-
Industry information that you can actually use
March 2001 - Happy New Millenium!!!
In this issue:
 Garbage sues Universal for bullying them into making records
Napster gets a new lease on life from courts
Internet identities becoming hot issue for Artists as labels look to
control the web
LOVE HELPS UNIVERSAL TAKE OUT THEIR GARBAGE
Garbage
in equals Garbage out. An old motto takes on a new twist in the wake
of the Courtney Love law suit against mega label
Universal Music Group.
Many are questioning the sincerity of labels who claim to be "behind
you all the way," when signing the artist only to stab them in
the back while standing there.
Cynics
claim that Love doesn't have a prayer of winning because "I signed
a bad deal" has never held up in court before as a reason to dissolve
a contract. But Love's angle is based on the seven-year limitation that
California law places on ALL service contracts. Most recording contracts
last well over seven years, so there is much at stake here if Love kicks
ass.
Case
in point is the group, Garbage,
who filed suit against Almo Records
a UMD imprint, for
"strong-arm tactics" and being all around bad dudes. It seems
that Buch Vig and
Co, when forming Garbage with Shirley Manson
and signing to Almo, they had their president,
industry veteran Jerry Moss, "keyed
in." Meaning that as long as Moss remained with the label so would
Garbage.
Now
that Moss has left Almo, Garbage wants a walk. Except that UND has pulled
a rabbit out of the hat by acting on a clause from one of Manson's old
contracts from when she was with a band on Radioactive Records, another
UND label. They claim that under that contract she is still obligated
to perform for UMD even though that contract was for a different band
with different material and over seven years ago.
It
seems silly on UMD's part because even if they win their day in court
with Garbage they will not be able to make Manson perform with Vig and
Co under the Garbage name. So what do they win? Not much. And in light
of Love's case, if she is successful in prevailing, Garbage lawyers
will be able to use Love's precedent-setting judgment to free themselves
completely from both contracts.
All
the above suggests to me that UMD may settle with Love sooner than Love's
critics have predicted. Not so much because they think she is right
but because of the potential fallout of every other artist claiming
that they are entitled to a release under the seven-year statue as well.
That's
my prediction and I'm sticking to it.
NAPSTER GETS A REPRIEVE FROM THE LAW
Jumping
on the "bash and sue Napster" bandwagon, this month NARAS
(the people who bring you the Grammys) and the Consumer Electronics
Association have joined the mission to block out independent use of
the internet to transfer files containing copyrighted material. Is
there a lawyer out there who isn't working on the Napster issue? Isn't
there anyone else worth suing?
Many
reporters are reeling with the 9th Circuit Court decision (which is
not really a decision at all) to tell Napster to shut its "doors"
if it can not stop the dissemination of protected material. But a reality
that many seem to be pathologically ignoring is that, at the same time,
the decision incorporated a requirement from record labels to provide
a detailed list of all masters that are being infringed upon. This task
could take them well into the next century. So it could be a draw after
all. Napster will probably publish the list and enthusiastic "sharers"
will scrutinize it for exceptions, like the 1971 bootleg Grateful Dead
tour version of "Trucking," for example. (Just an example.
I have no actual knowledge that this was omitted form the list.)
Obscure
versions and Dyslexic title alterations, will undoubtedly be the name
of the game as the long arm of the law closes the Napster gap. Meanwhile,
other file sharing services continue to go about their business as if
nothing has happened.
It's
far from over for the saga of this like $20,000,000 company that has
offered $150,000,000 a year to majors for the rights to their material.
A laughable offer. Where are they going to get this cash? No one seems
to want to talk about that.
Seizing
an opportunity to cash in, the Internet Lawyers Group in San Francisco
is planning a class action suit against Napster on behalf of independent
artists. I thought these were the ones who were benefiting from the
service. I mean, Napster allowed these guys to promote themselves for
pennies, how they are going to establish a claim should prove interesting.
But Napster will likely pay out some paltry sum to the class. Before
you get on your altruistic bandwagon, remember that, in most class action
suits, the lawyers get about a third of the booty.
STING GETS STUNG AS THE WHEELS OF INTERNET JUSTICE ROLL OVER HIM
Recent
developments in recording contracts have put the onus on artists to
assign exclusive rights to their domain name to the record company and
allow the company to sue on their behalf, anyone who tries to squat
on the name. The practice has met with much criticism from artists and
their management as it puts the artist's entire virtual identity in
the hands of the label. One lawyer friend placed in a well known music
law firm called it "over-reaching, but predictable behavior,"
for major labels.
Who
cares? What else is new? Well, how's this for a chilling example of
the repercussions of this new clause:
You
may recall a story I wrote about several months back where Madonna
emerged victorious in prying her domain name from the clutches of a
pornographer. Although The World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) declared that her name was unique
enough to be classified hers and hers alone (See: MADONNA DECLARED MORE
POPULAR THAN JESUS - November Moses Supposes) they didn't feel the same
way about Sting, claiming that "sting" was too common a word
to protect. (But Madonna isn't? Apparently these guys have never been
to Italy.)
Well,
this month an Internet watchdog group called My-Reputation,
stated that Sting was the most bootlegged
site on the net, identifying 11,580 bootleg Police sites plus an additional
3,797 sites selling his solo music.
Meanwhile,
it seems that Celine Dion has had more
success in this area. A Canadian branch of the WIPO has awarded her
the rights to the Internet domain name, www.celinedion.com. They took
it away from some guy who had registered it and was running a fan base.
The WIPO said this guy had a history of registering the names of celebrities
and running "unofficial" fan sites. This same clown has been
usurped by the WIPO for the rights to www.juliebrown.com and www.brucespringsteen.com.
Sting remains.
Sting
is lobbying heavily for reform in this area but is meeting with mixed
reviews. It seems people are taking him about as seriously on this issue
as they took his acting career.
That's
all for now. See you next month.
Moses
|
