FBT Productions signed Eminem in 1995; later, Eminem joined Universal Music. FBT productions agreed to receive a 12% royalties on "record sales." At that time of the contract, the digital royalty (involving platform such as ITunes) was unclear, leading Eminem's former label to argue that digital royalties should be considered as licensing and not "records sold." FBT Productions' argument was rejected in March 2009. However, in september 2010, a federal appeals court overruled the decision by entitling FBT Productions to 50% for "all recordings licensed to digital distributors."
I agree with the decision of the federal appeals court. The contract was signed at a time when attorneys could not have imagined innovations such as iTunes and other digital platforms; therefore, these terms were unclear and not well-defined in the contract. I think it is fair that FBT Productions receive a 50% royalties for recordings licensed. By taking this argument to court and appeals court, FBT Productions have win a 2000's update for their contact.
In november 2011, Universal Music Group filed an important lawsuit against the online music stream Grooveshark (parent company being Escape Media Group). Universal is seeking damages for infringement by claiming that Grooveshark illegally uploaded more than 113,000 songs on their online platform supposedly pirated by Grooveshark's employees (although under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act).
On the other hand, Grooveshark only had a licensing deal with EMI; the other major labels, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Group, followed the suit in january 2012 in order to collect their royalties.
Universal is seeking damages for up to $150,000 per song; the total could be up to the ridiculous amount of $17.1 billion.
I think it is an interesting case and I cannot wait to discover the final verdict of this litigation, however it would be fair for Grooveshark to pay royalties/licensing to record labels but a lot of investigation still has to be done. On top of that, damages claimed by records labels are outrageous. As of today, no court date has been set for the lawsuit. I personally used Grooveshark as well as its direct competitor, Spotify, with the purpose of listening online streaming music.
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) is a not-for -profit organization that license more than 390,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists and music publishers; it is one of the biggest with BMI. In 2011, ASCAP argued in appeals court that the download of musical work should fall within the law of public performance. Moreover, ASCAP also argued that digitals downloads were also public performance and therefore, copyright owners should also receive a percentage of sales. The appeals court in New York rejected ASCAP's argument and the ruling was: "Music is neither recited, rendered, nor played when a recording (electronic or otherwise) is simply delivered to a potential listener"
ASCAP tried to take the case to a Supreme Court but was unsuccessful after the court's rejection.
Royalties are the main revenue streams for many artists, therefore I understand that ASCAP want to enforce its copyrights. I think the Supreme Court should not have rejected ASCAP's case as it is a federal and important issue with today's new technology, involving tools such as the internet giving easy access to digital downloading.
No comments:
Post a Comment