Eminem takes record label to court over iTunes royalties

[AppleInsider]

Hip hop mogul Eminem this week became the first artist to take a legal stand against record labels over royalties for tracks sold through digital download services like Apple's iTunes, an increasing source of tension between the two sides now that a significant percent of music sales are being made online.

The lawsuit, filed in a Los Angeles court two years ago by the rapper's production company F.B.T., is unusual in that it has actually made its way to trial, reports The Wrap. At issue is whether musicians should be entitled to a larger share of digital download revenues given that much of the overhead in promoting and distributing songs online falls on service providers like Apple, not the labels.

Richard S. Busch, an attorney for the Eminem camp, reportedly spent most of the second day of the trial pounding a former Universal commerce executive with questions over exactly what costs the labels incur when selling music tracks online, which does away with the need for jewel cases, CD duplication, sales teams, and in-store displays.

“Universal provided two digital files to the download companies – a master recording and a metadata guide setting forth a procedure for getting the music on their system,” Busch said. “With the digital download agreements, Universal has no manufacturing costs connected with that, correct?”


"Generally, that’s true," the former executive responded. "But it has costs. You don’t call them manufacturing costs the way that term has been used traditionally. Manufacturing costs are for physical costs, and that has gone away."

Busch then posed the question of whether service providers like Apple also pay the labels a fee for the digital files they eventually turn around and sell to consumers over services like iTunes, to which the Universal witness responded by saying, "We asked them to pay a service charge for that, but we didn’t always manage to collect it…"

Costs related to sales of digital music files aren't the only source of contention between the two sides in the ongoing trial. Eminem and F.B.T. are also questioning whether the transfer of an artist's music to service providers constitutes a licensing agreement or a distribution deal.

Under most contracts with their labels, artists receive around 20 cents -- or less than 30 percent -- of the approximate 70 cents Apple pays labels for the sale of each 99 cent song sold, under the assumption that such sales are part of a distribution deal. But Eminem's attorneys are arguing that since digital sales differ from traditional record store sales in that the music content has long been licensed with restrictions, artists should see a 50-50 split, or about 35 cents a song, per their existing agreements.



In recent years, Eminem has been relentless in his efforts to protect what he believes is rightfully his. In 2004, the Detroit-based rapper sued Apple over its unauthorized use of his song "Lose Yourself" in a TV commercial for the iTunes music store. He again sued the iTunes operator in 2007, alleging that his music was converted to digital form and sold through the service without his blessing.

The first suit was later settled out of court for an undisclosed financial sum.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[CU10]

I hope the man finally makes peace with his mother.

[jenkman91]

I am tired of this dude. He can not rap, and just flat out sucks. we all know your ex is a b***, and that you miss your daughter. we got the message after the third time you "rapped" about it ( what he does is not art. all he does is talk real fast with the tempo to some shitty beat somebody made in a basement)
Eminem most not know that all music is going digital. nobody really purchases cds anymore. (only to use for software like iLife) and thats it. So what that apple used your song in an iPod commercial. If my career was going down the drain, I would be happy if some company was playing my music.

Give me a break. If you need money that bad, go work at McDonalds or something. Get a real job. And leave companies like Apple alone.

[UTisNUM1]

So now i know what to do if i ever become a has been celebrity, sue Apple for making me still known to the world!

[bdkennedy1]

I can't believe it's taken this long. Common sense dictates that if there's no production of physical packaging, then the cost all around should come down substantially.

[Dlux]

I have no problem with Eninem (who I could care less about as an 'artist') going after the labels for contractual royalties, but if he wants to get himself kicked off the iTunes store then he should be prepared for the sales consequences. Not that Apple shouldn't uphold the letter of their contract with him, but other than the advertising incident they're only providing the material as a distributor. Choose you battles...

[Walter Slocombe]

wow, at the ignorance on display in the comments so far..

Weather you regard mister Em as a viable "artist" or not, if he succeeds in getting the studio to roll over (which is highly unlikely) what a precedent that would set!

less well known musicians might actually make a decent living from their skills and art.

and I'll say it again, before someone else does, when the hell are Apple going to become a record company and give artists the same deal as iPhone devs with the 70/30 split, once they sign up to apple?

[pinheadj]

jenkman91 and UTisNUM1,

I think you're misunderstanding the article, he's not suing Apple for anything, he's suing his own label for taking the same (majority) cut of the profits on digital sales as on traditional sales. This would be an important, and I think positive, precedent for all artists. Why should labels take the same enormous percentage of sales when the expenses and effort involved on their behalf is reduced so sharply with digital downloads?

[tumme-totte]

Having the trial for Pirate Bay just going on in Sweden this is indeed an interesting view of things.

Let's say that those who pirate music argues that the music industry earns too much and therefore it's ok. Then Eminem and those pirating actually would be heading down the same lane and basically love each other. Provided that it would be fair to pay something the artist.

Just today this was actually the topic in the Swedish court room. Of course the music industri argues that they are badly hurt by pirated music by lower CD sales. But the music industry as a whole is reported to turn over more money than ever. They get their revenue from other activeties. Maybe even pirating drives the sale in other areas than CDs?

The problem with the pirates argument is that if you pirate - no one gets payd. Neither record company or artist. But if the artists would accept a new business model here this could be the future. You produce your music, send it out into free download and then you see to it that earn your cash on what follows!

Would Apple like that?

Eminems argument is interesting indeed - no matter if you like his music or his person!

[melevittfl]

At issue in this case is the conflict between what the record label tells the artist they're getting and what the customer actually gets.

Artists get more money when their music is licensed vs. when a copy is sold, according to their contract.

What's happening is that UMG is telling Eminem that his music is being *sold* on iTunes. Thus, he gets a lower royalty rate.

However, if you look at the actual details of what happens when you pay money for a track on iTunes, you'll see that you are not purchasing a copy, you are receiving a license to play the track on a limited number of devices, etc.

In other words, when it comes to paying the artist, UMG is calling it a sale, but when it comes to a transaction with a customer, UMG is calling it a license.

Eminem and his management think that if the purchaser is told they are getting a license for the music, and Eminem's contract says he gets a higher royalty rate when the music is licensed, then UMG should be paying the higher royalty rate.

[Larz2112]

Why don't people that are so quick to reply ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE. He is NOT suing APPLE, he is suing the record label. His beef is NOT with Apple, but with the record label regarding how they split the 70 cents per song they get from Apple. And as most of us know, record labels have been historically and notoriously greedy when it comes to paying artists for their creative contribution to the music industry. I'm GLAD that he is suing Universal, because as the article states, they no longer have the huge distribution expenses they used to, yet they still want to take the same cut.

As far as the Eminem bashing in the comments, to each their own. Who cares what you like? I'm not a fan of rap or hip hop, but as a musician I can appreciate what an artist like Eminem does. Wether you like the musical style or not, there is a certain level of talent and creativity in what he does. Do I own any of his music? No. But to say he sucks is just showing your own ignorance and immaturity.

[Dlux]

“With the digital download agreements, Universal has no manufacturing costs connected with that, correct?”


"Generally, that’s true," the former executive responded. "But it has costs. You don’t call them manufacturing costs the way that term has been used traditionally. Manufacturing costs are for physical costs, and that has gone away."

Generally?!? What kind of goddam weasel word is that? No, it's not 'Generally', it's fucking 'Absolutely' true, you shitbag record 'executive'.

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by melevittfl

At issue in this case is the conflict between what the record label tells the artist they're getting and what the customer actually gets.

Artists get more money when their music is licensed vs. when a copy is sold, according to their contract.

What's happening is that UMG is telling Eminem that his music is being *sold* on iTunes. Thus, he gets a lower royalty rate.

However, if you look at the actual details of what happens when you pay money for a track on iTunes, you'll see that you are not purchasing a copy, you are receiving a license to play the track on a limited number of devices, etc.

In other words, when it comes to paying the artist, UMG is calling it a sale, but when it comes to a transaction with a customer, UMG is calling it a license.

Eminem and his management think that if the purchaser is told they are getting a license for the music, and Eminem's contract says he gets a higher royalty rate when the music is licensed, then UMG should be paying the higher royalty rate.

this reply should be incorporated into the article.

but then I wager that there would be still people who wouldn't read it, OR understand it

---

its not just bad spelling or grammar that are on display on the internet, basic comprehension is apparently dwindling as well

[FJRabon]

first of all, this time, eminem is suing the record companies, not apple, so the people who went into apple defense mode, chill out.

second of all, he has a really good point. Overhead costs are substantially lower for the record companies, but the artists work is the exact same. So shouldn't that mean that the artist should get a greater cut out of digital music?

His other point was good a few years ago, because of DRM, the agreements should be treated more like licensing than traditional cd sales, but that's a very complicated and subtle point and now that iTunes has done away with DRM, its largely moot now anyway.

And we have people getting mad at eminem for suing apple for using a song of his, without getting proper permission? Really? Are you that big of a fanboy that you think apple should be able to not abide by copyright law?

[GTL215]

[QUOTE=melevittfl;1381710]
However, if you look at the actual details of what happens when you pay money for a track on iTunes, you'll see that you are not purchasing a copy, you are receiving a license to play the track on a limited number of devices, etc.
QUOTE]


I disagree. It's a purchase, not a lease, since you can burn that track onto a CD, which then becomes unprotected, etc. In other words, you can do whatever you want with that track. Plus, now that the vast majority of iTunes tracks are DRM-free, it's even more clear that a purchase is taking place.

Nonetheless, the way the article is presented, it appears the issue is much more about a splitting the revenues between label and artist, and the purchase/lease issue is another story all together.

[DimMok]

Originally Posted by jenkman91

I am tired of this dude. He can not rap, and just flat out sucks. we all know your ex is a b***, and that you miss your daughter. we got the message after the third time you "rapped" about it ( what he does is not art. all he does is talk real fast with the tempo to some shitty beat somebody made in a basement)
Eminem most not know that all music is going digital. nobody really purchases cds anymore. (only to use for software like iLife) and thats it. So what that apple used your song in an iPod commercial. If my career was going down the drain, I would be happy if some company was playing my music.

Give me a break. If you need money that bad, go work at McDonalds or something. Get a real job. And leave companies like Apple alone.

You give me a break......

While he has fell off the radar (like most artist's do) he will be back.
I personally feel he is the greatest rappe ever next to Tupac and the Notorious B.I.G.

On the basement beats comment....all of Em's beats have been produced by the great producer Doctor Dre. A legend in the game. A game you are not part of.

Go get Em!.....Do it just to do it.

[solipsism]

I wonder if the Psystar campers think that Apple was in the right when the used Eminim's song without consent. As long as they paid the $0.99 for the track they would be the "end user." haha

Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe

wow, at the ignorance on display in the comments so far..

Weather you regard mister Em as a viable "artist" or not, if he succeeds in getting the studio to roll over (which is highly unlikely) what a precedent that would set!

less well known musicians might actually make a decent living from their skills and art.

and I'll say it again, before someone else does, when the hell are Apple going to become a record company and give artists the same deal as iPhone devs with the 70/30 split, once they sign up to apple?

Right on, Walter.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe

wow, at the ignorance on display in the comments so far..

Weather you regard mister Em as a viable "artist" or not, if he succeeds in getting the studio to roll over (which is highly unlikely) what a precedent that would set!

less well known musicians might actually make a decent living from their skills and art.

and I'll say it again, before someone else does, when the hell are Apple going to become a record company and give artists the same deal as iPhone devs with the 70/30 split, once they sign up to apple?

+++

I think Apple are afraid that the labels would pull their catalog of music from iTunes. That's the only reason I can think of.

But yeah what a great deal for Apple and the artists under the scenario you propose. I think its called a 'win-win' deal for both sides.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by melevittfl

... What's happening is that UMG is telling Eminem that his music is being *sold* on iTunes. Thus, he gets a lower royalty rate.

However, if you look at the actual details of what happens when you pay money for a track on iTunes, you'll see that you are not purchasing a copy, you are receiving a license to play the track on a limited number of devices, etc. ....

Not true.

True if the music is DRM'ed, not so otherwise. You are buying a digital copy that you can play anywhere and keep forever, pass on to your grandchildren etc. Even though that hardly ever happens and the digital copy is usually history less than a year or so later, that's just because of poor backups, power outages etc. You can in theory keep the music forever.

What I don't understand is why do artists even bother with the old music companies anyway? Why the hell doesn't a mega-rich dude like Eminem just set up his own operation and sell direct to iTunes and off the web?

Even if he personally is locked into some multi-year bad contract, the same theory applies to other artists. These guys are all millionaires anyway and you can buy the recording equipment for peanuts. All they need is one smart guy or girl to stand up and start the revolution and it will be over in a couple of years.

[vinney57]

Eminem is providing a valuable service in taking this to court, The result will serve as precedent going forward. Clearly the deal on digital sales is not equitable and the Labels know it.

[vinney57]

It would be interesting to know whether the Labels rolling over on the question of DRM was in order to avoid this licensing/distribution argument. Somebody did the sums and made a calculation I suspect.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by tumme-totte

Having the trial for Pirate Bay just going on in Sweden this is indeed an interesting view of things. ... the topic in the Swedish court room ... the music industry argues that they are badly hurt by pirated music by lower CD sales. But the music industry as a whole is reported to turn over more money than ever. They get their revenue from other activeties. Maybe even pirating drives the sale in other areas than CDs?...

This is a bit off topic but this Pirate Bay argument is flawed.

What they don't take into account (and deliberately fail to mention), is that while this effect of pirated music promoting sales is relevant to the way the market is *today* (with pirating being illegal and therefore marginalised), it's not necessarily true once pirating is legalised as Pirate Bay wishes it to be. There is no evidence one way or the other really, but common sense argues against it.

Right now it's difficult to rip off things or find places to download them from, the quality is dodgy and the fact that one can cheaply and legally buy something from iTunes means that the majority of folks will just buy it there. Thus the pirates remain a dedicated, but marginalised minority. Now, it *might* be that making it legal to rip off anything you want whenever you want without hiding in the shadows like Pirate Bay or LimeWire users, will not change things appreciably, but it's far from certain and a bit counter intuitive.

It's also possible that making it legal to do stuff like Pirate Bay will drive a commercialisation of the stolen material. If you knew couldn't get arrested for it, wouldn't a *lot* of people set up Pirate Bay like sites all over the world overnight? Wouldn't they also be rather heavily publicised instead of a well kept secret? Wouldn't users flock to them instead of being scared to get caught as they are now? It seems to me they might.

Pirate Bay's arguments are mostly just defensive justifications for stuff that they simply "want to do." They are the arguments of a privileged teenager, not a noble libertarian thrust. If no one had arrested them or if it wasn't illegal, they would not even be making them. I mean the main Pirate Bay guy is hardly a genius or anything and has been very consistent in stating his case along the lines of "I do this because I want to, and I should be allowed to do what I want."

This is not exactly a heady intellectual argument.

[melevittfl]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

Not true.

True if the music is DRM'ed, not so otherwise.

Whether there is DRM or not, and whether you can pass it on or not is not relevant. And when you purchase non-DRM tracks, Apple still makes you agree to a license for their use.

Apple posts a copy of the license here: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html


And on that page, we see:

"Usage Rules

(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. "

When you walk into a physical store to buy a CD, nobody tries to make you agree to anything, much less an agreement that dictates what you can do with the CD.

That, according to Eminem's lawyers is what makes the transaction on iTunes a license. I.e., the user has to enter into a license agreement.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

What I don't understand is why do artists even bother with the old music companies anyway? Why the hell doesn't a mega-rich dude like Eminem just set up his own operation and sell direct to iTunes and off the web?

Even if he personally is locked into some multi-year bad contract, the same theory applies to other artists. These guys are all millionaires anyway and you can buy the recording equipment for peanuts. All they need is one smart guy or girl to stand up and start the revolution and it will be over in a couple of years.

I think that's where we're headed. I for one think this case is great and exactly what we need right now. Artists are typically under contract and a good portion of that contract covers recoupables for the studio. Digital downloads should not let the studios profits from the virtualizing of warehouses and packaging at the expense of the artist. The raison d'etre of the studio is to promote the artists and distribute the music.

Originally Posted by vinney57

Eminem is providing a valuable service in taking this to court, The result will serve as precedent going forward. Clearly the deal on digital sales is not equitable and the Labels know it.

Yes I see the future shaking out like this.

New artists are under the wings of the distributors. They get the smallest cut.

Established artists have more "brand" recognition and will be able to negotiate far better rates for digital distribution or even go it alone (though with the radio still a significant force self distributorship would be difficult with regard to getting broadcast attention).

We're coming to a point where established artists need the studios less and if I'm a Prince or Eminem or Radiohead I'm looking at the potential of 70 cent profit or more per track and it's a lot more appealing than going the studio route.

Keep in mind studios also swipe up copyright and can make a mint off of licensing hit songs for commercial and movie usage.

I hope the studios lose. Their stranghold is waning and for good reason.

[elroth]

Originally Posted by Dlux

Generally?!? What kind of goddam weasel word is that? No, it's not 'Generally', it's fucking 'Absolutely' true, you shitbag record 'executive'.

Relax - the record company still needs pay people to do the grunt work - distribute millions of tracks to Apple, keep records, balance the books, etc. You think they just flip a switch and everything falls into place?

Yes, he's a weasel - but don't pop a vein over it.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by backtomac

+++

I think Apple are afraid that the labels would pull their catalog of music from iTunes. That's the only reason I can think of.

But yeah what a great deal for Apple and the artists under the scenario you propose. I think its called a 'win-win' deal for both sides.

It's not a win for the consumer though. You've then a got a monopoly situation where you can only get that artist via iTunes. And you're at Apple's whim at that point in regards to pricing. If Apple decides that new album should be $19.99 despite only having 12 tracks and decides that 4 of the tracks are Album Only, what recourse do you have? You can't go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and hunt for it at a lower cost.

I guess you could make the same argument about the few albums that Wal-Mart has exclusive distribution over, but they at least have pressure to keep the price low and offer sales. They can be used as loss leaders hoping to draw people in to purchase other merchandise. Also, those physical albums take up valuable shelf space so if they sit too long, there's an incentive to discount them to make them go away. iTunes has no such pressures associated with it. Whether a million or only 12 copies of an album are sold, it takes up the exact same space on the iTunes servers.

[MissionGrey]

I think apple has a chance here, they could make itunes a open market for all artist of music. Like how the app store works. It is almost already set up with pod casting. Just merge the formats of paid music and universal access. Maybe even let the artist set the price. ( I don't know if maybe they would get too greedy, but that is free market. ) I am sure many well know bands would join if they could make 70 -+ cents a song, compared to 20 cents.

[aaarrrgggh]

Eminen isn't saying end-users license the music, he is saying that Apple does because they create multiple copies from a single original file. I think he is spot-on; it would only be distribution if the music lived on UMG's servers and iTunes only brokered the transaction.

Good luck to him!

[battiato1981]

As noted by a previous poster, the Apple App Store is probably being eyed by a lot of music artists as an example of the greater percentage of profit they could be reaping for their work.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet but I look forward to the emergence of new company models for music promotion that is more artist centric and functions more like a guild or co-op.

The internet provides the new means of both promoting and distributing new music and the social networks and countless blogs are in place to help spread the word of new talent and reviews.

I don't get what the labels provide anymore. Dinosaurs with buggy whips.

[umijin]

Two words: RCRD LBL

It's all about getting the traditional record companies out of the way, so that bands can sell directly to the people in the best medium possible.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by melevittfl

Whether there is DRM or not, and whether you can pass it on or not is not relevant. And when you purchase non-DRM tracks, Apple still makes you agree to a license for their use.

Apple posts a copy of the license here: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html


And on that page, we see:

"Usage Rules

(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. "

When you walk into a physical store to buy a CD, nobody tries to make you agree to anything, much less an agreement that dictates what you can do with the CD.

That, according to Eminem's lawyers is what makes the transaction on iTunes a license. I.e., the user has to enter into a license agreement.

I see. But your assertion that the license only allows you to play it on "certain devices," etc. made it sound like you were talking about FairPlay, and couldn't this licence simply be a hold over from FairPlay since so many tracks in the iTunes store are still DRM'ed?

Perhaps this suit will do it, but it seems to me that this "license" could be invalid as structured and will fall on the first challenge. Seems Eminem is right to challenge it, if only to clear things up.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by caliminius

It's not a win for the consumer though. You've then a got a monopoly situation where you can only get that artist via iTunes. And you're at Apple's whim at that point in regards to pricing. If Apple decides that new album should be $19.99 despite only having 12 tracks and decides that 4 of the tracks are Album Only, what recourse do you have? You can't go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and hunt for it at a lower cost.

I guess you could make the same argument about the few albums that Wal-Mart has exclusive distribution over, but they at least have pressure to keep the price low and offer sales. They can be used as loss leaders hoping to draw people in to purchase other merchandise. Also, those physical albums take up valuable shelf space so if they sit too long, there's an incentive to discount them to make them go away. iTunes has no such pressures associated with it. Whether a million or only 12 copies of an album are sold, it takes up the exact same space on the iTunes servers.

Those are good points.

Having the old physical distribution model survive as competition for digital model would be good for consumers but appears unlikely. When I visit Wal Mart or Target they have fewer and fewer cds for sale. And forget about anything that isn't on the top 40 playlist or isn't an older artist greatest hits cd. They won't carry anything they don't think will sell quickly.

[AgNuke1707]

Originally Posted by DimMok

You give me a break......

While he has fell off the radar (like most artist's do) he will be back.
I personally feel he is the greatest rapper alive....next to Tupac and Big E Smalls of course.

On the basement beats comment....all of Em's beats have been produced by the great producer Doctor Dre. A legend in the game. A game you are not part of.

Go get Em!.....Do it just to do it.

Ummm - you do realize that both Tupac and The Notorious B.I.G. are dead right? So your assertion that Eminem is the greatest rapper alive NEXT to Tupac and Biggie is inherently flawed. Greatest rapper EVER next to Tupac and Biggie would be a better way of wording it...

Secondly ... produced by Dre or not, Eminem's been on the decline for a while now. It's natural - it happens to everyone. He's still relevant, but not as much as 50 Cent or Kanye - but anyway, I digress...

This case could prove very interesting for a couple of reasons:

1) It might just wrestle away some control the labels have over the pricing structure of content. Digital media SHOULDN'T cost as much as the physical media. The manufacturing and distribution costs just aren't there. If Mr. Mathers is able to obtain greater royalties from digital distribution, you may just see the slow death of the record companies really begin...

2) It could prove that Apple is far more important to the music industry than anyone is willing to admit. Apple doesn't need to become their own label - at least not in the traditional sense. Right now the only job they have is to negotiate contracts with the labels, and distribute content digitally. Why would they want to take on the added burden of representing, promoting and signing artists? It's a conflict waiting to happen with not only the artists, but the songwriters and other rights holders of the content.

Now, what I think Apple might be able to do is create a consortium with Amazon, Wal-Mart and other online distributors and flat out BUY the digital rights to the content so that any online distributor in the group can sell the content. The digital rights are then managed by the consortium but each company still operates their own independent stores at prices agreed upon via individual contracts with the artists. Kinda like an car group. GM owns Chevy, GMC, Saturn etc., and any GM dealer can sell new GM group cars, but they operate independently and sell at their own prices ... I know there are some problems with this approach, but it's a pipe dream I'll gladly keep.

[paxman]

Originally Posted by MissionGrey

I think apple has a chance here, they could make itunes a open market for all artist of music. Like how the app store works. It is almost already set up with pod casting. Just merge the formats of paid music and universal access. Maybe even let the artist set the price. ( I don't know if maybe they would get too greedy, but that is free market. ) I am sure many well know bands would join if they could make 70 -+ cents a song, compared to 20 cents.

Are you nuts? Every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo would be up there. By all means, there should be, (and there are) forums where fledgeling musicians can post their work to share and possibly even sell their work, but open iTunes to that and the app becomes a gateway to hell. Listening to people's demos is the aural equivalent to sitting through people's unedited home movies. I'd rather be shot slowly. I have not given this any thought so don't take it as my confirmed pov but maybe this is one of the better functions of the music labels - to act as a filter. I know that most of the music that comes out of the record labels is garbage (that is my confirmed opinion!) but at least it is easy to filter. generally I can just look at the accompanying artwork and I already know whether I will like the music or not.

[quinney]

Originally Posted by DimMok

I personally feel he is the greatest rapper alive....next to Tupac and Big E Smalls of course.

they are both secretly still alive

[quinney]

I guess this contract must have been written quite some time ago, if it does not
explicitly state the terms for online sales. I imagine (and hope) that any artist
signing a contract with a label these days would have explicit terms for every
possible mode of distribution of their music.

If eminem winning this suit would serve to make the labels less relevant and
lead to artists signing distribution agreements directly with Apple, I also think
that would be a huge positive.

[MissionGrey]

Originally Posted by paxman

Are you nuts? Every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo would be up there. By all means, there should be, (and there are) forums where fledgeling musicians can post their work to share and possibly even sell their work, but open iTunes to that and the app becomes a gateway to hell. Listening to people's demos is the aural equivalent to sitting through people's unedited home movies. I'd rather be shot slowly. I have not given this any thought so don't take it as my confirmed pov but maybe this is one of the better functions of the music labels - to act as a filter. I know that most of the music that comes out of the record labels is garbage (that is my confirmed opinion!) but at least it is easy to filter. generally I can just look at the accompanying artwork and I already know whether I will like the music or not.

What is wrong with that. If they suck no one will buy their work, hence: free market.
I totaly agree with you that so much of the music put out by the labels, but wouldn't you like to decide what is good to you as a individual, rather than it being pushed down your throat by the music companies.

[Dlux]

Originally Posted by elroth

Relax - the record company still needs pay people to do the grunt work - distribute millions of tracks to Apple, keep records, balance the books, etc. You think they just flip a switch and everything falls into place?

Yes, he's a weasel - but don't pop a vein over it.

It was keyboard venting. What irks me is the attorney phrased it as unambiguously as possible, yet
the Universal exec went out of his way to instill doubt in the characterization that the manufacturing costs were completely absent from online distribution.


"When you walk to work you eliminate the cost of fuel from your commute, correct?"

"Generally, that's true, but it has costs. You don't call them fuel costs the way that term has been used traditionally. Fuel costs are for the energy sources you put in your vehicle, and that has gone away."


Admit that your manufacturing costs have dropped to zero - there is no other way to answer the question. Trying to still milk that from the artist or the consumer is like the railroad union insisting there be an extra 'fireman' on every train even when they have all switched from coal to diesel.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by MissionGrey

What is wrong with that. If they suck no one will buy their work, hence: free market.
I totaly agree with you that so much of the music put out by the labels, but wouldn't you like to decide what is good to you as a individual, rather than it being pushed down your throat by the music companies.

It is a free market and you can start a company that will allow anyone and everyone to put up any "music" they create, but for a free market to actually work it has to be a place where people can find what they want. A confusing cluster of really bad music will not be where people will shop. Having a great voice or being able to play an instrument does not a good musician make. There also needs to be good written music and lyrics and production. As you agreed, most of the music from the labels is garbage. How would that get better if the filter were to go away completely? It would make it even harder to find good music. What you propose would not work because the free market would not want it.

[teckstud]

Eminem- he's right up there with Vanilla Ice.