The Beatles Michael Jackson and Apple Computer, and entertainment lawyers Options

[Critter]

There was an item in the news recently about the Beatles' Apple Music suing Apple Computer in England. Paul McCartney is always lawsuit happy because he married into a family of entertainment lawyers.

The fact that Paul McCartney is a billionaire has to have a lot to do with the fact that he married the daughter of a very good entertainment lawyer. Linda McCartney's father and brothers are entertainment lawyers and obviously, very good entertainment lawyers.

That any of the Beatles have any money at all is a testament to just how much money the Beatles phenomenal generated. The Beatles gave away and/or lost millions perhaps billions of dollars because of their lack of financial expertise and as a result of the fact that no one could have predicted just how huge a business music in general would become, and how big a business the Beatles in particular would become. For example,

It is rather standard operating procedure these days for any famous person or brand to SELL the merchandising rights for reproduction of their image on any products. When an individual approached the Beatles to reproduce their images on merchandise, they just gave the guy the right to do it with no money to them up front in exchange for a percentage of how much the guy made from using their images. In a book that I read on the Beatles finances, it was claimed that the Beatles had no idea how much money merchandise using their images generated until the guy handed them their percentage. It was reported that Paul or John said something like: "Oh, this is great so we have to give you half of this?" And the guy said: "No, I've already taken my half, that's your half".

The way the Beatles managed to ***k up their finances is legendary. And the most legendary ***k-up, perhaps, that the Beatles did was to create the company that owns the copyrights to their songs. I say "perhaps" because it is not at all clear that the Beatles are NOT making out like bandits because they DID create the company that owns the rights to their music (which is now owned by Michael Jackson).

When the Beatles started making serious money, and maybe still, the personal income tax in England was very high. So, some rocket scientist came up with the brilliant idea that the Beatles should create a publicly traded company that would own the rights to all of their music and the company would then pay the Beatles small amounts of money over time to lessen their tax bill to the English government. At the beginning of this company's formation, the Beatles had control over the publicly traded company, but gradually they lost control of the company and Robert Stigwood ended up owing the company for most of its history.

Robert Stigwood got so tired of being sued by the Beatles for bigger payouts that he put the company up for sale and Micheal Jackson bought the company.

So, while the press reports the fact that Michael Jackson owns the company that owns the rights to the Beatles' music as something that makes Michael Jackson a power broker, the real truth is that the Beatles themselves created the company that Michael Jackson owns for their benefit. And the Beatles were wealthy enough to BUY the company themselves when Robert Stigwood put it up for sale, but they didn't. As I recall, the Beatles complained that Stigwood wanted too much money for the company and that he should have GIVEN the company back to the Beatles (because the Beatles should own their music).

This is why I said originally that the Beatles creating the company that owned their music was PERHAPS their biggest ***k-up. It is very possible that creating the company was not a ***k-up at all and that the creation of the company is in fact doing exactly what it as intended to do, i.e. make the Beatles wealthier by reducing the amount of money that they pay to the British government in taxes.

When the Beatles broke-up, Paul McCartney was still under contract to the company that owned the Beatles' music and the company, as a result, became the owner of all of the music Paul McCartney work as a solo artist. At one point the Company sued Paul McCartney for naming his wife Linda McCartney as co-author of the music he wrote as a solo artist.

The Company argued that McCartney only named Linda McCartney as co-author of his music so that he could divert some money away from the Company to Linda McCartney, who of course was his wife. At the time the British press was eager to see the spectacle of Linda McCartney trying to prove in court that she could sing and write music.

some radio DJ isolated Linda McCartney's vocals on one of Paul McCartney's records and it became one of the biggest jokes on the music scene at the time.

However, the judge in The Company vs McCartney ruled that McCartney could share writing credits with anyone he wanted to whether they were talented or not. So, Linda McCartney's estate was huge when she died BECAUSE she was named as co-author of all of the music McCartney wrote as a solo artist.