Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

Korgnex said:
This is not the legal term "theft", Bumper. -.- There is a HUGE difference between common speech and terminology.
Also they mean that plagiarism can be a form of theft (thus they state it as "plagiarism is theft") and for that you need to fulfill the legal prerequisites that I have explained you above.

I have explained to you what "theft" is in legal terms and you are telling me now I would be wrong and would have no clue what plagiarism and theft are...

You also have to understand what that dictionary is telling you. It is giving you the definition of a plagiarism that IS theft. It is not saying that plagiarism is often NOT theft. This is not the sense of a legal disctionary.

I'm tired of people not ever admitting they are WRONG.
Click to expand...

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
It is not a common dictionary, but a legal dictionary. No matter how you try to twist it. Plagiarism is defined as theft. Period.
Click to expand...


You are tired of people never admitting they're wrong? You just made me laugh there. You clearly stated "plagiarism is NOT theft". I provide you a definition in the legal dictionary qualifying it as a theft, corroborating what I had said. And I have to admit that I am wrong? I am wrong wabnout what ? That plagiarism is theft? Or that "appropriating something that doesn't belong to us is theft"? Is that what you want to say, that I am wrong about that, when it says black on white that it's theft?

The one who doesn't admit being wrong is you. Compare what you poste"d with the definition in the legal dictionary.
 
Please read again:

What you have just provided does not use the legal term "theft" when it simply says "plagiarism is theft" (because that is wrong), Bumper. -.-

You also have to understand what that dictionary is telling you. It is giving you the definition of a plagiarism that IS theft. It is completely omitting the important information that plagiarism most often does not lead to a theft. This is not the sense of a legal dictionary.

There is a HUGE difference between common speech and terminology.
They mean that plagiarism can be a form of theft (thus they state it as "plagiarism is theft"
 
Last edited:
Korgnex said:
Please read again:

What you have just provided does not use the legal term "theft" when it simply says "plagiarism is theft" (because that is wrong), Bumper. -.-

You also have to understand what that dictionary is telling you. It is giving you the definition of a plagiarism that IS theft. It is completely omitting the important information that plagiarism most often does not lead to a theft. This is not the sense of a legal dictionary.

There is a HUGE difference between common speech and terminology.
They mean that plagiarism can be a form of theft (thus they state it as "plagiarism is theft"
Click to expand...
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Theft = hypernym
Plagiarism = hyponym
Click to expand...

This is wrong. Plagiarism is a special case group that can qualify for theft. It is NOT a hyponym, a hyponym is ALWAYS sorted under a hypernym. (houses, row houses)

And by the way, I have given you a definition of "plagiarism". I have even explained to you what is "theft" but you keep on saying it would be either the same or (right now) a hyponym. Both is wrong.
 
Korgnex said:
This is wrong. Plagiarism is a special case group that can qualify for theft. It is NOT a hyponym, a hyponym is ALWAYS sorted under a hypernym.

And by the way, I have given you a definition of "plagiarism". I have even explained to you what is "theft" but you keep on saying it would be either the same or (right now) a hyponym. Both is wrong.
Click to expand...

Just lol :D
 
Last edited:
KOPV said:
So have I missed anything within the last 100 pages or so that I have not replied or read? Or are we still i the same cycle?
Click to expand...

lol i wrote an epicly long post to answer this. but i'm just going to go with "no" instead and keep it simple ;)
 
Last edited:
I hope we never get any more of these songs. They are an abomination and an insult to Michael's hard work.
 
Just listening to Soldier Boy, don't know why. It's one of the most awful things ever made, blatant copy paste, just awful.
 
StellaJackson said:
I hope we never get any more of these songs. They are an abomination and an insult to Michael's hard work.
Click to expand...

I hope all of them are released, especially in their original form. I want everything MJ has ever recorded to be released.
 
kreen said:
I hope all of them are released, especially in their original form. I want everything MJ has ever recorded to be released.
Click to expand...
First I had my reservations about that, because there is a reason why some songs weren't published....I believe writing and composing a song is very personal and it's kind of like 'your baby'..:D. I can understand why artists wouldn't like the world to hear/see their art when it isn't finished yet, because it doesn't do them real justice. In fact it is wrong, IMO. But I also can/have to be objective about it; Michael isn't here anymore and that is just the way things go.

With the Cascio songs however....even if Michael sang them, why were they altered that much? And that brings me to my next question: Are you sure you want them to be released in their original form then?
 
Wait I'm so confused on Oprah Eddie Cascio said he and Michael recorded 12 songs in the Cascio basement but there are like 4 more songs written by Michael Jackson, Eddie Cascio, and James Porte

1. Exotic Dancer which Madonna said its a duet between theme both.

2. Shine which was recorded in Whiney Houston's house.
 
I assume you got this info from wikipedia? I didn't check the site about unreleased MJ tracks for some time and just took a look: Can't believe how much nonsense accumulated on this site.

So don't worry: There aren't more Cascio tracks, erspecially not with Houston or Madonna ;)
 
ADKIc3mAnX said:
Wait I'm so confused on Oprah Eddie Cascio said he and Michael recorded 12 songs in the Cascio basement but there are like 4 more songs written by Michael Jackson, Eddie Cascio, and James Porte

1. Exotic Dancer which Madonna said its a duet between theme both.

2. Shine which was recorded in Whiney Houston's house.
Click to expand...


Exotic Dancer is a Porte song, sung by him.

Shine is a track produced by Eddie Cascio for the gospel singer Duwayne Starling, who also provided backing vocals on Keep Your Head Up.

A quick look at a reputable source such as the BMI repertoire would have shown you this. The information on wikipedia regarding Michael's music is hardly accurate.
 
Last edited:
Chamife said:
New from Barry. Haven't seen it myself yet, lol. It's very short:

[youtube]vsbpTdHQvq8[/youtube]
Click to expand...

And I'm sure Barry could provide notes and other proof of Michael recording this if he needed to. And that's guest vocals for one song. Says it all really.
 
Last post for a LONG time, but doesn't anyone think the beginning beats for the Monster sound like they are compositionally the same as the Stranger in Moscow beatbox?


Peace!
 
Jesta said:
Last post for a LONG time, but doesn't anyone think the beginning beats for the Monster sound like they are compositionally the same as the Stranger in Moscow beatbox?


Peace!
Click to expand...

Yeah similar. More so in All Right though. Why you leaving?
 
thiron said:
I assume you got this info from wikipedia? I didn't check the site about unreleased MJ tracks for some time and just took a look: Can't believe how much nonsense accumulated on this site.

So don't worry: There aren't more Cascio tracks, erspecially not with Houston or Madonna ;)
Click to expand...
Hi well for me I like the Cascio tracks I don't have a problem with them but I thought that in Wikipedia you need reliable sources to update something before when I was new to it I had to provide reliable info to get it passed I guess that post is not being watched as before.
 
Jesta said:
Last post for a LONG time, but doesn't anyone think the beginning beats for the Monster sound like they are compositionally the same as the Stranger in Moscow beatbox?


Peace!
Click to expand...


dont leave, and ive always though they related to Bumper Snippet (kid) more than stranger in moscow.
 
I think Mamacita is much better song than Burn Tonight. And Teddy said that Burn Tonight is great.. Hahaha.. If they are planning to release any more Jason's songs I would actually prefer Mamacita over any other Cascio track. It's Jason's best work in my opinion!
 
ADKIc3mAnX;3598839 said:
Hi well for me I like the Cascio tracks I don't have a problem with them but I thought that in Wikipedia you need reliable sources to update something before when I was new to it I had to provide reliable info to get it passed I guess that post is not being watched as before.
Click to expand...

I don't know the exact system on wikipedia. It can be true that you need to provide a source if you wanna change or add something. But it seems that these sources aren't checked.
See for example:

They mention the song "D.I.E." (which really exists in some form). It's said to be recorded with the band Slipknot and this source is provided:
"Halstead, pp. 6–20" which is the book "For The Record". But this book was written in 2007 (at this time noboby knew about D.I.E., maybe not even MJ himself) and therefore can't be a source for this info.

So: Yeah, don't trust the wiki-site about MJ unreleased tracks and be careful when looking for other infos.
 
OnirMJ said:
I think Mamacita is much better song than Burn Tonight. And Teddy said that Burn Tonight is great.. Hahaha.. If they are planning to release any more Jason's songs I would actually prefer Mamacita over any other Cascio track. It's Jason's best work in my opinion!
Click to expand...
Mamacita is already released on Jason Malachi's album.

More Jason's songs ?


I feel so sorry for Jason Malachi he gets all this hate for no reason.
 
ADKIc3mAnX said:
Mamacita is already released on Jason Malachi's album.

More Jason's songs ?


I feel so sorry for Jason Malachi he gets all this hate for no reason.
Click to expand...

If he had anything about him he would come out and set the record straight. His silence speaks volumes.
 
StellaJackson said:
If he had anything about him he would come out and set the record straight. His silence speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
That's like going to your neighbors house and telling him or her to confess he/she didn't sing a song on the "Michael" album if they're not involved why should they care ?
 
thiron;3598927 said:
I don't know the exact system on wikipedia. It can be true that you need to provide a source if you wanna change or add something. But it seems that these sources aren't checked.
See for example:

They mention the song "D.I.E." (which really exists in some form). It's said to be recorded with the band Slipknot and this source is provided:
"Halstead, pp. 6–20" which is the book "For The Record". But this book was written in 2007 (at this time noboby knew about D.I.E., maybe not even MJ himself) and therefore can't be a source for this info.

So: Yeah, don't trust the wiki-site about MJ unreleased tracks and be careful when looking for other infos.
Click to expand...

Yes, somebody updated that wikipedia page with so many lies and false informations. Somebody need to change that. I can't believe it that this is still on.. there is a song with Marilyn Manson called Halloween Night!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top