
AML music community, book mark and read this article from Eriq Gardner of THR, Esq. It’s a must.
“Digital income. It’s a topic that continues to cause
fits in the music industry, and if there’s one big moment when record
companies probably realized that a new day had dawned in their business,
it was September 3, 2010, the day the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
handed down a huge decision in a path-breaking case involving the music
of hip-hop superstar Eminem.
Leaked Audit in Eminem Royalty Suit Highlights Huge Stakes for Record Industry
Two years after that appellate ruling, many other musicians have since brought claims over digital income.
Now, the case has settled. On Monday, FBT Productions and Universal
Music Group informed a California federal court a resolution had been
reached, putting to rest a dispute that has been closely followed
throughout the industry.
If the birth of Napster pointed to change
in the way songs would be distributed online, and if the rise of iTunes
signaled that money could still be made in the selling of music, it was
the 2010 appellate ruling in FBT Productions v. Aftermath that offered
the fearsome prospect for many record labels that artists would soon be
entitled to a much larger share of revenue generated by the exploitation
of sound recordings.
The case pitted Eminem’s production team of Mark and Jeff Bass against Eminem’s record label.
Originally filed in 2007, a jury verdict two years later was a defeat for the plaintiffs, but then the case went on appeal.
At the 9th Circuit, the judges ruled that a lower court had erred by
not deeming the label’s agreements with third-parties download providers
as licenses instead of sales. For the music industry, the difference
was enormous. Under typical licensing or leasing provisions of
artist-label contracts, about 50 percent of collected revenue gets
handed over to artists. Under sales provisions, it’s usually not more
than 15 percent. . .”
THR, Esq. has the full story.
No comments:
Post a Comment