Eminem music publisher, Apple settle out of court

[AppleInsider]

The lawsuit between rapper Eminem's publisher and Apple over the sale of the artist's songs on iTunes was reportedly settled out of court Thursday evening.

Eight Mile Style had sued Apple, creator of iTunes, and Aftermath Records, the company that controls Eminem's songs, contending that the artist's music was made available for download without his permission. The two parties went to trial one week ago over the matter.

According to The Associated Press, an agreement was reached between Eight Mile Style and Apple Thursday evening. The details of the settlement were not revealed.

The trial lasted five days before Thursday's agreement. Earlier reports had suggested the court battle could conclude this week.

Apple had revealed in the trial's first day that Aftermath receives 70 cents for each iTunes download, and Eight Mile Style earns 9.1 cents. The Eminem publisher argued that further permission and new, separate contracts should be required for digital distribution. They felt the sale of the artist's songs on iTunes was not covered under the terms of their original agreement with Aftermath.

Eminem, whose legal name is Marshall Mathers, was not a part of the court proceedings.

In their complaint, Eight Mile Style asserted that they and Eminem were owed $2.5 million from Apple for the sale of the artist's songs. Of that, nearly half a million was said to stem from the musician's biggest hit, "Lose Yourself."

In response, Apple countered that it had legally obtained the rights to sell Eminem's songs from Aftermath. The company's attorney said in court that Eight Mile Style continues to cash royalty checks, which have amounted to "a lot of money."

This latest development looks to bring to a close yet another legal run-in between Apple and Eminem. In 2004, the artist sued over the use of the song "Lose Yourself" in an iPod ad. The issue was later settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. In 2007, he sued again over alleged copyright violations. That complaint eventually led to the trial that began last week.

[Chris_CA]

Aftermath agreed to give Eight Mile Style/Eminem a larger cut of their 70%.
Apple agreed to keep selling his music.
Win/win/win.

[jpellino]

this was a man-in-the-middle hack on the part of aftermath.

[teckstud]

Haha- knew it.
score Eminem 2, Apple 0

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

In their complaint, Eight Mile Style asserted that they and Eminem were owed $2.5 million from Apple for the sale of the artist's songs. Of that, nearly half a million was said to stem from the musician's biggest hit, "Lose Yourself."

In response, Apple countered with a song entitled "Go F Yourself!" (apologies for the crude thought, just my warped sense of humor).

[satchmo]

I'm all for fair payment, but Eight Mile might consider not bitting the hand that feels you.
One wonders if Apple might not want to carry Eminem in the future...assuming Eminem has a future.

[iVlad]

i guess when you can't continue making music, you just sue the hell out of everyone

[JupiterOne]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Haha- knew it.
score Eminem 2, Apple 0

You knew what exactly?

For all you know, Apple could have said they were going to immediately pull all of his songs out of iTunes, in which they responded, "Oh, nevermind then."

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by JupiterOne

You knew what exactly?

For all you know, Apple could have said they were going to immediately pull all of his songs out of iTunes, in which they responded, "Oh, nevermind then."

And from what planet do you reside?
Is it Jupiter or Planet Claire?

[Chris_CA]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Haha- knew it.
score Eminem 2, Apple 0

I doubt Apple lost or had to give up anything.
They were simply named because they were selling the songs licensed from Aftermath.
Had Apple not been named, Aftermatch could have said in court that Apple was actually distributing the music and they weren't named in the lawsuit so the case against them (Aftermath) should be tossed out.

[JupiterOne]

Originally Posted by teckstud

And from what planet do you reside?

OK, you seem to know something that no one else does. What did Apple lose? You think that Apple just totally caved and gave them everything they wanted?

Originally Posted by teckstud

Is it Jupiter

Jupiter is a city too.

[LE Studios]

Originally Posted by JupiterOne

You knew what exactly?

For all you know, Apple could have said they were going to immediately pull all of his songs out of iTunes, in which they responded, "Oh, nevermind then."

Yeah then he be stuck with crappy MP3 sales from Amazon and Walmart!

[paxman]

Originally Posted by satchmo

I'm all for fair payment, but Eight Mile might consider not bitting the hand that feels you.

Feels who? Me? Why are you mixing me into this? Joking aside - I wouldn't describe Apple as the hand that feeds Eminem. Apple is a middleman and as such is implicated but not the true defendant. The way I see it Eight Mile is just standing up against what it sees as unfair business practices. I don't see anything wrong with that (even though I know nothing of the inside machinations here).

One wonders if Apple might not want to carry Eminem in the future...assuming Eminem has a future.

Why wouldn't Eminem have a future? And why wouldn't Apple want to sell his music? This has nothing to do with taste in music, or personal dislikes. Getting along was never a prerequisite for doing business. And this is just business.

[newbee]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Haha- knew it.
score Eminem 2, Apple 0

Without knowing the details of the settlement, you still manage to declare a winner. You should put your "skill" to work in forecasting winning lottery numbers ... that would have the same relevance as most of your posts.

For all you know Apple might well be in the exact same position as before this case came to court .

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by newbee

For all you know Apple might well be in the exact same position as before this case came to court .

Dream on.
If Apple was innocent, why would they settle?

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by JupiterOne

You think that Apple just totally caved and gave them everything they wanted?

NO, not at all.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

I doubt Apple lost or had to give up anything.
They were simply named because they were selling the songs licensed from Aftermath.
Had Apple not been named, Aftermatch could have said in court that Apple was actually distributing the music and they weren't named in the lawsuit so the case against them (Aftermath) should be tossed out.

Are we reading the same story? I had read that Eminem was suing Apple. That's slightly different than being merely "named".

[JupiterOne]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Are we reading the same story? I had read that Eminem was suing Apple.

Apparently not. Eminem himself was not doing the suing, his publisher was. Reread the story headline and first sentence.

Originally Posted by teckstud

That's slightly different than being merely "named".

No, it's not. Entities are named in a suit.

But some things do seem a little confusing.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Eight Mile Style had sued Apple, creator of iTunes, and Aftermath Records, the company that controls Eminem's songs, contending that the artist's music was made available for download without his permission. The two parties went to trial one week ago over the matter.

Isn't that 3 parties?

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

According to The Associated Press, an agreement was reached between Eight Mile Style and Apple Thursday evening. The details of the settlement were not revealed.

What about Aftermath Records?

[Chris_CA]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Are we reading the same story? I had read that Eminem was suing Apple. That's slightly different than being merely "named".

All your posts are so difficult...

You can't simply put someones name on a lawsuit without them being part of the lawsuit.
It was more for effect than actually thinking he could/would get something from Apple.
It was to better his chances of the lawsuit not getting thrown out.

Had he attempted to sue only Apple, it would have gotten laughed out of court.
Apple (and all other retailers) do not have contract with him nor do they need one. Apple has a contract with Aftermath, who is the distributor and has contract that allows them to let Apple sell the songs.

Do you think Apple will pay Eight Mle/Eminem more out of their 30%? And still pay Aftermath 70%?
They don't have a contract with him.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

All your posts are so difficult...

You can't simply put someones name on a lawsuit without them being part of the lawsuit.
It was more for effect than actually thinking he could/would get something from Apple.
It was to better his chances of the lawsuit not getting thrown out.

Had he attempted to sue only Apple, it would have gotten laughed out of court.
Apple (and all other retailers) do not have contract with him nor do they need one. Apple has a contract with Aftermath, who is the distributor and has contract that allows them to let Apple sell the songs.

Do you think Apple will pay Eight Mle/Eminem more out of their 30%? And still pay Aftermath 70%?
They don't have a contract with him.

Your posts still don't answer my question- If Apple is inccocent then why are they settling?
Are you that daft?

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by JupiterOne

Apparently not. Eminem himself was not doing the suing, his publisher was. Reread the story headline and first sentence.

I suggest you reread the last paragraph of the article.

[doyourownthing]

i hope they stop carrying his music...

[Chris_CA]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Your posts still don't answer my question- If Apple is inccocent then why are they settling?

It was settled out of court. No one knows what the settlement was.
Apple could have told Eight Mile/Eminem, 'Drop the lawsuit against us or we quit selling your music" and they agreed to settle out of court.
As I noted in my first post, Aftermath likely agreed to give a larger percentage to Eight Mile and Apple agreed to keep selling his music.

Besides, innocence/guilt often has little to do with out of court settlements.
Sometimes it's easier and quicker to settle than pay excessive legal fees.
In this case, likely Apple decided it would be easier to keep selling his music than pay a bunch of legal fees.

Are you that daft?

No, but obviously you are.

[jazzguru]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Your posts still don't answer my question- If Apple is inccocent then why are they settling?
Are you that daft?

I know your question and subsequent insult weren't directed at me, but one possible explanation is that many times it is cheaper for both parties to settle than go through a long, drawn-out process of litigation.

Settlement also might happen when one party has an air-tight case and the other party knows it and doesn't want to embarras themselves in court.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

It was settled out of court. No one knows what the settlement was.
Apple could have told Eight Mile/Eminem, 'Drop the lawsuit against us or we quit selling your music" and they agreed to settle out of court.
As I noted in my first post, Aftermath likely agreed to give a larger percentage to Eight Mile and Apple agreed to keep selling his music.

Besides, innocence/guilt often has little to do with out of court settlements.
Sometimes it's easier and quicker to settle than pay excessive legal fees.
In this case, likely Apple decided it would be easier to keep selling his music than pay a bunch of legal fees.

OK- So show me where Eminem was suing Apple to only ensure they would keep selling his music as opposed to suing for money. Somewhere I read something about $2.5 million.
Jeesh.

All your posts are so difficult...

As opposed to yours which never make sense?

[Chris_CA]

So show me where Eminem was suing Apple to only ensure they would keep selling his music

Why should I show you that? I never wrote that's what he was suing for.

Trying to convey thoughts to you is like that telephone line game in elementary school.
The teacher whispers "The car is blue and I read a book" to the 1st student then it gets passed to the next student it goes around and the last student says, "you told the 1st sudent, "A dancing gummy bear is about to devour China"".

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I know your question and subsequent insult weren't directed at me, but one possible explanation is that many times it is cheaper for both parties to settle than go through a long, drawn-out process of litigation.

Settlement also might happen when one party has an air-tight case and the other party knows it and doesn't want to embarras themselves in court.

In both your examples that would only pertain to the party being sued. If it was the other way around you would want in case 1.) To prove your innocence or 2.) Embarass the ass out of the suer in court and clear your name.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

Why should I show you that? I never wrote that's what he was suing for.

Trying to convey thoughts to you is like that telephone line game in elementary school.
The teacher whispers "The car is blue and I read a book" to the 1st student then it gets passed to the next student it goes around and the last student says, "you told the 1st sudent, "A dancing gummy bear is about to devour China"".

Reread my last line posted above. And then reread it maybe 25, no 50 times more.

[JupiterOne]

Originally Posted by teckstud

I suggest you reread the last paragraph of the article.

No less than 5 times does the article say it was Eight Mile Style who was suing Apple, but I guess you missed that. A simple Google search shows that the last paragraph is wrong. Eminem (Marshall Mathers) never sued Apple himself this time or in 2004.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by JupiterOne

No less than 5 times does the article say it was Eight Mile Style who was suing Apple, but I guess you missed that. A simple Google search shows that the last paragraph is wrong. Eminem (Marshall Mathers) never sued Apple himself this time or in 2004.

So then why is it there?

Doesn't his publisher represent his interests as well as their own?

[JupiterOne]

Originally Posted by teckstud

So then why is it there?

How should I know, I didn't write it. Are you saying that AI has never made a mistake in their articles?

But to give them the benefit of the doubt, Eminem vs. Apple is more eye catching than Eight Mile Style vs. Apple

[Baytech]

I think if he's going to whine about Apple so much as he has historically done over the years, constantly suing for various things, they should just pull his music. When I have a problem client, I simply inform them that we will no longer be providing services for them. Sure, they'll lose a little money on the downloads but they'll probably save even more not having to pay all of the ridiculous court costs, attorney's fees and settlement amounts.

[DaveGee]

Okay,

Lets look at the facts as well as we can possibly know them..

Apple & Eminem and/or the studio representing Eminem (well one of the studios anyway) attempted to negotiate a settlement to all of this prior to the trial and no common ground was found.

The trial began this week (Monday?) and a mere 4 days into the trial a negotiated settlement was found.... What does that indicate? That's anyones guess... but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that either the trial was going very well for one side or very badly for the other.

However even that assumption might be wrong.

[ncee]

I would be interested in this, if he made music? What da fucck is that shiet he's saying.

And there are foks who have commented and said the Beatles suck… what fuccking planet are they from?

Put my on a island and ask me what music I want to have, and the Beatles will win, each and every time.

Out of respect for anyone who LISTENS to MUSIC … I'd pull his shiet off the site, but that's just me.

Skip

[justflybob]

A song for Eminem and Teckstud:

"My name is,
My name is,
My name is,
L_O_S_E_R."

Repeat as necessary.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by justflybob

A song for Eminem and Teckstud:

Shew fly!
Shew

[7600/132]

Originally Posted by teckstud

In both your examples that would only pertain to the party being sued. If it was the other way around you would want in case 1.) To prove your innocence or 2.) Embarass the ass out of the suer in court and clear your name.

I almost hope you are trolling here, because if this is your genuine opinion, then your ignorance of U.S. law is frightening.

1) Apple does not need to prove their innocence. No defendant does. U.S. courts do not decide guilt or innocence, it is guilty or not-guilty. A subtle but important difference. Also, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If that isn't met then the defendant doesn't need to do anything.

2) Corporations do not feel embarrassment, nor the need to cause it in others. Just because Apple was charged with something, doesn't mean they need to "clear their name", whatever that means to you. The U.S. doesn't have a "loser pays" system, so the lawyer fees to keep the case going becomes the overriding reason for these types of settlements. Apple's lawyers don't work for free, you know. Why should Apple pay all that money, and tie the court up for all that time just to prove what they don't need to, and don't care about anyway?

[oneof52]

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

I doubt Apple lost or had to give up anything.
They were simply named because they were selling the songs licensed from Aftermath.
Had Apple not been named, Aftermatch could have said in court that Apple was actually distributing the music and they weren't named in the lawsuit so the case against them (Aftermath) should be tossed out.

Exactly (from a practicing lawyer of over 15 years).

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by oneof52

Exactly (from a practicing lawyer of over 15 years).

So I suppose when Michael Jackson settled out of court with that young man back in 1993 there wasn't any perception that we was rightfully sued.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by 7600/132

1) Apple does not need to prove their innocence. No defendant does. U.S. courts do not decide guilt or innocence, it is guilty or not-guilty. A subtle but important difference. Also, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If that isn't met then the defendant doesn't need to do anything.

2) Corporations do not feel embarrassment, nor the need to cause it in others. Just because Apple was charged with something, doesn't mean they need to "clear their name", whatever that means to you. The U.S. doesn't have a "loser pays" system, so the lawyer fees to keep the case going becomes the overriding reason for these types of settlements. Apple's lawyers don't work for free, you know. Why should Apple pay all that money, and tie the court up for all that time just to prove what they don't need to, and don't care about anyway?

You know absolutely no more than me or anybody else.

details of the settlement were not revealed.

YOu have no way in knowing if this included anything monetary. If you do fill us in or please stop trolling for Apple.