iTunes no better than AllofMP3?
According to rapper Eminem, yep. The rapper, famous for his in-your-face lyrics and shocking vulgarity, and his publishing company — Eight Mile Style — filed a lawsuit against iTunes this week, alleging the music download service owned by Apple was selling his music without permission.
According to an AP article, Eight Mile Style administrator Joel Martin says the suit involves 70 to 80 songs in which the music publisher owns copyrights or ownership interest in copyrights.
The company seeks more than $75,000 for copyright infringement, unfair competition and a violation of the Michigan consumer protection act. It also asks for damages of up to $150,000 for each time a song is downloaded, the article said.
Here’s how it boils down. Eminem is claiming he didn’t give his record company, Universal (and Interscope) permission to sell his songs as downloads. Martin told AP Universal Music distributes the songs through the Interscope recording company and Apple offers them for download.
“Apple is not accounting to us. They are accounting to Universal (Music),” Martin said to AP.
So, here’s my question: How is this Apple’s problem?
The fact of the matter is, while Apple may or may not have gone to Eminem and his company personally to ask for permission to sell his music, they got permission from somewhere — a company that probably had the right to do it.
Apple isn’t dumb. Unlike the rogue MP3 services from overseas companies that hid behind antiquated laws that allowed individual collection societies to broker music distribution deals for artists and record labels without their involvement/permission, Apple has to get permission. Otherwise they could be opening themselves up to more than 3 billion individual lawsuits.
So how did Eminem’s music fall through the cracks? My guess is a communication error on one of the companies that represent Slim Shady.
Music downloads are $0.99 on iTunes. Of that, Apple gets 29 cents and the artist receives about nine cents. The rest of the money is divided up for the performing rights companies (both the artist's and companies like ASCAP or BMI), the record labels (parent and sub labels) and assorted lawyers, techies and so on.
That’s a lot of hands in the pie.
Now, when it comes to the music publishing companies (the nice people who give permission to use music for performances, downloads, sync rights and so on that go out in the world and make sure the musician gets paid for the use of their song on the radio, in commercials, by cover bands, in clubs and so on) that is usually split between the artist’s company (in this case Eight Mile Style) and a larger company with the experience and resources to get the job done like BMI or ASCAP. Since I have no knowledge of Eminem’s actual publishing deal, I can’t comment on what went wrong in this case.
But I can say that in just about every case there is more than one company that can claim the right to give permission to allow the music to be sold via iTunes and other legal download services. How much of a right is dictated by the individual contract, though Eminem’s attorney said the artist did not give the record companies permission to allow his music to be downloaded.
Eminem’s beef should be with the publishing companies and his record company for failing to protect his music and live up to their end of the contract, not iTunes. While Eminem has sued iTunes in the past (for using his song in a commercial, which ended with a settlement agreement), iTunes appears to have covered its bases.
Unfortunately, even established and profitable artists such as Eminem aren’t immune to a major label’s buffoonery and the communications errors attributed to the quest for profits. The fact remains that no artist is.
According to an AP article, Eight Mile Style administrator Joel Martin says the suit involves 70 to 80 songs in which the music publisher owns copyrights or ownership interest in copyrights.
The company seeks more than $75,000 for copyright infringement, unfair competition and a violation of the Michigan consumer protection act. It also asks for damages of up to $150,000 for each time a song is downloaded, the article said.
Here’s how it boils down. Eminem is claiming he didn’t give his record company, Universal (and Interscope) permission to sell his songs as downloads. Martin told AP Universal Music distributes the songs through the Interscope recording company and Apple offers them for download.
“Apple is not accounting to us. They are accounting to Universal (Music),” Martin said to AP.
So, here’s my question: How is this Apple’s problem?
The fact of the matter is, while Apple may or may not have gone to Eminem and his company personally to ask for permission to sell his music, they got permission from somewhere — a company that probably had the right to do it.
Apple isn’t dumb. Unlike the rogue MP3 services from overseas companies that hid behind antiquated laws that allowed individual collection societies to broker music distribution deals for artists and record labels without their involvement/permission, Apple has to get permission. Otherwise they could be opening themselves up to more than 3 billion individual lawsuits.
So how did Eminem’s music fall through the cracks? My guess is a communication error on one of the companies that represent Slim Shady.
Music downloads are $0.99 on iTunes. Of that, Apple gets 29 cents and the artist receives about nine cents. The rest of the money is divided up for the performing rights companies (both the artist's and companies like ASCAP or BMI), the record labels (parent and sub labels) and assorted lawyers, techies and so on.
That’s a lot of hands in the pie.
Now, when it comes to the music publishing companies (the nice people who give permission to use music for performances, downloads, sync rights and so on that go out in the world and make sure the musician gets paid for the use of their song on the radio, in commercials, by cover bands, in clubs and so on) that is usually split between the artist’s company (in this case Eight Mile Style) and a larger company with the experience and resources to get the job done like BMI or ASCAP. Since I have no knowledge of Eminem’s actual publishing deal, I can’t comment on what went wrong in this case.
But I can say that in just about every case there is more than one company that can claim the right to give permission to allow the music to be sold via iTunes and other legal download services. How much of a right is dictated by the individual contract, though Eminem’s attorney said the artist did not give the record companies permission to allow his music to be downloaded.
Eminem’s beef should be with the publishing companies and his record company for failing to protect his music and live up to their end of the contract, not iTunes. While Eminem has sued iTunes in the past (for using his song in a commercial, which ended with a settlement agreement), iTunes appears to have covered its bases.
Unfortunately, even established and profitable artists such as Eminem aren’t immune to a major label’s buffoonery and the communications errors attributed to the quest for profits. The fact remains that no artist is.
posted by Eric LaRose at
9:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home