakemichael.com did professional voice comparison - found it was not MJ." which is also flawed, I'm yet to see a waveform analysis that shows it's not Michael. Although there's comparison audios, they are not professional voice comparison)

Also last night Charles wasn't aware of the actual Glee song list or that the original source of the "monster" was Perez Hilton. It doesn't seem like he's closely following this and his information is coming from other fans which makes it a hearsay at best. It also explains how it could be in some way misconceptions, exaggeration etc if Charles do not have first hand knowledge.


My concern is that we lived through this and saw that how much anger and division it caused and we don't need anymore - especially if it's not true. There's no need to hate Estate when they didn't make a complaint (FYI- all the other legal things have been coming from Sony and not from MJ Estate) or go in an anger rage or cursing based on Perez Hilton's not credible information (reminder - perez hilton was the one that wrote that Michael was faking sickness to get of TII when he was really dead. That's the person you believed.). I think everyone can at least try to confirm stuff without spreading it or starting another fight.
 
@Ivy,

Glad to see you.

Even if it's only for your 'corrections of misconceptions', because it's difficult for me to know what to believe or not.

I want the truth, and maybe we can get a little closer to that by knowing the facts and stick to the facts only (it's hard, lol). And then discuss it further from there.

Speculations get us nowhere...:)

eta: Regarding Charles Thomson,

Although I’m happy he’s on the ‘doubters’ side and he’s tweeting what we believe is true, I truly hope he’s checking his facts also (like a good journalist should). I feel he has the power/means/connections to really help us and maybe make a difference. So, his credibility is important. But again, I'm happy he's 'with us'.
 
Last edited:
MOD NOTE
Please stop the ridiculas personal attacks - if you wish to have access to this thread.
Thats it , done , finished, no more _ Stay on topic - Thanks for your cooperation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top