The "Material Girl" or The Material Thief - Madonna Flagrantly Plagiarizes Song and Web Site

"I NO LONGER HAVE TIME TO BE CREATIVE"

- Madonna

"Madonna Flagrantly Plagiarizes Song and Web Site"

The "Material Girl" or The Material Thief!

December 27th, 2004

by Aisha

Section One: Overview
Section Two: Music, Articles and Ideas Madonna Stole from this web site
Section Three: Madonna's Career Long History of Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement
Section Four: The Primadonna and Con Artist
Section Five: Lyrics for Further Comparison

UPDATES: 2/19/05 @5:06Pm - British band BBMak accused Madonna and her director husband of plagiarizing their video. See #19 in section 3. 1/21/05 @12:21 PM See #18 of Section Two regarding the new Versace Ads and their origin. Please also see #18 in Section Three featuring a lawsuit that alleged Madonna stole the idea for the music video "Ray Of Light" from a director who submitted it to her. 1/3/05 @5:55 PM I've updated this article with the song she ripped off to write "Vogue." The track is called "Deep In Vogue" by Malcolm McLaren, which was released a year before her rip off. Both songs have similar lyrics, melodies and a similar sounding beat. Please see section three, item #3 for more details.

"I NO LONGER HAVE TIME TO BE CREATIVE," whined the Queen of Pap, Madonna, in a recent People Magazine interview. Boy is that the understatement of the century. But they were fitting words uttered by a woman who has been accused of and sued for plagiarizing many people's work. I guess plagiarism is very tiring. My question is, was she ever creative? There is a mountain of evidence that speaks to the contrary.

Is she the "Material Girl" or the material thief, as in stealing other singers' material.

Over the last year and a half, Madonna has engaged in a willful pattern of plagiarism and copyright infringement by flagrantly stealing music, lyrics, catch phrases and ideas unique to my music and web site, then passed them off as her own, for her ill advised, poorly received "American Life" album and other projects. My web site has been online since 2001, with over 4 million hits and during that time she has been a frequent visitor…and plagiarizer.

She's had a 20-year career, yet had no qualms about ripping off someone else’s debut in a vain attempt to sustain a perverse career that was built on debauchery and filth. To try to take someone else’s debut after you’ve had a 20-year career is the height of selfishness. She has no conscience and is completely incorrigible.

Throughout her career Madonna has exhibited a total disregard for copyright law and the intellectual property rights of others, evidenced by the sheer number of times she’s been sued for and or accused of plagiarism and copyright infringement - more than any other artist on record, pardon the pun (see detailed listings below). She has made a complete mockery of copyright law.

What is the sense of indie artists such as myself authoring work and copyrighting it only for major label degenerates like Madonna to rip it off and in such a lascivious, lazy, sloppy manner. Artists like her devalue copyrights and undermine what the government tried to set up to protect people's work.

The offensiveness of my work being stolen is compounded by the fact that she cannot sing and sounds like one of the Chipmunks on crack (for further reference, see Chipmunk-like vocal work on songs like, "Like A Virgin" - have you actually listened to the singing on that song). There was a movie about her that alleged she slept with an industry DJ in order for him to help her get a record deal. Listening to her voice, I'm inclined to believe that story.

She willfully and intentionally stole substantial amounts of my work that took years to author, showing complete indifference to my rights as a copyright holder.

My father is a respected DJ and musicologist, who has been in the industry for over 40 years. He has a vast knowledge of music, as do I. He has done many interviews in different countries with organizations like the Associated Press and the BBC. He’s also helped to decide legal cases and other industry disputes based on his years of experience and expertise.

In all that he has taught me about music and the industry since I was a child, having been raised in that atmosphere, I can safely say without fear of contradiction, this is by far the most flagrant and perverse case of copyright infringement in music. There is no case on record like it. Sometimes when I think about what she has been doing, I shake my head in disbelief that someone could be so self-serving and repugnant.

Her actions have greatly upset me and my family, who’ve watched me develop this project and others for years. I've worked 12-18 hour days, six days a week, for years completing these projects. Therefore, she has been stealing my life's work.

She has made millions off pornographic music and can afford to hire people to do various projects for her, but has opted to unethically and lasciviously steal from an indie musician who works, on average, 80 hours a week.

I was minding my own business, doing my work, when she decided to steal it and at such a disgraceful rate it would make the most unscrupulous thief blush.

In stealing from my web site in the gross manner she has, it has interfered with my work, because the minute an idea or song goes on my site, that parasite either steals portions of the music and lyrics or says and does the same thing/idea I wrote about doing, thereby ripping off the music and ideas.

Her disgraceful, self-serving, overly ambitious, corrupt conduct is only surpassed by her profound lack of talent and the lengths to which she will go to convince people otherwise, even if it means stealing other people’s work. She is not a writer. She is not a musician. She is not even a singer. She is a porn star.

Her behavior exemplifies everything that is wrong with the entertainment industry - vile ambition and theft combined with lack of talent and an absence of decency.

There is a difference between controversial and characterless...unique and unethical, and she falls into the latter in each category.

I am not the first person she has blatantly stolen from. In researching other cases of copyright infringement concerning her, I discovered she's had a career long history of stealing other people’s music and ideas.

As I mentioned above, she has been sued several times for plagiarism/copyright infringement, twice in the last 18 months alone. There are over a dozen credible allegations of plagiarism, copyright infringement and lawsuits against her in this regard. It is clear it is a habit she’s had since the inception of her substance-less career.

Being raised in the industry, I know that people sometimes make up stories about celebrities for financial gain, but there are a lot of people out there accusing her of plagiarism and credibly so. These people also had work that was copyrighted prior to her ripping it off.

I’ve experienced this firsthand regarding her, so I’m inclined to believe them, as everybody seems to be telling the same story, both famous and non-famous, of her illegally using their work or taking credit for their work and ideas. However, what she relies on is people not suing because it generally takes an estimated $250,000 - $750,000 to try these cases. She obviously feels there is a safety net in hiding behind a big corporation like Warner Bros, the label she records for, which many attorneys are apprehensive about suing due to their vast financial and legal resources.

In seeking legal representation, the first attorney I contacted, unbeknownst to me, had represented Warner Bros. Records, therefore it made him ineligible to be my attorney, as there would be a conflict of interest (there aren't many copyright lawyers in Miami equipped to handle a case like this). He told me he wanted to check something and would call me back. He called me back, which showed up on my caller ID, the next day after I posted something on this web site regarding the plagiarism that was taking place (but without naming Madonna, only alluding to what was happening). During the conversation, he dropped not so subtle hints at the legal action they would take if I went public with it, naming Madonna and or tried to sue for her stealing my work.

He had the gall to tell me they would put an injunction on my album when I release it, a record that was copyrighted years before her work was ever written, recorded or copyrighted, in an attempt to try to scare me out of suing. The sheer arrogance of it all was astounding.

I told him to my knowledge no judge would grant such an injunction on an album that was written and copyrighted years before the plagiarizer's version. It stands to reason that such an injunction would make no sense and be a liability. He told me not to be "cocky" as Warner is a big company with connections (Never mind I'm thinking, if their connections are so great, why do they keep losing these plagiarism suits filed against her). I told him I had more faith in the legal system than that.

He then asked if I had money to sue her (considering there was a conflict of interest, this question was totally out of place and came across as someone fishing for information to see where his employer stood). I told him I could sell my house (a little sooner than I planned) to pay for the lawsuit. And that was basically the conversation.

2. I am trying to prevent my latest work from being ripped off again and in writing about it and finally naming her publicly as the main person plagiarizing my music and web site, people will be watching her behavior. Therefore, it's to call her dubious credentials and lack of character into question, as she seems to care more about the public thinking she is some songwriting talent, when so many facts and lawsuits say otherwise. That's why she rips off other people's songs isn't it (myself, Ingrid Chavez and others). To have people believe she is some Diane Warren in a pointy bra.

Regardless, I question the sanity and stability of a woman who wore her underwear on the outside of her garments.

Also, I am of the belief that when a singer's intelligence level and speech does not match their lyrics, they are not doing the job as they claim. As I've written on this web site before, you can't speak like Barney, yet write like Shakespeare.

The first thing she plagiarized was my debut single titled “Contemporary Girl,” for use in her song “American Life.” You know, the song with the video where she throws a grenade at the President, but ironically the video ended up blowing up in her face when people panned it.

It takes a real degenerate to make a video during a war that features her dancing, prancing and posing in fatigues – fatigues that soldiers wear while defending her and everyone else’s freedoms and way of life in this country. And she wondered why people called it a publicity stunt. It was totally reprehensible and inappropriate.

“American Life” is a terrible song. She was completely out of her league in trying to do all that in one song, as she is vocally untalented. Not only can she not sing, she can’t rap either. She is even worse at rapping than she is at singing. Her rapping on the song was cringingly awful. Not to mention, rap has been around for over 20 years and so has Madonna, yet now all of a sudden she is trying to sing and rap, as I did on my single that’s been on the internet for over 3 years – and she managed to unethically use some of my music and lyrics in the process as well.

She had never performed anything like that before, which many critics commented on. It was such a drastic departure from what she is known for, and a horribly executed one as well, that she was bashed by critics and audiences for it.

An artist in her genre and age group rapping was so rare that one reviewer in the Miami Herald wrote, “Someone please draft legislation to keep middle-aged, mega-star white women from rapping." Yes, it was that horrid and not because she is white, but because she has no musical talent.

Trying to rap because someone else did, in itself is not illegal, but when you start stealing people’s lyrics and music, it is.

“Contemporary Girl,” and “American Life” have mutual lyrics, melodies, grooves, the exact same structure and are about the exact same thing. Only I wrote and copyrighted mine years prior to her version being written and copyrighted.

"Contemporary Girl" was written in 1998 and copyrighted in February 2001, with the copyright registration date bearing April 16^th, 2001 (The package was mailed to the copyright office certified mail in February). Her rip off “American Life” was written and copyrighted in 2003, two years after I copyrighted my song she infringed and over five years after I wrote it. It also stemmed from a song I wrote at age fifteen.

My web site is continuously updated with each addition being copyrighted. I own many copyrights, several of which she has willfully violated. In addition, weekly and bi-weekly time stamped compact discs are burned to indelibly record all site changes and internet postings on the Diary and Sound Off pages, which are the most frequently updated. I can completely prove that I authored the work and authored it first.

My web site went online in 2001 and contained my bio, site interviews, "Contemporary Girl," "Contemporary Girl (Rap Remix)", info page and other items. All of this can be proven via hosting records, hosting receipts, photo web site snapshots bearing dates, burned CDs with time stamps showing updates, web site authoring software showing all changes as the site progressed, people linking to the site and saved internet search engine listings and caches from companies like Google and Yahoo.

The site became very popular and during that time Madonna willfully and continually stole items from the site. Friends and web site patrons who noticed similarities in her work to mine first alerted me to the problem, but I shrugged it off, as I couldn’t believe she would be wretched enough to steal someone’s debut. It wasn't until other similarities started popping up shortly after that I realized what was happening.

From reading her lyrics to the song "American Life," it is obvious she did what other copyright infringers have done. She went over the song ("Contemporary Girl") and tried to rewrite it, taking away portions, but changing what she assumed would be enough to not get caught, while retaining the concept and some of the lyrics of the song, thereby keeping the basic idea and theme intact. Many copyright infringement cases bear this pattern.

1. Both songs contain similar lyrics. In each chorus, my song "Contemporary Girl" contains the lines "Modern Society" at the beginning of the refrain. In her rip off version "American Life" the lyrics contain the words "Modern Life" in the beginning of the refrain. The phrase “Modern Society” can be used interchangeably with the term she put in "American Life," “Modern Life” as both phrases can be used to mean the same thing.

In "Contemporary Girl" the lyric in each chorus goes: “In a modern society, that gave you the right to be in control.”

In American Life the lyric in each chorus goes “This type of modern life - Is it for me?”

2. During the rap on "Contemporary Girl," I rap about the things contemporary women have. During the rap on "American Life," she rapped about the things she has. Both songs list similar things, in the same manner and both raps contain a “jet” as one of the items owned.

In "Contemporary Girl" the lyric goes: “a private jet for you to fly out.”

In "American Life" the lyric goes: “Three nannies, an assistant and a driver and a jet”

3. In "Contemporary Girl" the lyric goes" “You can’t be the man, when you’re a girl.”

In "American Life" the lyric goes: “I tried to be a boy. I tried to be a girl”

It's the same pun about feminists, but once again, she stole the lyric and rewrote it in such as way as to supposedly not get caught.

4. In "Contemporary Girl" the lyric goes: “No matter what your friends say”

5. In "Contemporary Girl," I write about eating in the rap, the lyric goes “business brunch, the power lunch.”

In "American Life" she writes about eating in the rap, the lyric is “I'm drinking a Soy latte. I get a double shot”

6. As I wrote above, in "Contemporary Girl," I list all the things contemporary women have during the rap section:

Designer clothed
Hard nosed
Battle-ax with a fax
The business brunch
The power lunch
Net and gross
Who makes the most
Spreadsheets and requisitions
Mergers and acquisitions
Real time and the bottom line
Corporate takeovers and leveraged buyouts
A private jet for you to fly out
Just having your fun
Ms. hard as nails
But cry when you break one
You only care about how much you earn
But when will you ever learn

In "American Life" she raps about all the things she has during the rap section:

I got a lawyer and a manager
An agent and a chef
Three nannies, an assistant
And a driver and a jet
A trainer and a butler
And a bodyguard or five
A gardener and a stylist
Do you think I'm satisfied?
I'd like to express my extreme point of view
I'm not Christian and I'm not a Jew

I reiterate, she went over the song and tried to rewrite it, as both songs’ lyrics follow the same order and share mutual lyrics. There are too many similarities and they follow the same song structure as well.

7. In "Contemporary Girl" I make references to God, as I am a Christian. I’ve written about Christianity on my web site many times. In the song "American Life" she makes references to Christianity and Judaism, and is now busy writing and speaking about the Kabballah religious cult she belongs to. She hadn’t written about or spoken of it before, as she has now. All of a sudden she is pushing religion via a cult, which is absolutely appalling. Even worse, she’s been accused of trying to teach her religious cult’s beliefs to kids via her poorly written children’s books.

8. Both songs have very similar melodies and grooves/beats. Listen to the electronic groove/beat in "American Life" and you will see they got it from my track "Contemporary Girl," as it’s the same melodic pattern and rhythm as my beat with the accent on the last note of the musical phrase. Madonna, Mirwais and Missy Elliot did the song, which took my drum beat and made it into a synth pattern that runs throughout the song "American Life."

Now listen to both beats together in the proceeding clip and you will see they match. They have the same amount of beats in the musical refrain/melody and follow the same rhythmic pattern. They stole my drum beat and made it into a synthesizer pattern/techno beat.

As the combined songs show, both have the same rhythm, breaks, time and melodic pattern, only my drumbeat was made into a synth sample - which is why when played together both the "Contemporary Girl" drum beat and "American Life" synth are in complete sync. It's the musical equivalent of a tenor and soprano singing the same line at the same time - different ranges, but they are singing the same thing.

Another test, for all you home studio producers, if you run the "Contemporary Girl" beat listed above through efx processors, synth simulators or certain vocoders, you will come up with the "American Life" techno synth that's heard in her rip off.

When you put the beat for "Contemporary Girl" and "American Life" in a music recording program, as I did to render the comparative mix listed above, the wave files even look the same to the point that you think it's the same song or a copy and paste (in the recording software).

In more universal terms, that's like a sample fingerprint found at a crime scene and a fingerprint on file in a police database matching when you run it through the computer.

I have since changed the beat for the new version of "Contemporary Girl," but will retain the original beat for something else.

9. I noticed other similarities when I started reading items in publications about her releasing a single called "American Life" with a "rap remix," as one journalist wrote when they were trying to garner buzz for her then forthcoming release. I was the first female artist that had performed an album version and a rap remix version of the same track on the same single. Therefore, reading that about her new song sent up a red flag immediately.

10. Both songs have the exact same structure, which is a very uncommon one. I decided to experiment with the structure when I wrote the song. It was my debut and I wanted to do something different. It is not a common song structure in pop or R&B, especially when performed by the same artist. Another giveaway that she stole the song. The song structure is verse, chorus, verse, chorus, rap, chorus. She duplicated the song structure as I wrote it.

11. Both songs used the same type of studio vocal processing to give it a futuristic sound (a mild vocoding type effect) - only she used it throughout the song, combined with Autotune, which I don't use, that her producer and fellow plagiarizer Mirwais, applied very generously to her vocals.

12. Both songs are about the exact same thing – modern life in America for women and all the conveniences we have and realizing without love it doesn’t mean as much. Read the lyrics to both songs and you will see that.

Therefore, in the face of all these overwhelming similarities also known as rip offs, would the 3 M's - Madonna, Mirwais and Missy care to explain how all of this happened. I mean, what an extraordinary coincidence - 12 blatant similarities that rip off everything from lyrics to beats to songs structure to song topic/theme to melodies. I mean, how do you explain that (that's a rhetorical question, because you can't).

Mirwais: Why does all your music sound like it's been electrocuted? How do you manage to take a soulful beat, run it through a studio processor and turn it into that electronic crud. You are a rhythmically and idea challenged lackey.

Missy: I never took to your music due to the lyrical content, but you claim you are a Christian, so I gave you the respect that was due to your statements. However, you claim you are a Christian, yet you help them rip off my song. The other two one would expect to behave like degenerates due to their past dealings, but for someone who says she is a Christian, that's pretty disgraceful. Then again, you've been compromising your values for a long time, as anyone who would rap about public hairs and make an accompanying video vulgarly showing the camera public hair in her hands, has pretty much thrown morals out the window. One day, I hope you remember God and what He truly stands for, because what you are doing falls far below it.

The law requires that you prove access in copyright infringement cases. Access is how the infringer got a hold of your work to steal it.

The mere fact that she kept quoting items from this web site (listed below) and attributing them to herself in interviews proves access. She cannot deny that she was a frequent visitor to the web site, as she quoted so many things from this site in very public interviews, all after I wrote and copyrighted them. Not just common items either. She quoted original items and catch phrases that I'd authored for my articles on the Sound Off page and things I’d written on the Diary and Interview pages as well.

She probably assumed I got them from somewhere else so it was safe to say them in her interviews as though it was coming from her, when it truly was not, as they were original items I penned that is only on this web site...and, now ironically, in her interviews as well. How do you explain that, Madonna?

The likelihood of two people saying the exact same things over and over again is very remote…especially when one had the copyrights prior to the other one falsely attributing the items to herself each time, which was another giveaway that she had been plagiarizing the site. It started happening like clockwork. I’d write something and publish it to the web site, then shortly after like clockwork, she’d attribute it to herself in interviews, which I found very pathetic. She practically turned me into a speechwriter, but without my consent.

I have a timeline of her articles and interviews that I’ve put together of each time I wrote things on this web site and when she repeated what I wrote or announced AFTER in press releases and interviews that she’s doing the same thing that I wrote about doing.

While doing the same things as someone else is technically not copyright infringement, though it is stealing ideas which is illegal - it is creepy. It becomes willful copyright infringement when you start taking from copyrighted materials like she did, which proves access and inextricably links her to this web site.

I found many articles on the internet, in newspapers, magazines and on television where she would quote items from my site and attribute it to herself. As the months went by it got increasingly worse and more brazen as the following timeline will show. She did this on many occasions, not realizing what it meant. Here are several examples:

1. I wrote in my web site Diary and in my bio (copyright 2001) that I play the guitar, have since I was 15 years old (I got my first guitar right before my 16th birthday as a gift from my dad, for which I still have the receipt).

In 2003 Madonna puts out a press release saying she’s learning to play the guitar. Also see 2003 David Letterman appearance where she spoke about not being very good at the guitar, as she is just learning to play it.

2. I wrote on my web site’s Diary page on March 5, 2002 and December 5th, 2002 that I’ve been writing a book.

Even though I've had the studio for about a year now, I still haven't gotten used to the convenience of being able to do that. It really is something that I'm very grateful for. I've also been writing a book that's turning out really well.

This week I spent a few hours working on my book again. I started writing it last June, but I've only written in it 4 times. So far I have 100 pages and it should be about 400 pages when it's completed. It's something I work on when I have extra time or feel inspired to write it. Since I started writing it last year, I've spent about 10 hours on it so far. I'm not in a rush to finish it because God willing, I want to release it after a few other projects. I want the book to help people...

I'm also going to include the diary and sound off sections of this web site in the book. Though it has been view by thousands of people who visit this site (thank you for visiting, I really appreciate it) I feel the diary and sound off sections that I have written so far on this site should be reprinted and published as a small part of the book.

A year after I first wrote about writing a book, on March 6, 2003, Madonna does an interview and puts out a press release saying that she’s writing a book, which you now know as The English Roses (and the other Kaballah teaching ones in the series).

She has made a mockery of children's' books and is trying to teach children her cultist version of the Kaballah, which is essentially mind control, through these questionable books. Thankfully, it is mostly her fans buying these books as souvenirs, and not children actually reading them, based on an article I read.

I come from a family of authors. It is something I grew up with. I’ve been writing poetry, music and stories since I was four, as I was raised in that environment. Both my aunts are in the literary field (Lorna Goodison, an international award winning poet and author of over 10 books. Her work was recently included in a compilation of works by a handful of poets, which included Maya Angelou. Barbra Gloudon, an award winning playwright and journalist. One of my cousins also writes for a respected newspaper and the other is an associate producer for a weekly, major network investigative news program.

3. In my bio (copyright 2001) I wrote that I write screenplays and have since I was 15. I also wrote about working on different screenplays at various times on the Diary page (diary entries starting in 2002 were about different ones I was working on at the time).

Several months after I wrote that on this site, on September 21, 2003, Madonna announced in an interview with SFGate.com (San Francisco Chronicle) that she is working on a screenplay. Yea, sure she is. I know what her idea of writing is. Someone else writes 95% of the work, she changes a line, then takes credit for it, which she has been sued for before and lost. This is written about further in this article.

4. I wrote on the Diary page of my web site on several occasions beginning on June 8, 2002 that I do not work on the Sabbath, as I am a Christian.

It's been a great week. I spent most of today in the studio recording, starting in the afternoon until before the Sabbath starts at midnight.

On September 25th, 2004 Madonna who was not, and in my opinion still is not religious, announced she is no longer working on the Sabbath, therefore she won't play shows on the Sabbath during her Reinvention Tour.

5. In my online bio, which was written in 2001, I wrote that I love Jewish culture and incorporate it into my work often.

In 2003 for her next album, "American Life," which contained the copyright infringing song, she started talking about Jewish culture and how she incorporates it into her work, leading to this Kaballah trend that she is currently promoting, and much to the detriment of Judaism. She has profaned it with her nonsense and gimmicks.

She hadn’t included it and so boldly in her music before, even though she later claimed she has studied it for years (her debauched behavior certainly doesn’t show it, which makes her a very poor representative).

6. I wrote on the interview page of my web site that “I don’t listen to my music at home.” Months later on April 12th, 2003, she does an interview on a UK show saying she doesn’t "listen to her music at home.”

7. I wrote an article on celebrity for the Sound Off page of this web site on January 7, 2002, in which I penned the original term, “Why do people like to see people fall” as a type of catch phrase. A year later on March of 2003, in promoting her then new single “American Life”, she said on Access Hollywood with Nancy O’Dell, “Why do people like to see people fall.” I had already copyrighted the article, as I do with all of the contents of this web site, prior to her repeating it word for word and attributing it to herself. Once again, that was more proof and another giveaway that she was reading the site and frequently.

8. Another item related to this, which I would chalk up to a coincidence, if it had not been for her odd, mimicking behavior, is that it was written that she believes in astrological signs. A June 2004 UK newspaper article discussed how she only hires people with compatible astrological signs and birthdays, as she (wrongfully) believes it will bring her good luck. Her back up dancer (Reshma Gajjar) was quoted to support this information. She picks specific dates that she wrongfully feels is lucky.

Her third children’s book “Yacov and The Seven Thieves” was released on her birthday in Russia, according to press headlines/articles. The release date for her follow up, “The Adventures of Abdi” was slated for my birthday on November 8, 2004^th. I have written self-deprecating, humorous birthday stories and commentary on the Diary page to commemorate my birthday, so the date was hard to miss (see birthday commentary here). It is also on the information page of my web site. Therefore, of all the dates for her to pick.

However, oddly enough, when I sent the case to a lawyer for review, listing many of the items I have in this article, which outlined the similarities, within a couple weeks, the release date was mysteriously changed to November 4^th, 2004, from my birthday of November 8^th, 2004. Moreover, most books are released on Mondays, not Fridays, as they ended up doing.

One lawyer even warned me that "they may try to change things" to hide what happened - which is exactly what did happen. I told the attorney I had physical copies of the articles and interviews where she attributed my work to herself and product release dates, therefore going back and changing things online and elsewhere would be in vain and look very suspicious, only amplifying what she did.

I have several articles that I have saved that said the release date was November 8^th, 2004. Google and other search engines show the same, which I have also saved. These items aren’t quickly purged from their computer systems.

As for the title, her unimaginative mind couldn’t use a name that wasn’t like mine…Aisha… Abdi? They are both names from the same culture with mutual letters.

UPDATE: Madonna was asked on the UK show Blue Peter, how she came up with the names on the book and she said from the internet.

9. I wrote on the Diary page of my web site on June 5th, 2004 that I’m writing two books with my dad.

For several months now, I’ve also been working on two other books with my dad, but he’s going to do the majority of the work on those. He’s always very busy, but last year I convinced him it was something he should do and he started working on them and so did I.

He has such a brilliant mind. God gave him a lot of talent. I mean the stuff he knows is incredible. I learn from him all the time. I’m always asking him questions.

Two weeks later it was announced in the British tabloid the Sun by Madonna's friend and cantankerous, characterless, malicious mouthpiece, Victoria Newton, that she is "writing a book with her husband."

She always gives Victoria exclusives, uses her to put a spin on her questionable behavior (like calling British People lazy and insulting British hospitals) and to answer insults other entertainers have hurled at her, via her articles. Ah, journalistic integrity at its finest.

Newton has bragged that she has Madonna’s email address, in her column titled Bizarre. Fitting name indeed. While we’re on the subject, that has got to be the most distasteful, corny column in all of Britain. Where do you get your ideas from Ms. Nuton, um, I mean Ms. Newton. See, you’re not the only one that can write a humorless, idiotic pun about another person, but unlike you, I don’t make it a habit.

10. On January 11th, 2003, I wrote on the Diary page of my site that I have a management company called Sonustar Management (with a web link/ contact information to it).

I remember a show I saw once where the character said "the word free is not in a good manager's vocabulary." It's a funny line. Management is something I've studied for years as well. I have a management company that I started at the same time as the record company (there's an email link for it on this page). I decided in May of 1992 that I wanted to have my own music company with a record, management and production branch (I was 15 at the time). I still have the first sketches of it and the registration from a few years later.

In a sense, I used it to house my work, which is basically what it is today. I have a lot of material by God's grace. It's wonderful working on it and getting it off the ground now. I'm really more comfortable with behind the scenes work like production, management and marketing. By God's grace, I've learned this industry and its markets very well.

Then in an April 11th, 2004 press release from her management and an accompanying New York Newspaper article, Madonna said she is "starting a management company."

Madonna even parted ways recently with her manager of 13 years, Carisse Henry, which was written about in the press last month. Henry, who is now working with Miami native Ricky Martin, responded by saying Madonna, “wasn’t doing anything anyway." She also cited not liking the turn Madonna’s personal and career interests were taking. What? You don’t like cultist, mimicking, copyright infringing behavior. I mean, who wouldn’t like that.

Madonna cited she did not like Caresse having sex with her bodyguard, as reason for firing her, as that type of conduct was unfaithful and not keeping with the Kabballah cult. However, I think she just wanted to get rid of her, as she has a habit of using people then discarding them when she feels she doesn't need them any longer. The books "Madonna" and "Madonna: An Intimate Portrait" write of people she has gotten rid of when they were no longer of use to her. The December 2004 issue of People Magazine also revealed that it wasn't about Henry's conduct at all:

"I'm the person who writes music for my next album, reads contracts and make sure everyone is making the right deals and and crossing the t's and dotting the i's."

Wow, that sounds like something I would say. Well, it was something I said on my diary page on July 29th, 2003:

Hi guys, I started working today at about 3 AM this morning. I spent most of the day doing paperwork. I found the right law firm I was looking for. I've outlined the basics I want covered for each contract, he will hammer out the rest. There are a few other matters I want addressed as well pertaining to this web site.

I'm having a great week. Monday and Tuesday I spent a large part of the day on the phone making business calls and doing paper work. Mostly legal/contractual work, advertising, promotional arrangements for the CD and scheduling arrangements for the promo tour.

Madonna isn't reading any contracts. I took law for a semester and you have to have a basic understanding of contractual law to go over industry contracts, otherwise it will look like a foreign language, and even then there are still items you can miss.

Moreover, how could she be the one who "writes the music" for her album as she claims, yet in the same article say "I no longer have time to be creative." That's a serious contradiction. Therefore, who's doing the work? Who's the one actually being creative? I don't believe she ever was creative. Too much evidence says otherwise.

Speaking of inappropriate behavior, how can she condemn Henry for having sex with her bodyguard, deeming it unfaithful, yet put on that debauched display with Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears. What was that French kiss she shared on stage at the MTV Awards with the two singers young enough to be her daughters? That was not faithfulness. That was perverse and people who claim to be decent individuals of a religious faith don’t engage in kissing orgies on stage at an international award show, televised to viewers of all ages at the respectable hour of 9PM. Her performance was ushered in by her 6 year old daughter, who she dressed up as a bridesmaid for mommy's disgraceful display (Then had the gall to author children’s books).

That’s far worse than what she claims her former manager did, in that she exposed millions of unwitting viewers, many of them children, to that perversion (not to mention grossing me out. I changed the channel immediately. To this day I don't know how the rest of the show went. Just read about the winners in the paper the next day).

Moreover, condemning people, especially for things she has done, is not a principle espoused by Judaism. It is also grossly hypocritical. She is in no position to throw stones at anyone, as her conduct is among the most vile. I guess self-awareness is not one of her strong suits.

11. On November 1, 2002, I wrote on my web site’s Diary page that I’m working on a restaurant, for which I would include some of my mom’s recipes, and that I just registered the name for it, “THE CONTINENTS” (this info is readily available online through any whois company).

I've been working on plans to start a restaurant. It's been a fun project for me. By God's grace I've written the menu, planned the architectural design, made a business plan and I've started registering it. It's something I've wanted to do for a while. My mom is an excellent chef, she can make any dish and I've learned about cuisine from her, from books and television shows.

Months later in 2003 she puts out a press release stating she is opening a restaurant, with her brother, and the name of it is THE CENTRAL. The name THE CENTRAL is similar to the name I registered for mine prior, THE CONTINENTS. The first four letters are the same. I wrote that mine would be with my mom. She is opening hers with her brother in Los Angeles.

12. On April 15, 2003 I made a joke about polishing my nails on the Sound Off page of this web site.

"While I waited for a web site to load, I polished my nails (yes, the web site took some time to load because it had a lot of content...and like this page is any quicker)."

Shortly after she makes a comment in a British interview about "running her record label" and "having her nails polished."

13. I wrote an article on the Sound Off Page about young singers smoking and how bad it is for their voices.

Shortly after on September 4th, 2003, Rate the Music posted an article quoting Madonna and her rep Liz Rosenberg from the MTV Awards, saying that she (Madonna) told Britney Spears to stop smoking or it will ruin her voice.

14. On August 12th, 2004 I wrote about "editing" my music videos I'd been shooting:

Hi everyone, I’m here doing paperwork. I also have more footage to go over. I went over some more of it this morning. I have a lot of editing and processing to do on the latest stuff I got.

A month later, on September 21st, 2004 she wrote about "editing" her tour documentary in her monthly fan club newsletter, for which I found a scan of the letter on a fan site. Madonna isn't editing anything. I don't believe that for one second. I know the amount of work that goes into that and there is no way she is doing that or knows how to do that, mostly due to the editing software and equipment.

15. For over two years I've had a regular column titled "The Sound Off Column." I've also had a Q&A feature on the site where people can email questions to me, that if chosen would be answered with the new site launch (for further reference, see navigation tool bar for "Sound Off" and the Q&A's on the "Interact" page of the site). This is another item she has decided to steal. Recently in People magazine Madonna said:

"I want there to be an English Roses column where girls can write in and ask questions" December 6, 2004 (People Magazine).

16. For over a year now I've been writing and posting Sound Off articles and Diary entries on my site about home studio recording. Madonna has been in the industry for over twenty years and did not have a home studio during that time. According to an article printed this month, Madonna is having one built in her home all of a sudden, and oddly at a time when her career is on its last legs.

What is your ideal place to live?

Somewhere near the ocean or a river with hills or mountains. Somewhere with lots of trees. I love looking out at the water and I love hills. I grew up in Florida, which is very lovely, but totally flat. I love English country homes. That's my ideal house. An English garden is as good as a garden gets. I love the look of Cotswold Stone, English Limestone and thatched roofs. I don't want a mansion or manor house. Just somewhere with adequate space for a studio, a large library and a lot of land for privacy.

17. The most recent and funniest by far, is her announcement last month that she is now a director.

Madonna couldn’t direct traffic. Wearing a beret in a music video does not a director make (American Life).

My bio, which was copyrighted and put online in 2001, states that I directed all my music videos and that I write screenplays that I will direct. It’s not something I just started. I’ve been making mini movies and music videos since I was a teenager. I’ve authored and copyrighted many screenplays over the years, as I began writing them in my mid-teens. I started studying filmmaking at age fourteen.

Typical of Madonna. She makes a mockery of many art forms, collecting vain job titles she has not earned and cannot do, supported by all the infringement lawsuits and claims that have been filed against her over the years for stealing other people’s work and trying to horn in on credit for works she did not author.

Considering her history of butchering films and her recently being voted "The worst rock star actor of all time," by Blender magazine, her new declaration that she is a director is quite laughable. We’ve seen what she’s done before the cameras, as she is now the proud owner of the most panned filmed in history, "Swept Away" - which coincidentally she is being sued for $10 million dollars for stealing the idea from filmmaker and actor Vincent D'Onofrio, who says he pitched the idea to Madonna and her agents in several meetings.

Therefore, only a fool for punishment would give the scatterbrained cultist more responsibility in that arena and let her get behind a camera. Besides, she’ll only do what others have accused her of – let them do the work and she’ll horn in on or take all of the credit. She is a figurehead.

For example, former Maverick artist Jude referred to the label as a “den of thieves and liars” and said she was a figurehead who was not actually doing the work. Here is an excerpt from the interview with Jude:

“JUDE” by Brian Blair - Oregon Music Guide

"It's a den of thieves and liars, and I had to fight my way out of there. They were horrible." ...As for Madonna's role, Jude says simply, "I'll put it this way, it's not like she sat in on the meetings."

Despite her lack of championing artistic freedom at her own label, Jude says he takes no issue with the "narcissist" because she was more of a figurehead at Maverick and only in it for the financial gain.

"She had nothing to do with, I think, anyone's career on that label...ever. It was an investment."

Other respectable publications have called her a figurehead as well, echoing the same sentiments as Jude, but that didn’t stop her from taking credit for the label like she was doing all the work.

As a general rule, you can’t run a record label and for years during that time spend your days partying and under different men around the world.

To truly run a label takes a lot of time and work. In putting together this record, I hardly left my desk for a few years. I was constantly on the computers and the phone. Therefore, anyone who claims they run a label and all you see them do is go out partying and taking people home all the time, aren’t doing what they claim. To anyone who has done it, it is a giveaway that they are not doing the job. Just know there is some poor guy somewhere stuck behind a desk really running the thing.

All of the above mentioned information was copyrighted before she attributed it to herself each time in interviews, which proves access, thereby inextricably linking her to this web site. I have many copyright certificates that attest to this and every time she makes these announcements and attributions it is always shortly after I write it on the web site. That’s way too many times, too many items and way too detailed for it to be a coincidence.

18. The 2005 Versace Ads - UK newspapers like the Telegraph questioned the credulity of the new ads that feature Madonna in various shots as a secretary at the computer and on the phone. One paper even referred to it as her modernizing her image. Where did Madonna and Donatella get the idea for these ads from (rhetorical).

Recently in Italian Vogue, Donatella Versace said this in response to the UK press questioning the legitimacy of the ads featuring Madonna in what they viewed as a secretary:

"No I wouldn't call her a secretary, but Madonna herself says, a Chief Executive Officer. A high level working woman that does not renounce glamour when she's in the office. Madonna worked a lot to define that image: she's a woman who put her nose in everything that has got to do with her, and that's smart."

See the part where Donatella says "Madonna herself says a Chief Executive Officer" also known as a CEO is the theme of the ads. They got that idea from here.

1. On the diary page I have said a number of times that I spend my day on the computer and the phone. I've written that on here several times in my copyrighted online diary for well over a year now. Those were my exact words and those ads feature her on the computer and and the phone.

2. Donatella said "Madonna herself says a Chief Executive Officer." In my bio and flash film intro on this site, I refer to myself as an indie label CEO (Chief Executive Officer). Madonna's never been a CEO. She was part owner of Maverick, but people connected with the company and others who have worked with the label said she wasn't the CEO and wasn't doing the work. She wasn't even the CEO in official legal documents.

Therefore, where did the idea for these multi-million dollar ads of a contemporary CEO working on the computer and telephone come from (rhetorical question). Based on these statements, Madonna obviously had a hand in the ideas/theme of these ads along with Donatella, for which Madonna was paid $20 million dollars according to press reports. This makes them both liable.

Journalists are even publicly laughing at the ads questioning why she is posing as a secretary on the phone and on the computer, as it is so incredulous coming from her.

Section Three: Madonna's Career Long History of Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement

Madonna has a long history of plagiarism - an unusually high amount of incidences. She is a habitual copyright infringer, which is reflected by several lawsuits that I will write about in this section. The following can be supported by lawsuits, articles and interviews, which were featured in a wide variety of reputable newspapers, magazines, books and interviews. Many of these items are also on the internet.

1. This year Madonna was sued by the family of deceased artist Guy Bourdin for ripping off images from his work for her music video “Hollywood.”

She brazenly stole 11 pictures from his work and duplicated them for her video without permission or credit, only altering them slightly to hide the theft. Of course, she denied this, as she always does regarding these allegations, but a British newspaper reported that she was seen leaving the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, which housed Bourdin’s work, a week before she filmed the infringing video. The curator for the Bourdin exhibition, Charlotte Cotton, confirmed this information.

Earlier in the year she was quoted as saying his work is “so sick and interesting,” however, she denied any wrong doing in this case. Bourdin’s family won a settlement thought to be $638,000. The late artist’s son said of her, “It's one thing to draw inspiration; it's quite another to simply plagiarize the heart and soul of my father's work.” True, indeed, as that seems to be her trademark.

Compare for yourself. Here are 4 images from the 11 photos Madonna ripped off from Guy Bourdin's work for her music video "Hollywood." The similarities are terribly striking. They look like they came from the exact same shoot. Photos courtesy of the Smoking Gun:

2. As mentioned above, filmmaker and Law and Order actor Vincent D'Onofrio sued Madonna for ripping off his idea he pitched to her and her agents for the remake of the film, “Swept Away.” The lawsuit is currently in the court system. However, the film fittingly bombed and was voted the worst movie ever. The copyright owner of the original Swept Away script recently expressed his regret at allowing her to remake his film, due to how badly it turned out.

3. Madonna ripped off the title, concept and dance for the song “Vogue” from dancers in downtown New York. She took full credit for it as her creation, but journalists who knew of the trend and its origins from the time of its inception in New York wrote otherwise, as having witnessed it prior to her claiming it as her own. "Vogue" has been widely credited to her, but that is a common misconception, as it was not her idea.

UPDATE: Madonna ripped off the 1989 song "Deep In Vogue" by Malcolm McLaren for her 1990 song "Vogue." As with my song, she stole it shortly after it was made available to the public. His song was released on July 19, 1989 on Epic Records and her rip off was released almost a year later on April 5th, 1990. His song came out first and was about "voguing." Madonna's rip off brought his idea/music/dance trend to the mainstream by stealing it from him, along with melodies, harmonies and portions of his beat. Madonna even tries to sing like the female vocalist on McLaren's track.

Here is an excerpt of the song she stole from entitled "Deep In Vogue" for her song "Vogue" (If the link does not work for you visit www.amazon.com and type in "Deep In Vogue" in the search box for a sample of the song):

4. In my opinion, one of her worst, most disgraceful and brazen rip offs was the work she outright stole from Prince protégé, Ingrid Chavez. She stole Chavez’s style and lyrics for her song, “Justify My Love” which is featured on her “Erotica” album.

Chavez said, "Madonna only changed one line of the entire song” and stole writers credit for the song, even though Chavez was the one who wrote it (this has been said of her by other credible writers as well involving other songs, one of which I write about further in this article). But this is what she does. She takes credit for other people’s writing and ideas then goes around declaring herself a writer. That is not songwriting. That is a joke. The song did match Chavez's trademark style, which at the time was once again unlike anything Madonna had done. Much like my style of music is unlike anything Madonna has done. An article excerpt:

"Meanwhile, Chavez sued Lenny Kravitz for not giving her credit for co-writing Madonna's Justify My Love. Chavez's style consists of breathy spoken passages over heavy dance beats and this can be clearly heard in the Madonna track. Chavez is quoted as having said that Kravitz didn't write any of the lyrics and only came up with the phrase justify my love. She is also reported to have said that Madonna only changed one line of the entire song. She was finally given credit for the lyrics plus a rumored couple of million dollars in an out-of-court settlement."

http://www.leninimports.com/ingridchavez.html

Photo credit: Frank Micelotta

5. A book that is currently available in stores titled, “Madonna: An Intimate Biography,” alleges that Madonna ripped off the idea for her “Sex” book from a publishing executive named Judith Regan (page 221).

6. Critics allege that Madonna ripped off visual concepts, video imagery and ideas from underground transvestite singer “Peaches” for her work. Several web sites mention this and the similarities are very, very striking. It was also reported that she would play Peaches' album over and over again before going on stage in Barcelona. A reviewer from the well-known industry company Muze wrote:

"If imitation is the greatest compliment, then Peaches received top honors when Madonna stole imagery from Peaches’ videos and applied them to her own. If the queen of controversy steals your ideas, you must have something going on." Muze Inc.

Hmmm why is everyone calling this woman a thief (rhetorical question). It seems to me her reinventions are reinventions of marginally known, unknown and underground artists that she tries to become in search of that next new trend in music. That is profoundly disturbing and sick.

Peaches' debut CD was released on a German label and sold only 50,000 - yet she managed to get a copy of one of them. Those numbers are good for an indie, but translates into obscurity in the mainstream.

However, Madonna and her team do what some unscrupulous executives in the music industry do - scour the clubs, internet and other venues for new music, dance and clothing trends and take full credit for them as their own in the mainstream (as she did with Vogue, among other things).

Never mind her reinventions are the creations of unknown or marginally known artists, she wrongfully feels taking these ideas, concepts and music to the mainstream automatically makes her the author. She is often referred to as trendsetting, but judging by these lawsuits and allegations from so many people, she is not a leader, but a follower who takes all the credit.

There is something Andrew Morton wrote of her in the biography he did that is very telling. He wrote that during the early days of her career, she would allegedly go around Manhattan in limos searching for guys to sleep with (and it was reported that she actually did). He said she believes that she felt she could deny any questionable behavior if someone were to talk about it publicly, because she feels she is such a celebrity that no one would believe them.

He's right. Some celebrities do think that way. However, at this point, she is a celebrity with no credibility due to years of unethical conduct, which resulted in lawsuits.

Back to Peaches. The mere fact that they knew who Peaches was, even with him being an underground artist below the radar, speaks volumes. Ask the average musicologist or music critic about Peaches, and they wouldn't know who he is, as he is an underground artist, but she actually knew him and had his CD. I find that very telling.

He was the inspiration for one of her many reinventions, which to me is not right. She is not talented, nor is she a smart business woman as they like to claim. She is very unscrupulous to take from other artists work in such a manner. It's plain to see that she and her team search the industry for ideas from underground acts and unknowns she feels she can get away with taking from - even if it infringes their copyrights.

NOTE: If you are listed on any kind of music site, which almost every new artist is, often without them knowing due to web crawlers, you would do well to be very careful and make sure your copyrights are in order. I get solicitations from retailers, music companies and involuntary, but appreciated, music directory listings in web sites all the time. There are industry executives and companies who've told me they know about me, when I had never done business with or met them prior.

Therefore, be careful, as some people visit music directory sites like UBL and Muze, go through the listings, which points them to your indie site. They'll visit to listen to the music, but others are predatory industry people looking for their next illegal hit or idea.

It is very important to remember that once you put something (music) out there, just because it is not in the mainstream, doesn't mean it's not being heard.

Here's a positive example of that. Eminem sampled a song by musician Edgar Winter, who was surprised Eminem even knew about him or the track, which he says never received any airplay. However, Eminem went about using the track legally by applying for a license (song clearance) through the music publisher, rather than stealing elements of it for his own work like Madonna does.

Winter said, "I'm as interested as everyone else to see how he came up with the concept. I would never have thought he'd ever heard of me, or the song. It never got radio play, so I don't know how he came across it."

You would assume no airplay, therefore no one knows about the artist, but that isn't true, especially with the introduction of the internet. I'm a prime example of that. Before I finished recording my debut album, this web site received over 4 million hits.

There are music industry record collectors who buy records by unknown artists that are in limited release. However, they are collectors who really just like buying music. There are also djs and employees at radio stations who keep copies of CDs submitted for airplay consideration that they don't play because the station already has there, um, preset playlist *cough* payola. You'd be surprise how those CDs make their way around the industry. Some are sold to record stores where anyone can buy them, while others land in the hands of A&R guys, which could spell trouble for your copyrights if it is an unscrupulous label representative (the cause of many a lawsuit over the past 20 years). However, if it's a decent executive, and you are looking for a deal, you could get signed.

7. The saddest of all these allegations is by a group named Hide The Babies. They published a web site that contained the allegation that they gave Madonna’s manager their demo (cassette) in the 80's, she liked it and asked if she could keep it. She returned the tape to them 6 months later. They alleged that shortly after one of their lyrics appeared in Madonna’s song as the basis for "Like A Virgin," but not credited to them. A group member stated they felt she did this because she figured if she got her version out first it would render their version useless.

Madonna's lyric for “Like A Virgin” goes: "Like a virgin. Touched for the very first time."

Hide The Babies lyric goes: "I'm not a virgin, but you're the first one..."