Jackson death won't affect Beatles RB Comments by Robert Purchese

My first thought was "How would Jackson's death affect a game?" then I remembered Jackson was a very clever man when he bought the rights to the Beatles back catalogue. Also he annoyed Paul McCartney which is always a bonus

@covfan, "I remembered Jackson was a very clever man when he bought the rights to the Beatles back catalogue."

Paul McCartney was also a very clever man, as it was he that taught MJ how the real money to be made in music was in music rights ownership. Jackson took that particular message very much to heart, which must have annoyed McCartney even more. Mega-Combo-Bonus.

Absolutely anything that pisses off Paul "I'm the Beatles now!" McCartney = epic win.

When i read the title of this article i jumped to the conclusion that it was because the Paul McCartney/Michael Jackson duet 'the girl is mine' was on the tracklist! Then i realised Paul McCartney solo does not equal the Beatles....

"Paul McCartney was also a very clever man, as it was he that taught MJ how the real money to be made in music was in music rights ownership"

I think MJ probably learned that lesson well before metting PM. He was probably 15 or something :)

Yeah, I was wondering what the connection was. That would probably have been quite aggravating if this had stalled Beatles: Rock Band at all.

Pffft. I have no respect for any subhuman scum like these who use ownership of music, ESPECIALLY music that was not performed by them, to make money. Now Jackson is dead, ALL his music should be FREE to EVERYONE. (Everyone who wants it - personally I'm not a fan and never was)

Anything else, such as the company owning the rights pushing to extend them for years, making billions off them, is just wrong.

Anyway, sorry about that - I just get very worked up about the sort of exploitation of musicians that the music industry is built on. Jackson epitomises this, having been used in such a way by his parents all his youth.

Paul McCartney ownes the rights to over 25K songs. Yet somehow Jackson owning the rights to the Beatles catalogue is seen as somehow unfair.

Strange how people view things.

R.I.P MJ

"Pffft. I have no respect for any subhuman scum like these who use ownership of music, ESPECIALLY music that was not performed by them, to make money. Now Jackson is dead, ALL his music should be FREE to EVERYONE. (Everyone who wants it - personally I'm not a fan and never was) "

I can tell you don't invest your money in anything. That's your choice but presumably, when you die, you're giving everything you own to The People, as you suggest Michael Jackson should?

Otherwise you're a fucking hypocrite.

At the end of the day, it's all just making stuff and then selling it. If you find that offensive, maybe you should seek out a nice communist country to settle down in.

At the end of the day, it's all just making stuff and then selling it. If you find that offensive, maybe you should seek out a nice communist country to settle down in.

It's not just that simple though, which is why even in the USA, copyright only has a limited time before all work goes into the public domain.

Seeing as nobody seems to buy music anymore you'd think it wouldn't be worth all that much these days. Can't belive it was so cheap to pick up in 1985 either, a time when even Roland Rat could make money out of selling records. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

He was a clever man in securing the right to the Beatles legacy.. just a shame he wasn't clever with his own legacy.

It's really starting to annoy me how the press are getting on their high morals and making Michael jackson a saint now he's passed, when they spent the last decade trying to destroy him in the name of money. It's not for nothing that everybody and their dad labeled Jackson "wako jacko" rather than "the king of pop" for over the last decade.. to pretend different now just because he's dead leaves a bitter taste. Especially when offenders like "the sun" dedicate columes on "the leaches out to get him" and how they "always believed in him and his genius".

At the end of the day the guy was a great showman - the best in fact. And he had some amazing songs written for him. But he will always have a soiled legacy.. be it from his actions, or nievity. The fact that he paid a rported 14mill to settle out of court on child sex abuse claims doesnt help matters... dont forget this was a guy with ALOT of money, and the best advice that that money could afford... they advised him his best choice was the settle out of court for a reason.

Well that's Harmonix down in my estimation a wee bit, using Jacko's death to get some free PR.

heehee

@Skillian
It's not just that simple though, which is why even in the USA, copyright only has a limited time before all work goes into the public domain.

Limited time? It's actually 70 years after the death of the author. If it's a work of corporate authorship, then it's 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.

So limited then, unlike personal property.

This reminds of this classic clip of MJ talking bout Pwning SONY. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW1T1DZdWrA Also check out the fanatical camera mans comments from 8min classic.





http://www.theugly.co.uk

Apple Music Corps. bought back alot of the Beattles work as Sony wanted to distance themselves from MJ after he admitted to sleeping with kids.

This is how the article should've read:

"Harmonix has said that Michael Jackson's death will not affect the release of The Beatles: Rock Band.
Furthermore, the developer told IGN there is no chance the track list will be compromised.
The Beatles: Rock Band is due out on 9th September for PS3, Wii and Xbox 360. Our gamepages below will tell you more."

Did you see what EG did there?

Talk about padding...

On the subject of the article, it's a shame that The Beatles version of RB will not be affected by MJ's death. I could really do without hearing that awful 'noise' ever again; it's so overrated.

Over & Out.

Paul McCartney ownes the rights to over 25K songs. Yet somehow Jackson owning the rights to the Beatles catalogue is seen as somehow unfair.
Strange how people view things.

Not at all. That's like saying hating George Bush precludes you from hating Osama Bin Laden. It's possible to dislike two people equally for similar reasons.

I can tell you don't invest your money in anything. That's your choice but presumably, when you die, you're giving everything you own to The People, as you suggest Michael Jackson should?
Otherwise you're a fucking hypocrite.
At the end of the day, it's all just making stuff and then selling it. If you find that offensive, maybe you should seek out a nice communist country to settle down in.

Everything I ever accomplish in life goes to helping the human species. All my research, the money I make above what I need to live off, and when I die, whatever I leave behind. There's nobody else needs it. I most CERTAINLY won't. Why the hell should I hold on to it like some crazy pharaoh convinced I can take it all with me? And why should someone else make a profit off my death? That's just sick.

It's not just that simple though, which is why even in the USA, copyright only has a limited time before all work goes into the public domain.

Quite right, a period the big publishers continue to push the government to have extended, something they sometimes succeed in. Which is utterly sickening.

It's really starting to annoy me how the press are getting on their high morals and making Michael jackson a saint now he's passed, when they spent the last decade trying to destroy him in the name of money. It's not for nothing that everybody and their dad labeled Jackson "wako jacko" rather than "the king of pop" for over the last decade.. to pretend different now just because he's dead leaves a bitter taste. Especially when offenders like "the sun" dedicate columes on "the leaches out to get him" and how they "always believed in him and his genius".

The guy was insane. There's no questioning that. And given his upbinging who wouldn't be? There's a reason he kept trying to live the childhood his family never allowed him to have. And once his madness really became obvious everyone turned on him. It's unfortunately human nature. The hypocrisy since his death is everyone who formerly criticised him to make some quick cash trying to make themselves look good in order to profit off his death too.

Limited time? It's actually 70 years after the death of the author. If it's a work of corporate authorship, then it's 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.

As I said - Sickening.