Court ruling screws labels, favors artists

I don't know everything about this, but record companies could be fucked...


Court ruling could mean millions in online royalties for Eminem, other artists


By BRIAN McCOLLUM
Free Press Pop Music Writer
Eminem probably thought he'd be waking up this morning to focus entirely on his concert tonight at Comerica Park.

Instead he got a bit of unexpected news from a federal appeals court in California: some major money could be headed his way.

The decision, which one Eminem attorney calls an “earthquake” for the music industry, could transform the online song business and boost the fortunes of untold numbers of artists.

Reversing a lower-court jury decision from last year, the court ruled that Eminem and his production company are entitled to nearly triple the royalties they've been receiving for track sales and ringtones on online services such as iTunes.

For Eminem, who has sold more than 6 million downloads this year alone, that could mean tens of millions of dollars in new income.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100903/ENT04/100903088/1318/Ruling-could-mean-millions-for-Eminem

This caught my eye...
Universal argued that Eminem should be paid a standard 18% royalty rate for those sales, as he is for physical copies. FBT contended that providing a song to iTunes was actually a third-party licensing situation, similar to film and television deals, which calls for a 50% royalty rate.

 

Awww, boo hoo for the poor record companies.

 

Hey, I didn't say it was a bad thing...

 

Curt Flood smiles from above.

 

Sounds like good news for Eminem, but I'll bet it'll hurt lesser known artists.

As long as record companies play a role in breaking new talent, what hurts record companies is going to hurt new artists.

The business model of record companies has been hurt as badly as newspapers.

 

Fuck record companies. I still haven't forgiven them for charging $18 for a new CD in the 90's. They deserve whatever happens to them.

 

either way, it appears i make more money per itunes download than eminem. now lets not talk about total sales.

 

You guys are funny. Sure, record companies have screwed artists over the years.

But wishing death on record companies isn't going to help artists any more than the death of newspapers helps writers.

Established artists can cut out the middle man & sell direct to the consumer. But record companies fund artists studio time/album, get them radio airplay, and book them as support acts on their bigger acts' tours.

If record companies make less money, they'll fund less bands, and concentrate on an ever smaller number of established bands.

 

I thought that's why we have American Idol, afterall they have delivered us such quality artists in the past as . . . a little help here?
[/bluefont]

 

Not sure that's necessarily the case, YF. There's always going to be a demand for new artists. Name one band today that's still going to be around/relevant in 20-30 years. The days of the Who/Stones, bands that keep at it for 40-50 years are coming to an end. Thankfully, IMO.

The companies that don't beat the bushes and find the new talent will be the ones that lose in the end. If they don't give the consumer what they want, they'll go out of business. And I'm not an expert, but a 50-50 split still sounds pretty fair to me. If an exec or two has to downsize their mansion or sell a Mercedes or two, so be it.

 

In this day and age, are record companies even necessary? Seriously. The technology is now so available that recording studios aren't backed by record companies. Bands are forming their own record companies to make their stuff available on CD and mp3 or whatever. In effect, aren't "record" companies nowadays just management companies?

 

Essentially, yes.

I believe Madonna's current "record deal" is with Live Nation. The old school labels are dying -- and it's hard to see that as a bad thing.