Customer Discussions > Michael Jackson forum

John Branca


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-21 of 21 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 15, 2012 1:10:26 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2012 1:13:04 PM PST
AnaisKarim says:
I'm sure he's been discussed quite a bit, but here is an interesting video that packages everything very neatly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkL0TiE8ZoM

Posted on Jan 15, 2012 1:13:33 PM PST
AnaisKarim says:
I don't know why it won't format. Just cut and paste the url.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2012 2:53:36 AM PST
Scarlett says:
Anais,

All I get is a video about Michael's Will being fake but that can't be the video you're referring to, is it?

Posted on Jan 16, 2012 12:59:57 PM PST
AnaisKarim says:
That's the correct video. John Branca's signature matches MJ's signature on the will. I don't care how crazy people believe MJ was, you'd think he should know his own kids' names and not sign a will that has them incorrectly identified. There is so much that's wrong with the will that it's not even funny.

Posted on Jan 17, 2012 3:10:56 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 17, 2012 3:25:25 AM PST
Scarlett says:
Anais,

I tried to watch the video again and this is the message that is now there instead of the video. That's quite a coincidence.

JOHN BRANCA SIGNATURE - SAM..."
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner Chappell.

I thought Warner Chappell was a person who posted the video but they're:

A global music publishing company and contains one of the world's greatest collections of musical compositions, ranging from well-known standards to new songs by emerging artists. Why would a publishing house yank a video about John Branca and Michael's Will?

Warner/Chappell owns or controls rights to more than one million music compositions and has an artist roster that includes songs by more than 65,000 songwriters and composers from a diverse range of genres. The catalog includes standards such as "Happy Birthday to You", "Rhapsody in Blue", "Winter Wonderland", and the songs of Cole Porter and George and Ira Gershwin. Warner/Chappell's roster of songwriters includes artists such as Eric Clapton, Dido, Dr. Dre, Barry Gibb, Green Day, Led Zeppelin, Madonna, Nickelback, Katy Perry, Lil Wayne, Paramore, Radiohead, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Stephen Sondheim, T.I. and Timbaland.

Posted on Jan 17, 2012 6:15:39 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Feb 12, 2012 4:04:20 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2012 7:16:38 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 17, 2012 7:17:26 AM PST
Scarlett says:
Lonely Bird,

I can't remember the music that was played. Anais might. I never thought of the copyright violation. It was a video showing the Will and the supposed errors in the spelling of the childrens' names, Michael not even supposedly been there when it was written etc. etc.

Posted on Jan 17, 2012 8:59:08 AM PST
LFZ says:
Lonely Bird wrote: Large music corporations pay people to scan the net, especially places like YouTube, looking for copyright violations.

It's all done by computer with limited human intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Sheriff

Web Sheriff uses proprietary software and web-crawler programmers to search the Internet, using human auditing to determine the type of site that is posting its clients' copyrighted material. The company has stated that it is important to use an employee's value judgment so that a fan blog can be treated very differently than a Russian pirate site or a commercial bootlegger. It relies heavily on phone calls and relationship building instead of only on technology. When locating the links, it does not illegally interfere or add bogus files but targets the persons running the sites. When it detects pirated content on BitTorrent and other file-sharing sites, the offending party is sent a take-down notice before further action is taken. Web Sheriff has noted that some Torrent sites and file sharing sites such as Mediafire and Rapidshare provide access and allow them to remove infringing content.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2012 11:45:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 17, 2012 12:30:16 PM PST
AnaisKarim says:
Hmmm, I think Smooth Criminal was playing so the Estate could remove it on that technicality. Crazy though that they care so much if it's just a bunch of lunatic fans with conspiracy theories. I do believe Branca has paid posters on all the MJ forums with any decent traffic.

ETA: Fans need to just stick to the facts of what they are presenting and not use any MJ intellectual property in their videos. The song playing in the background was annoying anyway.

Posted on Jan 17, 2012 1:07:08 PM PST
LFZ says:
Oh for cryin' out loud.

Posted on Jan 17, 2012 2:42:39 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Feb 12, 2012 4:04:29 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2012 12:58:54 AM PST
Scarlett says:
Lonely Bird says:
Smooth Criminal isn't copyrighted by Warner.

Isn't it copywrited by Epic records? If that's the case, we're back in our Twilight Zone discussions because there was no reason to remove that video. There was nothing offensive in it as far as content is concerned.

Posted on Jan 18, 2012 1:53:37 AM PST
LFZ says:
Copyright isn't the only reason one's YouTube video might be removed.

http://www.youtube.com/t/terms

"You will also not submit any material which is obscene, defamatory or otherwise objectionable, or unlawful."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2012 2:36:01 AM PST
AnaisKarim says:
LFZ I think you work for Branca. That Is All.

But yeah, Smooth Criminal is MIJAC.

Posted on Jan 18, 2012 9:03:21 AM PST
LFZ says:
You're wrong. Don't know the man or anyone who works for him. That Is All.

Posted on May 11, 2012 6:38:31 PM PDT
Dialdancer says:
Speaking of Copyrights:

http://twitpic.com/42djmd/full

Posted on May 11, 2012 6:43:09 PM PDT
Dialdancer says:
Did not see this comment until today.

"""You will also not submit any material which is obscene, defamatory or otherwise objectionable, or unlawful.""

Oh really, then why are there thousands of videos on YouTube which are nothing more than pornography defaming innocents?

Posted on May 15, 2012 12:46:28 PM PDT
Dialdancer says:
C. Starling & MJ100%fan,

I need your input and a clarification of what the Thriller copyrights document I posted on May 11, 2012 means.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 3:54:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2012 3:55:38 PM PDT
J. Leone says:
Jumping in. I really am not sure, but good it be that Circuit City had the exclusive rights to put out a special DVD for "Thriller 25"?. It seems it is like the kind of contract that Wal-Mart had when they had a special edition, two-disc set with extras of "This is It" that only could be purchased at their stores. Didn't Best Buy have a special edition as well that was only sold at their stores too?

I'm not sure what the comment underneath means about Branca's email now being understood.

Posted on May 15, 2012 5:12:57 PM PDT
C. Starling says:
Dialdancer - "I need your input and a clarification of what the Thriller copyrights document I posted on May 11, 2012 means."

It means that the copyright holder is MJJ Productions, Inc, which is one of MJ's companies. Zifferen, Brittenham, Branca, and Fischer is John Branca's law firm. Branca is the legal counsel for MJJ. Nothing unusual here.

Posted on May 15, 2012 6:40:06 PM PDT
Dialdancer says:
Thank you Starling.

I can keep up with the criminal, but not the civil for entertainment as well. The date of submission (2008) was of concern
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Michael Jackson forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  21
Initial post:  Jan 15, 2012
Latest post:  May 15, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions