UMG loses Eminem royalties battle
2pnet view Music:- “The case has vastly important implications for artists seeking royalties from music companies as commerce from places like iTunes has supplanted traditional music sales.”
But, “it should be noted that this ruling sets no legal precedent as it only concerns the language of one specific recording agreement. Any assertion to the contrary is simply not true.”
Under discussion is a decision by the the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that’s “threatening to make digital downloads less profitable”, says the Los Angeles Times.
The court has sided with F.B.T. Productions in its dispute with Universal Music Group over Eminem’s (right) recordings for UMG’s Aftermath label, “ruling that F.B.T. was entitled to significantly higher royalties for downloadable tracks and albums sold through Apple’s iTunes Store”, says the story, going on:
“The panel sent the case back to District Court to determine how much UMG will have to pay in damages.”
The first quote in the intro is from a story in The Wrap, and the second is from UMG mouthman Peter Lofrumento who says the Big 4 Sue ‘Em All music cartel member will file for a new hearing and “denied that the case had implications for other musical artists”.
For “other musical artists” read UMG (aka France’s Vivendi Universal), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but controlled by Canada’s Edgar Bronfman jr).
The victory for F.B.T. “(if it stands) could embolden other hitmakers to seek higher royalties for digital downloads — something many artists have demanded but few have obtained”, says the Los Angeles Times, going on >>>
F.B.T., a team of producers that discovered and wrote songs for Eminem, sued Universal in 2006, accusing the company’s Aftermath label of failing to pay sufficient royalties for the titles sold through iTunes. Its attorneys contended that the 99-cent downloads weren’t “records sold … through normal retail channels,” which would carry a royalty of 12% to 20%. Instead, they argued that the sales stemmed from licensing deals that Aftermath struck on Eminem’s behalf, on which the royalties should have been 50% of the net receipts.
“A District Court jury agreed with Universal that iTunes sales were just like CD sales, and the judge awarded Universal more than $2.4 million in legal fees”, it says, adding:
“But the appeals panel held … the District Court should have granted F.B.T.’s claims without a trial because its contracts with Aftermath put the iTunes ‘unambiguously’ in the licensing category.”
The Wrap quotes the decision thus:
“The jury returned a verdict in favor of Aftermath, and the district court awarded Aftermath its attorneys’ fees of over $2.4 million. F.B.T. timely appealed the district court’s final judgment and award of attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse.”
Stay tuned.
Los Angeles Times – Appeals court says UMG too shady on royalties, September 3, 2010
The Wrap – Eminem Wins Royalties from Universal, UMG Will Fight It, September 3, 2010
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 6th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
“Under discussion is a decision by the the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that’s “threatening to make digital downloads less profitable”, says the Los Angeles Times.” So this is not a problem.
September 6th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
It is always amusing when things like this come out.
It really underscores the weirdness of large corporations spending millions to bully regular people so
the ‘artists can get paid’, while simultaneously getting sued by said artists ( I know, eminem, term used loosely ),
to force them to pay the artist.
I wonder where the DOJ is when this happens ?
Ooops, I forget, they’re busy helping those corporations get a ridiculous amount of money out of a college student.
My bad.
September 7th, 2010 at 2:00 am
Hmm….a few years ago, I would have said this was must because Eminem needed more money for pills/hookers/lawsuits/etc.
Now I’m not sure.
On one hand, he’s “sticking it” to his corporate paymasters. But, on the OTHER hand: he’s a multi-millionaire, 9th-grade drop-out, ex-pillhead who — absent the backing of the aforementioned corporate paymasters — would probably have OD’ed in a bus station bathroom by now.
*yawn*