COPYRIGHT Internet
Has Italy legalised P2P file sharing?
INFORMATION FOR READERS:
This resource aims to give a brief overview of developments in Intellectual
Property law and other areas of law relevant to the music and entertainment
industries. Each item is categorised according to relevant areas of the
music or entertainment business, and by the date of uploading. Uploads
are undertaken regularly and are organised on a monthly basis. These updates
are designed to give general information for music and entertainment industry
professionals and students interested in these areas. These Law Updates
are not law reports or detailed references. Users who would like further
information should research the relevant area thoroughly. Relevant references
and links are therefore provided.
Law Updates also provides hyperlinks to other sites which may be of use or interest to legal professionals, academics, students and those involved in the music industry. These are provided at the end of Music Law Updates Archive under 'Music Business Law Links'. You will also find all of these links and other hyperlinks on the links page.
This resource is compiled by Ben Challis. Ben is a UK lawyer specialising in entertainment law and a graduate in law from Kings College London and The City University. He also holds the degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communications from the University of Leicester. Ben is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Ben acts as General Counsel for 3A Entertainments, one of the UK's leading concert promoters, and is Executive Producer for television of the Glastonbury Festival. Glastonbury is the UK's leading music and arts festival attended by over 150,000 people. For Glastonbury, Ben combines the role of managing the Festival's broadcast and other media rights alongside acting as General Counsel for the Festival. Ben's other clients have included the Prince's Trust, the Granada Media Group, Pioneer LDCE and British Telecom. Ben regularly writes articles and other material on music business and intellectual property law, contributes to books and is a regular conference speaker in particular on the live music industry. He is currently preparing a collection of cases and materials on music business law for publication. Ben sits as a magistrate in Cumbria, England.
We are interested in your views on the Law Updates resource. Please forward any comments to : musiclaw01@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Internet
Has Italy legalised P2P file sharing?
The Italian parliament may have unwittingly legalized sharing music over P2P networks. A new copyright law, passed by both houses of parliament, would allow Italians to freely share music over the Internet as long as it was noncommercial and the music “degraded”. Italian copyright attorney Andrea Monti told Italian paper La Republica that whoever authored the law failed to take into account that the word "degraded" has a very precise meaning when it comes to computer files. Slashdot points out that all music sold on the major music download sites is degraded in some form or another so in theory music fans would be able to freely share their music libraries over P2P networks although the law does limit such sharing to "educational or scientific" use. The legislation still needs to be published in the Italian Official Journal to pass into law. The Recording Industry in Europe has already suffered a number of setbacks including last months ruling by the European Court of Justice (Promusicae v Telefonica, see below) setting out guidelines that domestic courts must use when balancing the rights of copyright owners against the privacy rights of consumers in civil cases and German prosecutors have refused to pursue criminal claims against individual downloaders calling them "petty offenses." Finally a Swiss antipiracy firm who dodged these problems by filing criminal copyright infringement cases and then switching to civil actions once the identity of the internet user in question was obtained has been told by the Swiss government to drop this practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Internet, record labels
Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España C275/06
Music and film companies suffered a partial setback in their fight against internet piracy after the European Court of Justice ruled that European countries do not have to compel telecoms companies and other internet service providers to disclose information about customers suspected of illegally sharing music files online, the region's top court ruled yesterday. However, the Court said member states did need to ensure that a "fair balance" was struck between the privacy rights of individuals and the rights of intellectual property owners - such as music and film producers - seeking to pursue civil legal claims over copyright infringement. But IP rights holders insisted the decision was not discouraging. "The court has provided a welcome reminder that there is a balance in law between the rights to privacy and other fundamental rights," said Christopher Marcich at the Motion Picture Association and the IFPI, which represents the recording industry, put a positive spin on the decision saying "The judgment means that music rights holders can still take actions to enforce their rights, and it has sent out a clear signal that member states have to get the right balance between privacy and enforcement of IP rights." The ECJ ruling stemmed from a Spanish case in which producers and publishers of musical and audiovisual recordings (Promusicae) demanded Telefonica, the telecoms company, disclose the names and addresses of some of its internet customers which they claimed were all individuals had been using the Kazaa programme to share music files over the internet. Promusicae wanted to sue these individuals in Spain's civil courts. The Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 de Madrid agreed and ordered the disclosure. Telefónica appealed, contending that the communication of the data sought by Promusicae was authorised only in a criminal investigation or for the purpose of safeguarding public security and national defence, not in civil proceedings or as a preliminary measure relating to civil proceedings. Promusicae disagreed, arguing that there relevant provisions of Spanish law must be interpreted in accordance with Community law. The Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 de Madrid decided to stay the proceedings and referred the question to the European Court for a preliminary ruling.
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2008/01/proportionality-is-key-in-music.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2278d88c-ced5-11dc-877a-000077b07658.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record labels, internet
Good news for the labels as the UK follows France in looking to ISPs
But whilst in Spain, Italy, Germany and Switzerland the record labels faced up to bad news in their ongoing battle against internet piracy and illegal downloading, in The United Kingdom the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) launched a green paper on the creative industries and one new suggestion was a “three strikes and you’re out law” to combat illegal downloads. Under the proposal, UK internet users will be monitored by their ISP’s for illegal downloads, and those caught will receive an e-mail warning in the first instance, internet suspension the second time, and then termination of their contract on the third strike. A similar law was proposed in France in November 2007 and Australian legislators are considering the idea too. In the UK, broadband firms which fail to enforce the rules could be prosecuted, and the details of customers suspected of making illegal downloads would be made available to the courts. I n Denmark, the Danish Courts have barred internet access to The Pirate Bay download site (although it seems the publicity has generated new traffic to the site). The organisers of the site are already facing criminal prosecution in Sweden (on both stories see below) and now legal actions from artists as diverse as Prince and the Village People.
http://www.out-law.com/page-8868
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/12/anti_filesharing_paper_leak/
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/11/172230
http://torrentfreak.com/anakata-of-the-pirate-bay-speaks-out-on-tv-080211/
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/12/uk-proposes-three-strikes-and-your-out-illegal-downloading-law/
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/18/0138221
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/17/2043216
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record labels, internet
The Recording Industry steps up their campaign against piracy in China
***We have become a bit concerned about the accuracy of some of the IFPI’s reports recently and would like to point readers to an article on the Music 2.0 website regarding the background to the IFPI’s actions against Baidu and Yahoo! China: http://www.music2dot0.com/archives/95***
With that in mind, we should make it clear that the following is taken from an IFPI press release
The IFPI has announced a series of new steps to “try to develop a music business in China based on respect rather than blatant violation of copyright laws” saying that legal proceedings have been filed today against the country’s biggest internet company, Baidu. Separate actions have also been brought against Sohu and its associate company Sogou. Meanwhile, Yahoo! China faces fresh proceedings following its refusal to comply with the court ruling in December confirming it violated Chinese law by committing mass copyright infringement. All of the Chinese companies involved operate similar services based on delivering music to their users via “deep links” to hundreds of thousands of infringing tracks on third party sites, with the aim of driving their own advertising revenue. Such services have been confirmed as in breach of copyright by the December judgment of the Beijing Higher People’s Court. Each of them is a driver of copyright abuse in China, where the huge potential for the online music sector is being stymied by copyright theft. The IFPI add that China has potentially the largest online music-buying public in the world with as many broadband connections as the United States. Currently, however, more than 99 per cent of all music files distributed in the country are pirate and China’s total legitimate music market, at US$76 million, accounts for less than one per cent of global recorded music sales. The action follows in the wake of a decisive judgment against Yahoo China in December 2007 by the Beijing Higher People's Court. The IFPI add that the court’s finding that Yahoo China’s music delivery service is illegal under Chinese law sets a precedent for cases against similar operations in China (and it is on this matter we expect an article from China). Three record companies have now filed proceedings against Baidu. The new claims have been filed with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court by Universal Music Ltd, Sony BMG Music Entertainment ( Hong Kong) Ltd and Warner Music Hong Kong Ltd. The three companies are asking the court to order Baidu to remove all links on its music delivery service to copyright infringing tracks that they own the rights to. Action is also being taken today against Sohu and its associate company Sogou, which operates a similar service. Sogou makes profits through advertising that appears on the service and through sponsorship. Sogou also actively induces and encourages copyright infringement by means of recommendations and charts, while Sohu provides deep linking services through its associate company.
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20080204.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Internet
Pirate Bay blocked in Denmark
There was more good news for the record labels in Denmark. Following the news Swedish prosecutors last week charged four men behind The Pirate Bay, a Danish court has now ordered Internet Service Provider Tele2 to block access to the BitTorrent tracker, meaning anyone accessing the internet in Denmark via Tele2 will no longer be able access the Bay. It is believed that the ISP may appeal the order as, like many ISPs, it does not feel it is right for ISPs to police their members' activities. Whilst Tele2 is only one of several ISPs in Denmark, the legal precedent could be extended to other internet providers, and beyond the Danish jurisdiction also - the Finnish division of the IFPI is reportedly already considering pursuing a similar order through the courts there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
All areas
Microsoft survey on copyright theft points to need to educate
Microsoft has announced the results of a new survey which has prompted the software company to launch a campaign to teach teens about intellectual property rights and the risks they face when breaking the law. The survey showed that teens appear to be willing to curtail illegal downloading when told they face fines or jail time. Microsoft's survey found that about half of the teenagers surveyed (49%) said they are not familiar with the rules and guidelines for downloading content from the Internet. Only 11% understood the rules well, and of those, 82% said downloading content illegally merits punishment. Among those unfamiliar with the law, only 57% supported punishment for intellectual property violations. More worryingly for the music industry, The Microsoft survey also found that many teens believe online music is overpriced. It found that 41% of teens believe the cost to download a song should be between $0.50 and $1. Twenty-six percent of respondents said digital songs should cost less than $0.50 and 21% said online music should be free. The Company has turned to Topics Education, a developer of custom curricula, to create a curriculum called Intellectual Property Rights Education for US middle and high school teachers. The Microsoft-sponsored curriculum consists of Web-based resources and case-study driven lesson plans that aim to engage students about intellectual property issues. Access Copyright, a Canadian copyright enforcement group, in 2006 launched a “Captain Copyright” web site and backed a lesson plan to teach students respect for copyright law. The project was greeted with widespread ridicule online and accusations that the site itself was violating copyright law. In August 2006, the site was, in effect, closed with an explanation posted that "despite the significant progress we made on addressing the concerns raised about the original Captain Copyright initiative, as well as the positive feedback and requests for literally hundreds of lesson kits from teachers and librarians, we have come to the conclusion that the current climate around copyright issues will not allow a project like this one to be successful."
The University of Hertfordshire has teamed up with British Music Rights to survey 12-24 year olds in the UK to investigate the online usage habits of that age group in the UK. The results are due to be published in spring 2008 in a survey due to be repeated in an annual basis in order to track behaviour and patterns which would allow BMR to look at the effectiveness of their educational initiatives and see if there is an evolution in the consumer’s perception of copyright and changes in attitude.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206503467
IMPACT Magazine Issue 1 Q4/07 at p4
And see http://techdigest.tv/2008/02/microsofts_inno.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record labels, internet
ARTICLE: The future’s bright, the future’s free
Cassandra Williams, postgraduate law student, The College of Law
Radiohead kicked off the new trend that is now seemingly sweeping the music industry, allowing fans to choose what price to pay for the download of their new album ‘In Rainbows’ - effectively in many cases giving it away for free. To many this may have seemed like a hollow gesture as the album was then released on a physical format as well as part of a box set. And many argued that the majority of artists will not be able to survive without a record company behind them. In fact some commentators added that rather than helping make music more accessible there is a possibility that Radiohead’s model would actually deter record companies from developing new artists and actually have a detrimental effect upon the industry.
But now both The Futureheads and the Guillemots have announced that they shall be ‘giving’ their music away for free. The Futureheads, who are now on their own record label, emailed a free new track to fans on December 25 th to wish them a Merry Christmas. The track was sent to the email of anyone who has signed up for the band’s mailing list at the band’s website, Thefutureheads.com. The publicity stunt was deemed a success and now fans can download ‘Broke Up The Time' via text. The Futureheads have used downloads in order to generate much needed publicity and they have demonstrated that you do not have to be a global superstar in order to survive without a record company. And the Guillemots are also ‘giving’ away a new track, 'Kriss Kross' what is surprising is that fact that they are not on their own independent label but are actually signed to Universal. This demonstrates the fact that even the major record companies are now willing to adapt in the digital age. The track is the opener for Guillemots'new album ' Red' and the free track is being used as a promotional tool – and of course the free giveaway has generated huge amounts of press interest.
For the average consumer mixed messages are being sent out. Whilst it is illegal to file share or illegally download, artists are now giving away their music for free. This could effectively give rise to a situation where the music a consumer has downloaded was free but by file sharing that track the consumer has now indeed broken the law. Even though the Radiohead album as available free – millions actually obtained the album by illegal file swapping. An odd situation indeed. The confusion surrounding what is legal in the world of digital downloads and format shifting was further thrown into confusion when it was announced that it could soon become legal in the UK to copy CD’s to another device such as a computer for personal use. Intellectual property minister Lord Triesman said the law should be changed so it "keeps up with the times" but again many consumers either thought they could already format shift legally – with the majority of the population were already acting under the assumption this was in fact legal anyway – another big group simply didn’t care. The attempts to further educate consumers about illegal downloads seems doomed to fail in a society that (now) morally can see no wrongdoing in the act.
It is perhaps time for a drastic overhaul in the law relating to how copyright is to be protected on the internet and also relating to the way in which Record Companies operate. Different deals could become the norm that incorporate merchandise and tour rights with the actual recorded music now relegated to a loss leader. So – back to that ‘big’ debate on the 360 degree deal it seems!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record labels, artists
France backs term extension for sound recordings
It seems that the show’s not over for an extension to the copyright term of sound recordings. According to an article in the Times, France is due to make the extension a priority of its upcoming six-month presidency of the EU, despite opposition from the UK and Germany. According to the French Culture Minister, Christine Albanel. “Today, whole swaths of the recording catalogue of the 1950s and 1960s, representing a significant part of the national pop heritage, are falling progressively into the public domain…That creates an obvious problem of fairness. Artists who began their careers very young are being stripped today of all remuneration from their first recordings.” The illustrious IPKat says it cannot quite share Ms Albanel’s indignation adding that “there aren’t many other industries where success in your youth guarantees you an income for life”. See more on this from the EC and Scotland below. http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2008/02/french-connections.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record labels, artists
Now Scotland pushes for term extension independence
The wonderful IPKat reports that The IPKat that a Scottish MSP has put forward a Private Members' Bill titled "Sound Recordings (Copyright Term Extension) Bill 2007-08", with the apparent aim of "extend[ing] beyond 50 years the copyright term of sound recordings; and for connected purposes". What exactly this would entail is not yet clear, as the bill has not been published. It is, however, due for its second reading in the UK Parliament on 7 March 2008, when we should be able to find out more. This seems to be in line with European Commissioner Charlie McCreevy who says that he wants the same thing Europe. The MP in question is Peter Wisehart who just happens to be an ex-member of Scottish folk-rock group Runrig as well as being SNP Member of Parliament for the Perth and Perthshire North constituency. On the latest update of the House of Commons Register of members Interests he states, "I receive royalty payments from EMI/Ridge Records [Runrig's record company] for my recorded works with Runrig, with whom I serve as an unremunerated director. I receive payments for my published works from the Performing Rights Society." The IPKat adds that “whilst the IPKat would be very surprised to see Runrig earning any money from royalties relating to their sound recordings in 50 years (although he probably won't be around to see it happen), he can see why Mr Wishart would want as much copyright as he can get his hands on, just in case. Could the hands of EMI perhaps have had something to do with it too, since they have a much bigger vested interest?” and the Kat adds “Should MPs even be allowed to table Bills where they clearly have something to gain from them being passed?”.
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-copyright-please-says-snp-mp.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT
Record labels, artists, internet
EU proposes extending the term for sound recordings
Having been knocked back in the UK in the Gowers Report, record labels and artists will be delighted with the news that European Commissioner Charlie McCreevy feels that performing artists should no longer be the 'poor cousins' of the music business, and is proposing an increase in the term of copyright for sound recordings from 50 to 95 years across Europe saying "I strongly believe that copyright protection for Europe's performers represents a moral right to control the use of their work and earn a living from their performances. I have not seen a convincing reason why a composer of music should benefit from a term of copyright which extends to the composer's life and 70 years beyond, while the performer should only enjoy 50 years, often not even covering his lifetime It is the performer who gives life to the composition and while most of us have no idea who wrote our favourite song - we can usually name the performer". The proposal is set against the copyright term for music copyright (songs and lyrics are protected for the life of author plus 70 years), the position in the USA (where copyright in sound recordings can extend to 95 years) and backed up by an argument that both featured artists and session musicians need 'pension' provisions from ongoing royalties now that average life expectancy in Europe is 75 for men and 81 for women. However Commissioner McCreevy seems to have listened to the voices of artists (particularly the MMF) and says "I am determined to ensure that this extension will benefit all artists – whether featured artists or session musicians," the Commissioner says. "For session musicians, the record companies will set up a fund – a substantial fund reserving at least 20% of the income during the extended term to them. For featured artists, original advances may no longer be set off against royalties in the extended term. That means the artist would get all the royalties during the extended term". I suspect overall the labels will be happy, but the idea of artists receiving all of the royalties will still be an anathema to many labels - what - no recoupment!? What - no deductions? What - no royalty reducers? Mon Dieu! Zoot Alors! Perhaps even more alarming for the labels (well not really) is that the Commissioner suggests a "use it or lose it policy", again something the MMF have championed although the Commissioner goes nowhere near as far as the MMF would like. Here in the case a record company is unwilling to re-release a sound recording during the extended term, the performer can move the rights to another label. It appears that this proposal should apparently be ready for adoption by the Commission before the summer break of 2008. However it should be remembered that with piracy running at 20 illegal downloads to every 1 legal download (and that from the IFPI's own figures!). if the labels don't get their digital business models right it could all be a bit of a waste of time and legislative energy.
And see the article on this site by Ben Challis - Extending The Term (under Articles) at http://www.musiclawupdates.com/index_main.htm
Perhaps more sensibly the IFPI is supporting a campaign in the US to change US law to make the $20bn US radio industry pay for the music it broadcasts. Rather unusually the performance of sound recordings on terrestrial radio (but not digital/satellite) does NOT attract a royalty payment. Now over 6000 artists from fifteen countries, including the UK, have now put their name to a petition calling on those proposals to become US law. The petition, organised by global record label trade body the IFPI and UK recording royalty society PPL, says that the signatories believe it is "grossly unfair" that the US radio industry pays nothing for the music it uses to draw audiences and drive profits. Late last year a group of US politicians put forward proposals to introduce albeit relatively modest royalties for terrestrial radio companies to pay, and those proposals have been much discussed in the last couple of months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEALTH & SAFETY
Live event industry
Clear Channel in multi million dollar settlement over Great White Tragedy
(From The CMU Daily)
Now here's a warning to any US media entering into co-promotion deals with live music companies. American radio major Clear Channel may pay out $22 million in relation to that much previously reported 2003 fire at a Great White gig in Rhode Island where 100 people died.
As previously reported, 100 people were killed and double that injured when The Station nightclub in West Warwick burned down during the 2003 gig by the LA rock band. The fire was caused by pyrotechnics used during the gig, and there was much dispute between the owners of the venue and the band's management as to whether permission had been granted by the former to the latter to use the pyros in a venue that, it transpired, had very flammable sound proofing. Club owners Jeffrey and Michael Derderian and Great White tour manager Dan Biechele all received criminal convictions: Biechele received a four year prison term with a further eleven years suspended in relation to 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter. After a bitterly contested plea bargain, Michael Derderian, who purchased the foam for the venue, received a four year prison term and both brothers also received three years’ probation. In addition, Jeffrey Derderian was sentenced to 500 hours of community service.
One of the lawsuits launched by lawyers for the victims of the fire was aimed at Clear Channel's WHJY-FM who had pre-promoted the concert by running ads, giving away tickets and providing a DJ to MC the night. The legal types argued that the radio station knew, or should have known, that the band regularly used pyrotechnics in the show, and that that would be dangerous at
the venue hosting the event. They also argued their employee at the gig – ie the DJ who was MCing, one Mike Gonsalves, who was killed in the fire – could and should have delayed the start of the gig over safety concerns. WHJY-FM in its defence has pointed out neither it nor its employee had any control over activities in The Station club that night, nor did they hire,
pay or have any control over the band. Nevertheless, given the scale of the tragedy, the station's parent company is keen to resolve the action without a drawn out court case and as such has been busy negotiating an out of court settlement. The settlement now on the table will cost the radio major $22 million, and will take the monies so far won for victims of the fire to $70
million - following settlements with others accused of liability in the fire - including the maker and seller of the sound proofing material that caught fire, the maker of the pyros, and a TV company whose camera man was accused of blocking a fire exit. Other lawsuits, including one against the
band themselves, rumble on.
Confirming the out of court settlement, the radio firm said yesterday: "While Clear Channel had no role in causing or contributing to this fire, we are pleased to resolve these claims and, hopefully, contribute in some way to a sense of resolution for the affected victims and their families". While Clear Channel were keen to stress that the pay out does not mean that
they accept any liability for the fire, the settlement could still have an impact on other radio stations who enter into similar co-promotional relationships with smaller independent venues, who may now look for reassurances from promoters and venues that all safety issues have been
addressed.
From the CMU Daily http://www.cmumusicnetwork.co.uk
And additional background from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15061587/
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/stationfire/content/projo-20060929-sentencing.2ba699e2.html
See Music Law Updates http://www.musiclawupdates.com/news/06Septembernewsupdates.htm
http://www.musiclawupdates.com/news/06Septembernewsupdates.htm
http://www.musiclawupdates.com/articles/ARTICLE%2003regulatedtodeath.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYMENT
Artists, television
French love attracts labour laws
Contestants on the French equivalent of Temptation Island, I’lle de la Tentation, have been awarded substantial payouts by the Paris Appeal Court which found their activities on the island were subject to full French Employment laws. Production company Glem, the reality division of broadcaster TF1, had contracted to pay each contestant E1,525 (about £1,200) as an advance payment against Image/merchandising rights. But the court decided that during the twelve day ordeal the contestants were employed as production staff and they worked 24 hors a day, 7 days a week. The French maximum working week is 35 hours and Glem were ordered to pay the three claimant contestants E8,176 in overtime, E817 for holiday pay, E500 for unfair dismissal and E1,500 for wrongful termination of contract with a further E16,000 awarded for illegal employment. Glem had said the contestants were engaged in entertainment, not work. In the UK we have not heard about any claims against the contracts contestants enter into with the producers of programmes like Big Brother and Castaway – but a number of contestants most notably Jade Goody have become national celebrities and have made substantial sums from a variety of new revenues streams after leaving the reality shows including books, magazine features, DVDs and further TV appearances.
The Times 16 February 2008 p9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTRACTS
Record labels, artists
Universal faces royalty dispute
CMU Daily report that Universal Music and one of its subsidiaries have "pervasively and systematically breached" artist agreements since at least 1998 by employing devious accounting tricks that conned artists out of royalties they were due” in a claim brought by high profile classic artists in a lawsuit launched against the major record company in the New York courts last week. Among the artists making the claim (or the estates of artists in the case of the dead ones) were Patti Page, Count Basie, Benny Goodman, Les Brown, Richard Hayman, Dick Hyman, Woody Herman, Kitty Kallen, Frankie Laine, Tony Martin, John Mills, Jerry Murad, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, and Sarah Vaughn. The litigation claims Universal provided false information in its biannual royalty reports to artists between May 1999 and February 2007. It says: "Despite a relationship based on trust and manifold contractual obligations, and despite the fact that defendants realised an overwhelming windfall to both its finances and reputation as a result of this relationship" the major "utterly failed" to meet its contractual obligations. The lawsuit is seeking $6.07 million in allegedly lost royalties plus legal costs and punitive damages. However, Universal has denied any wrong doing, saying in a statement on Friday: "We believe that these claims are baseless, and we are confident that we will prevail in court".
From the CMU Daily www.cmumusicnetwork.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTRACT
Artists
Busted case finally makes it to court
The claim by two original members of boy band Busted, Ki McPhail and an Owen Doyle, that they were forced out of the band and made to sign away lucrative intellectual property rights in songs has finally reached court. The action, dating back to the early days of Busted in 2002, has come about as McPhail and Doyle say that before being pushed out they co-wrote some of the hit songs that appeared on Busted's eponymous and very successful debut album. As a result they want a cut of the royalties those songs have generated. Both claimants signed an agreement on their departure giving up all claim to the band's intellectual property, but both now claim that agreement should be set aside for various reasons, including the fact that they allegedly weren't told of Universal's interest in the band and their music before entering into the agreement and
that their management owed them a duty as their managers to not let them sign such a foolish contract. It appears that their then managers not only let them sign the agreement but actually wrote it too. There is a further allegation that the contract was signed under duress. McPhail and Doyle began their legal action in 2005, and the case finally reached the High Court in London yesterday. The original litigation named five defendants, the band's former manager Richard Rashman and his company Prestige, record producer John MacLauchlan, and Bourne and Willis.
Rashman, Prestige and MacLauchlan have all reached out of court settlements though, meaning the court case will only involve the original remaining band members James Bourne and Matt Willis.
see CMU Daily 27th February 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT, LICENSING
Music publishing, internet
Medianet repond to publisher’s lawsuit
Digital music provider MediaNet – formerly MusicNet - has hit out at the US's National Music Publisher Association who have begun legal action against them. The NMPA have accused
MediaNet of reneging on past commitments to pay publishing royalties - both 'performing' and 'mechanical' kind - on their on-demand and limited play download services. There is an ongoing dispute over what publishing royalties such MediaNet services should pay - especially with mechanical royalties - but the publishers argue that MediaNet have changed their position regarding paying some royalties for past services once an agreement is finally reached. MediaNet has denied any wrongdoing, and criticised the legal action arguing it is one of the few organisations that actually has a long history of working with music companies to properly licence digital music services, in a domain dominated by illegal unlicensed music operations. MediaNet provides the back-end to digital music services operated by a number of other brands and
retailers.
From the CMU Daily www.cmumusicnetwork.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTRACT
Record labels
Fleetwood loses claim for BBC masters
Mick Fleetwood of Fleetwood Mac has lost his long-running legal battle against the Beeb in relation to the distribution rights of session recordings from the BBC's archives. The dispute was between Fleetwood's company Bee Load Ltd and the BBC's commercial division BBC Worldwide. The former entered into a contract with the latter back in 2001 giving Fleetwood's company the right to release CDs featuring various BBC recordings of artists like Bruce Springsteen, U2, The Who, The Stones, The Beatles, Elton John, Santana and Led Zeppelin. The relationship fell apart in 2003, though, and Fleetwood claimed the Beeb were in breach of contract for refusing to work with his company, and sued through the US courts for damages (Bee Load being primarily based in the US). However, a judge in Maine last week ruled in favour of the BBC, concluding that it was Fleetwood's business partner, Joseph McNulty, who caused the business deal to fault, because he became "obsessed" with gaining exclusivity rights for distributing the BBC recordings, even though such rights were not part of the 2001 deal. BBC Worldwide, the judge ruled, did everything they could do to make the deal work despite McNulty's obsession with exclusivity, and could not be held liable for the ultimate collapse of the business relationship. The issue was decided in a bankruptcy court in Portland, Bee Load's main place of business, when the company filed for protection under US bankruptcy law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7247371.stm
and from the CMU Daily www.cmumusicnetwork.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPETITION
Record labels, internet
ARTICLE LINK Visions of an online cartel
An interesting blog by Greg Sandoval linking US anti-trust law to the possibility of the major labels jointly participating in an online music subscription service
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9867814-7.html?tag=newsmap
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT, PATENTS, TRADE MARK
All areas
ARTICLE LINK: WTO legalizes piracy in Antigua
http://www.music2dot0.com/archives/97
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007, Ben Challis