Official back & Front thread

[bec]

That's very clever tarja.

I think all that remains as far as questions is WHY?

[_Anna_]

That's very clever tarja.

I think all that remains as far as questions is WHY?

You know, bec, what is strange to me?

First, the photo appears out of nowhere, no one knows who did it. Then, as people thought and questioned wether it's photoshopped or not, it popped out on the web in this format, with the Asian guy besides to show it's a photoshop indeed. Again no one said who did it and how did they find it was that guy. The whole thing, being as unimportant as it seems, is creepy. No one knows who did? It was just released on the web and that's all?
I know it might be a photoshop as many other hundreds out there, but why was it tied together with the new album release? who did it?Although the SONY logo is wrong.

[bec]

That's very clever tarja.

I think all that remains as far as questions is WHY?

You know, bec, what is strange to me?

First, the photo appears out of nowhere, no one knows who did it. Then, as people thought and questioned wether it's photoshopped or not, it popped out on the web in this format, with the Asian guy besides to show it's a photoshop indeed. Again no one said who did it and how did they find it was that guy. The whole thing, being as unimportant as it seems, is creepy. No one knows who did? It was just released on the web and that all?

Righto...

Just like all those song snippets showed up on YouTube right after Breaking News was released... so everyone could compare the "real" MJ voice to the "fake" MJ voice.

Convenient? Very.

For months I've been kicking around the question as to WHY there is such a multitude of MJ copyrighted material all over YouTube... I mean, yes we complain that Sony is a nazi with all their yanking for copyright actions but really, last year, up until the end of 2009 or so, MJ stuff had free reign on You Tube. Then suddenly in swoops Sony to presumeably "put a stop to it"... They made a great show of yanking videos and such... but it really seems, in hindsight, just a display... as YouTube is still CRAWLING with MJ copyrighted material.

For example, do a You Tube search of Prince or Eminem. Slim pickings. Then search Michael Jackson. Whole different ball of wax. If he was dead, ALL that stuff would be yanked. They'd want to sell it... not give it away. MJ is interested in being charitable and giving back to the fans... not Sony. Sony is a business, not a personality. MJ can afford to do give aways and it's good for PR. Plus it fits his projected persona.

So the moral of the story (post) is I'm starting to understand why. We are being led in the direction of the truth... but we are being allowed to think for ourselves. WE have to find the answers. It's a game. An elaborate game.

[truthprevails]

Thanks for all your hard work, Tarja! You've convinced me that this is just a clever Photoshop job.  It seems to me that the original photo (with the Asian person) already contained the optical illusion (i.e. one can't tell, looking at the headless body, whether it's front or back)?  Very interesting... Now I'm wondering, like Bec and _Anna_, WHO did this and WHY.  Who even knew about the picture with the Asian person?  Damn, this is so intriguing.  And yes, we have no info - no one came out to say "I did this!"  But maybe it's an Asian fan who did it?  Since we conduct our Internet searches in English, it would be hard to dig up the information if that's the case...

As for Sony yanking MJ material off YouTube: They probably realize it would be a losing battle. People would keep uploading stuff all the time - speeches, interviews, concerts, tribute videos... The LOVE would keep pouring in.  The FORCE is strong.    

[truthprevails]

Bec, you said: "For example, do a You Tube search of Prince or Eminem. Slim pickings. Then search Michael Jackson. Whole different ball of wax. If he was dead, ALL that stuff would be yanked."

I'm not sure about the underlined part... It's actually MJ who owns the copyright to his music (through his Mijac company, I believe) - just as he owns the copyright to many of the Beatles songs.  Sony might have some rights over an upcoming album (don't know exactly how this works), but ultimately the full rights revert to MJ or his estate.  And it seems that MJ - unlike Prince - didn't/doesn't care that his work is all over YouTube... Gotta love the guy.    Anyhow, I'm trying to say that when/if Michael is dead, this becomes the estate's business - not Sony's.  

BTW, I still don't understand why/how Sony got its paws on the new album(s).

[libra8]

Bec, you said: "For example, do a You Tube search of Prince or Eminem. Slim pickings. Then search Michael Jackson. Whole different ball of wax. If he was dead, ALL that stuff would be yanked."

I'm not sure about the underlined part... It's actually MJ who owns the copyright to his music (through his Mijac company, I believe) - just as he owns the copyright to many of the Beatles songs.  Sony might have some rights over an upcoming album (don't know exactly how this works), but ultimately the full rights revert to MJ or his estate.  And it seems that MJ - unlike Prince - didn't/doesn't care that his work is all over YouTube... Gotta love the guy.    Anyhow, I'm trying to say that when/if Michael is dead, this becomes the estate's business - not Sony's.  

BTW, I still don't understand why/how Sony got its paws on the new album(s).

Pleaz correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt MJ own parts of Sony?? So, if he does wouldnt that explain how Sony gets its paws on the albums??

[_Anna_]

There's an audio I've listend on youtube (which probably was made from the 2001 speech about SONY) when Michael says "owning HALF of SONY"

[SoldierofLOVE]

There's an audio I've listend on youtube (which probably was made from the 2001 speech about SONY) when Michael says "owning HALF of SONY"

He says that in one of my favorite speeches dubbed: "The Killer Thriller"'

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW1T1DZdWrA[/youtube]

[GINAFELICIA]

Back never posted anything new on mjjc  :?
I find it strange. I don't think he's the kind of person who leaves a problem unsettled.

Was Back Michael ?
he joined the forum on 30.04.2005 - so this is 77

he left there 489 posts and 4+8+9=21 and 21 is 777.

"......I, like God, do not play with dice and I don't believe in coincidences......."

[truthprevails]

There's an audio I've listend on youtube (which probably was made from the 2001 speech about SONY) when Michael says "owning HALF of SONY"

He says that in one of my favorite speeches dubbed: "The Killer Thriller"'

[youtube:2j18ck9h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW1T1DZdWrA[/youtube:2j18ck9h]

Michael also says, a bit later, "I own half of Sony's publishing"... I think he's referring to the Sony/ATV catalog, of which Michael owns 50%.  That doesn't mean he owns half of Sony, which is a huge enterprise!  MJ also says, in this video, that he owed Sony just 1 more album and then he was going to leave Sony, as a "free agent"... which to me means he'd either collaborate with another record company or he'd form his own record company. And here we are, in 2010, with SONY putting out Michael's albums!  I don't get it.  Why Sony (again)?

[libra8]

I love that speech he gives..hes so gracious, direct, handsome & healthy.

When he says "I own half of Sony's publishing"... I dont want to assume what he means by that statement, I would want to see it clarified as to what he means...speech is from 9 yrs ago...could be allot has changed between him & Sony since then...obviously it has.

[_Anna_]

Wait, there's something that is not clear to me. Michael says he owns half of SONY/ATV Music Publishing, but that's not a "catalog" it's a company. By a catalog I understand a compilation of songs from some artists not a company.

this is from wikipedia:
Sony/ATV Music Publishing is a music publishing company co-owned by The Michael Jackson Family Trust and Sony. The organisation was originally founded as Associated TeleVision (ATV) in 1955 by Lew Grade.In December 1995, ATV Music Publishing was merged with Sony and renamed Sony/ATV Music Publishing. The company became the second largest music publisher in the world.

[GINAFELICIA]

I'm not sure of the legal status of this catalog....it's like an asset you buy or it's a company...I don't really know how these things work...
But no matter what the legal form of this catalogue is, I always found absurd what some people said - that Michael was killed for the catalogue. How can they take his catalogue when the children inherit all his assets?
Also it's not very clear for me what kind of legal status his Estate has....and for how long this Estate is going to exist...... when the children will get the control of it, like it seems normal to me.

[FrenchBraid]

Guys this is not rocket science - it's perfectly clear that someone photoshopped MJ's head onto a pic of another person's BACK, then flipped it. We can all see that. The question is who and why?

But we also have MJ's BACK on the cover artwork of This Is It. The Arno Bani sizzle pic in the gold shawl was of MJ's BACK. Now we have a new video released with 90% of the footage of MJ showing us his BACK.

All very intriguing, don't you think?

[bec]

Quite intriguing, FrenchBraid.

But I think he is playing with us a little bit.

Believers and Non-Believers.

I'm starting to think the ARG aspect may have been to expand the fan base as there are clearly two camps here that don't intermingle.

We (hoaxers) are ALL about MJ... but in a different way then the fans (non-believer), who are also ALL about MJ. We seem both equally obsessed over completely different things.

They can't get enough of the product. We can't get enough of the information. They have back, we have TS. They are oblivious to back's warnings, we are skeptical of TS's. They got their world shaken (Breaking News)... what's coming for us?

Sorry, I digress. I think he is playing with both groups, each in their own way. Non-believers he seems to be riling up. Believers he seems to be encouraging, so far as of late.