PDA

View Full Version : Eminem's Publisher Sues Apple for Unauthorized Music Sales




MacBytes
Jul 31, 2007, 07:49 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Eminem sues Apple for iTunes sales (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20070731084952)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug



bartelby
Jul 31, 2007, 07:54 AM
I'd have thought Universal would have owned the publishing rights as they are his label.

iSaint
Jul 31, 2007, 08:41 AM
I'd have thought Universal would have owned the publishing rights as they are his label.

I think it says as much. Poor, poor artists...all that talent and no sense to run their business. :( :p

Markleshark
Jul 31, 2007, 08:45 AM
I don't understand this.

"Hi, we're going to give you lots of money to sell your product in shop A and B instead of just shop B."

"No"

"Sorry, what now?"

:rolleyes:

iBlue
Jul 31, 2007, 08:59 AM
it seems pretty stupid but
it's mostly because of Music industry observers believe more such litigation will emerge in future, as artists and composers fight to take a bigger slice of the money earned by music downloads.

One unresolved matter is that of whether a record label also has the rights to authorize music downloads or whether such rights belong to music publishers.
translation: greed. <- shocker. the music industry is full of arguments over who is owed what.

I thought this was odd though: Eminem's management previously sued Apple in 2004 over the use of Eminem song Lose Yourself in an iTunes TV ad. The ad was never actually aired.

Yes it was aired. I had seen it several times. :confused:

MacRumors
Jul 31, 2007, 09:16 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Detroit News (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/METRO/707310351/1013/) reports that Eminem's music publisher has filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Apple for unauthorized music sales through the iTunes Store.

According to the article, the main issue appears to be a contractual one, questioning the right of record labels to also sell recording artist's music digitally as well as on CD.
A "burning issue" in the music industry today is whether the rights record labels hold to sell a recording artist's CDs include the rights to authorize music downloads, or whether further permission is needed from the music publishers who hold the copyrights to the lyrics and sheet music.

Apple sells individual songs for 99 cents and gives 70 cents back to the recording label (in this case, Universal). Out of that $.70, Universal pays about 9.1 cents to the music publisher. Eminem's music publisher states that they have never authorized Universal to allow the downloads and have demanded that Apple cease and desist online distribution of their music. Apple has reportedly refused.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/31/eminems-publisher-sues-apple-for-unauthorized-music-sales/)

dukeblue91
Jul 31, 2007, 09:17 AM
The whole music industry makes less and less sense every day.

LagunaSol
Jul 31, 2007, 09:20 AM
Wow, this clown really loves to get into the news by taking on Apple.

Sounds like someone is suffering from a serious case of hasbeenitis...

Note to music publishers: online sales are the future of music. Period. Deal with it.

fistful
Jul 31, 2007, 09:20 AM
I thought this was odd though:

Yes it was aired. I had seen it several times. :confused:

Are you thinking of the one Eminem is actually in or the one that just featured the song "Lose Yourself"? I know I've seen both but I'm not sure if the one in question was aired on television or if I just saw it online.

RumMunkey
Jul 31, 2007, 09:21 AM
Here's what I don't get. Why is Eminem suing Apple? He should be suing Universal if they're reselling to channels outside of their agreement with the artist / publisher.

shadowfax
Jul 31, 2007, 09:23 AM
Here's what I don't get. Why is Eminem suing Apple? He should be suing Universal if they're reselling to channels outside of their agreement with the artist / publisher.

A publicity stunt, I would guess. Apple likes getting sued, anyway, right?

Grimace
Jul 31, 2007, 09:26 AM
Why wouldn't he be complaining to Universal? Apple has an agreement with the label, not the artist.

ecksfilter
Jul 31, 2007, 09:26 AM
Apple makes more money then me so I'm gonna sue them and try to get some...yay for me the dead white rapper.:confused:

samh004
Jul 31, 2007, 09:26 AM
Here's what I don't get. Why is Eminem suing Apple? He should be suing Universal if they're reselling to channels outside of their agreement with the artist / publisher.

Exactly, I'm sure the courts will see it that way too.

What a doofus.

zombitronic
Jul 31, 2007, 09:27 AM
So they didn't know that his music was being sold on iTunes until recently?

studiomusic
Jul 31, 2007, 09:27 AM
Most times the label owns the recordings of the music (even though the artist pays for them... don't get me started!), but the publishing stays, at least in part, with the artist.
I don't think m&m has a case as his label is authorized to sell and distribute the recordings that they own (or are at least licensed to sell/distribute).
Contracts I've seen include the right to exploit the works created on any support in use now or in the future.
Now sync rights are different...:D

sinisterdesign
Jul 31, 2007, 09:29 AM
...the main issue appears to be a contractual one, questioning the right of record labels to also sell recording artist's music digitally as well as on CD.

ummmm, so they're suing Apple why? take it up w/ your label and shut the f%$# up, eminem. at least someone is buying your music.

arn
Jul 31, 2007, 09:31 AM
Here's what I don't get. Why is Eminem suing Apple? He should be suing Universal if they're reselling to channels outside of their agreement with the artist / publisher.

Well, looks like they demanded Apple stop selling his music and they said no. So lawsuit is the next step I guess.

arn

JPyre
Jul 31, 2007, 09:32 AM
Here's what I don't get. Why is Eminem suing Apple? He should be suing Universal if they're reselling to channels outside of their agreement with the artist / publisher.

Um... he's not, read the title... His Record label is trying to get around the original contract with the publisher. The contract probably had no "digital" reference in it, as emininem came out before mp3s really became main stream, and WAAAAY before iTunes was even thought of.

Steal This Film (http://www.stealthisfilm.com/) Got it completely right about music. Through the ages musicians have only made money by performing live, the recording industry is a brand new invention in the relative history of music. The record industry is saying the same things about digital downloads that they said about the casette tape or the movie indusrty about the vcr. What happened? Did people stop buying music and start recording HBO off the tv? No, not really. And then what happens? CDs and CD burners come out and the industry cries wolf about the same issues again, and again they cry about digital and and and.

The publisher probably has a very valid "legal" argument, this has nothing to do with eminem losing money. The publisher is loosing money, NOT the record label or eminem. IF Eminem's label had not been paying the publisher, which doesn't publish much anymore, I'd understand the argument. But the label is paying the publisher, the problem is the terms are not in any contract, they're paying arcording to the CD deals. WHich doesn't make sense, the publisher isn't doing anything, yet theyre complaining about getting a check. The publisher wants CD ONLY distribution, thats why they're suing, i guess....

mdntcallr
Jul 31, 2007, 09:32 AM
this is retarded. of course record labels have the rights to sell music digitally.

They can sell in Vinyl, Cassette, CD, Digitally or hell even in 8 track. it's a standard in industry.

This is just Eminem trying to shakedown his label for more money. Which is dumb. Digital sales are a way to offer it to more consumers who could otherwise be stealing it online.

Squonk
Jul 31, 2007, 09:32 AM
ummmm, so they're suing Apple why? take it up w/ your label

Exactly!

at least someone is buying your music.

Or then again, maybe not... :D:D:D

iJawn108
Jul 31, 2007, 09:33 AM
Something like this would make me want to download illegally... you know if the artist was actually any good.

Max.Power
Jul 31, 2007, 09:33 AM
I would think Universal's (and all other distributors') contracts would contain language allowing them to distribute music in any format. Regardless, the case against Apple will get no where since the morons are suing the wrong company. :confused:

Small White Car
Jul 31, 2007, 09:37 AM
I don't understand this.

"Hi, we're going to give you lots of money to sell your product in shop A and B instead of just shop B."

"No"

"Sorry, what now?"

:rolleyes:

Uh, if he wins this then he gets to keep ALL the online sales money instead of sharing it with the label.

So really it goes like this:

"Hi, do you want to keep all the money your songs make online or do you want to share it with another company?"

And you'd pick, "share" as your answer? :rolleyes: is right.

I think it'd be pretty cool if he does win. Wouldn't it be nice if artists could all just put their music right on iTunes and get a check each month? Without a middle-man?

age234
Jul 31, 2007, 09:39 AM
How else can I afford another solid gold Humvee?
And diamond-studded swimming pools, these things don't grow on trees
So all I ask is everybody please...
Don't download this song!

megfilmworks
Jul 31, 2007, 09:39 AM
Something like this would make me want to download illegally... you know if the artist was actually any good.

Good idea, then eminem could just sue you directly.

maccompaq
Jul 31, 2007, 09:45 AM
How else can I afford another solid gold Humvee?
And diamond-studded swimming pools, these things don't grow on trees
So all I ask is everybody please...
Don't download this song!

.

NtotheIzoo
Jul 31, 2007, 09:45 AM
Here's what I don't get. Why is Eminem suing Apple? He should be suing Universal if they're reselling to channels outside of their agreement with the artist / publisher.

seeing as I'm a law student and i'm most likely going into Intellectual Property...Eminem is suing Apple because you sue and name anyone and everyone who could potentially be a party to the suit...and seeing as Apple is the one distributing the songs it only makes sense to include Apple as a party. The main thing here, though, is Apple more than likely has an indemnity clause protecting them from any lawsuits of this nature. Thus, all the liability will pass to Universal.

But, I can definitely understand why Eminem is pissed. Eminem most likely writes his own music, but assigns all rights and title is said music to Universal for pennies on the dollar. He, like any other artist, is trying to claw back and I honestly don't blame him. The music industry is such BS. Consumers are the ones that will be screwed in the end with higher prices....I'll stop now...just my 2 cents

princealfie
Jul 31, 2007, 09:47 AM
seeing as I'm a law student and i'm most likely going into Intellectual Property...Eminem is suing Apple because you sue and name anyone and everyone who could potentially be a party to the suit...and seeing as Apple is the one distributing the songs it only makes sense to include Apple as a party. The main thing here, though, is Apple more than likely has an indemnity clause protecting them from any lawsuits of this nature. Thus, all the liability will pass to Universal.

But, I can definitely understand why Eminem is pissed. Eminem most likely writes his own music, but assigns all rights and title is said music to Universal for pennies on the dollar. He, like any other artist, is trying to claw back and I honestly don't blame him. The music industry is such BS. Consumers are the ones that will be screwed in the end with higher prices....I'll stop now...just my 2 cents

Which only explains why I dislike lawyers a lot.

mashinhead
Jul 31, 2007, 09:49 AM
i think they shoudl cease and desist selling eminems music even if there aren't any legal issues

sartinsauce
Jul 31, 2007, 09:49 AM
Aaaaah, back in my day recording artist and record labels and music publishers were screaming at Apple and the goverment saying that online music downloads were "The Devil" and could cannabalize their business and profits would disappear.

I guess things have changed since 2001. Coincidentally, that's about the last time eminem wasn't a hack. If I'm not mistaken, he has an album due out soon, so I'm guessing his name is attached to this article because someone is trying to get him some free publicity. I image lots of us are having to wiki him anyway, trying to remember who he is and why we liked him once upon a time.

Why don't we just give everyone an equal piece of all profits everywhere? Oh, that's right, because while that seems fair it isn't fair. Music publishers are splitting hairs here. They spend too much on their Benz's and HDTVs and iPhones and other high-priced consumer items they can't afford, so now they're trying to make more money.

Counter
Jul 31, 2007, 09:50 AM
Does anybody buy his records anymore?

god help them.

chukronos
Jul 31, 2007, 09:54 AM
this is retarded. of course record labels have the rights to sell music digitally.

They can sell in Vinyl, Cassette, CD, Digitally or hell even in 8 track. it's a standard in industry.

The standard is to sell the album. Unless they release a specific single. The artist gets paid a percentage of the album sales.

I agree with him. The honest guys at the record companies just kind of decide what they think they should pay an artist out of the online sale. Because the labels are such stand up guys, I know they are concerned about making sure the artist gets paid fairly.

The publisher owns the rights, and apple ignored the request from the owner of the music. So, he is suing them. I think all it will do is bring about awareness. I expect other artists will follow suit. I am sure a suit against the label will happen soon.

Microsoft has the same attitude towards the owners of software, sell it even when they tell you not too. I am glad that apple is taking on the same microsoft attitude.

Kal-EL
Jul 31, 2007, 09:55 AM
Music publishers are splitting hairs here. They spend too much on their Benz's and HDTVs and iPhones and other crappy consumer items they can't afford, so now they're trying to make more money.

So you're saying the iPhone is a crappy consumer item?

burrokeet
Jul 31, 2007, 09:58 AM
i think what you are all failing to grasp is that the US copyright law (and most others as well) grants a compulsory licence and sets statutory rates for mechanical rights, i.e. what owners or controllers of composition copyrights, e.g. music publishers, get for the sale of music.

I would assume the issue here will be whether a DPD constitutes a sale in the spirit of the compulsory licence, I believe it has already been decided that it does, so I don't really get what this suit is about.

As for poor starving artists, in the case of Eminem, I am quite sure that unless he is an utter moron (doubtful) he has received a multi-million dollar advance for his publishing rights, along with a massive check regularly from his PRO for the writer's share.

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 31, 2007, 09:59 AM
where did all of these simpson characters come from?

sartinsauce
Jul 31, 2007, 10:04 AM
So you're saying the iPhone is a crappy consumer item?

Sorry, didn't mean that any of those objects were crappy. I edited my post accordingly.

NtotheIzoo
Jul 31, 2007, 10:07 AM
As for poor starving artists, in the case of Eminem, I am quite sure that unless he is an utter moron (doubtful) he has received a multi-million dollar advance for his publishing rights, along with a massive check regularly from his PRO for the writer's share.

I agree with you...I think the problem is that most artists get taken advantage of from record companies and most people don't understand this. People automatically blame the artist for suing without knowing why the artist is suing.

I guess this all stems from watching a show about Left Eye from TLC. She commented on how the record made like 8 millions or so from sales. After taxes, paying the record label for studio time and the videos, etc. she received only 300,000 from 8 mill. Of course 300,000 is a lot of money...but the record company ended up with more than 10 times that...

But whatever...My 2 cents.

dernhelm
Jul 31, 2007, 10:11 AM
Well, looks like they demanded Apple stop selling his music and they said no. So lawsuit is the next step I guess.

arn

Apple isn't selling is music. Universal is. Apple obtained it legally from Universal, if Universal didn't have the right to sell it to Apple, then Universal is at fault, not Apple.

Eminem is suing Apple because Apple is higher profile and he knows he'll make the news if he sues Apple.

JPyre
Jul 31, 2007, 10:12 AM
Microsoft has the same attitude towards the owners of software, sell it even when they tell you not too. I am glad that apple is taking on the same microsoft attitude.

I think It'd be more like Best Buy suing Microsoft for sellling Windows as a download on Amazon, AFTER Microsoft had signed a contract BEFORE the internet was developed, for BestBuy to be a sole distributor. If the internet didn't exist how can it be included/excluded from the contract... Make sense?

The publisher's contract was no doubt created before iTunes ever even existed.

I think you're misunderstanding the suit, eminem isn't suing anybody, neither is his record label that owns the masters. The publisher/distributor that prints CDs is suing. (even after they're getting a check for doing absolutly nothing)

Peace
Jul 31, 2007, 10:13 AM
M&M should be suing Universal..

This could be a stunt on the part of Apple to get direct deals with artists instead of labels.
Let's say M&M won :rolleyes:

The record labels would be forced to re-negotiate contracts with the artists.The artists would then be able to deal with Apple directly without breaking a contract.Thus allowing Apple to sell whatever music from artists they had made contracts with.Leaving out the Label.

Schtumple
Jul 31, 2007, 10:14 AM
The entire record industry acts like a screaming brat

"oh cr*p we don't control the market anymore" *freak out*

seriously, they were the ones who dropped the ball, if they had implemented something like the iTS themselves before P2P took off, it wouldn't have been so big, if happened at all.

You evolve or get left behind, they really need to learn that...

kalisphoenix
Jul 31, 2007, 10:15 AM
The thing I love most about MacRumors is that when any musician is mentioned, half the posters go out of their way to dismiss them as a no-talent hack who survives only through careful marketing and the ignorance of the consumer market.

"Eminem @#$%ing sucks! They just don't make musicians like Ricky Nelson/the Byrds/Tommy James and the Shondells/Grand Funk Railroad/Foreigner/Duran Duran/Poison/Bush/Linkin Park anymore..."

But who's being ignorant?

sartinsauce
Jul 31, 2007, 10:15 AM
I agree with you...I think the problem is that most artists get taken advantage of from record companies and most people don't understand this. People automatically blame the artist for suing without knowing why the artist is suing.

I guess this all stems from watching a show about Left Eye from TLC. She commented on how the record made like 8 millions or so from sales. After taxes, paying the record label for studio time and the videos, etc. she received only 300,000 from 8 mill. Of course 300,000 is a lot of money...but the record company ended up with more than 10 times that...

But whatever...My 2 cents.


Heard an artist on Jonesy's Jukebox talking about this the other day. He said that record label are really just there to loan them all the money it takes to produce, master, publish and deliver albums. The labels are notorious for billing the artist when an album is a hit, instead of cutting them a check.

Sweetfeld28
Jul 31, 2007, 10:19 AM
I think i'd tell him to go back to where he came from [8 Mile Road]. He is way better off than most people in that area of Detroit.

What a Greedy bastard.


Shouldn't here be suing Universal, and not Apple? Universal gave Apple the right to sell music digitally when they signed a contract with them.

skellener
Jul 31, 2007, 10:19 AM
Sounds like they are suing the wrong company. They should be suing Universal.

LeviG
Jul 31, 2007, 10:21 AM
Apple isn't selling is music. Universal is. Apple obtained it legally from Universal, if Universal didn't have the right to sell it to Apple, then Universal is at fault, not Apple.

Eminem is suing Apple because Apple is higher profile and he knows he'll make the news if he sues Apple.

Yeah I'm still trying to get to grips with why Apple is getting sued over this.

Apple have been given the go ahead by Universal, who may not have the rights to do that, but Apple wouldn't necessarily know that, plus there may be a dispute due to the wording too.
So from my perspective it lies with Universal and Eminems publisher for not agreeing the terms clearly enough etc at the beginning.

I'd go with greed and publicity on the Publishers part.

PDubNYC
Jul 31, 2007, 10:22 AM
Now, I am far from an expert on this stuff, but what most of the people posting here are failing to realize is that in many cases, neither the record company nor the artist owns the publishing rights. That is where the music publisher comes in. They control how the music is distributed in many cases, right down to the sheet music at a guitar store.

So chances are this is NOT Eminem suing, and Universal technically did not have the right to distribute his music this way, and as Arn stated originally, this probably comes down to the wording in a contract.

And just my 2 cents, but if you don't think that Eminem has talent because you don't like his music, then that is a pretty self-centered statement. I, for one, am not a big fan, but I can certainly see what he has brought to to hip-hop/rap etc. I think that pretty much anyone in the music industry would agree that he has made some significant contributions to his genre, his dickhead personality aside.

Just my opinion, but at least it is an open one.

whatever
Jul 31, 2007, 10:22 AM
this is retarded. of course record labels have the rights to sell music digitally.

They can sell in Vinyl, Cassette, CD, Digitally or hell even in 8 track. it's a standard in industry.

Technically every CD is considered digital music. The issue is whether or not Universal has the right to offer his music via download. Some artist have well written contracts (most do not) which specify how there work can and cannot be sold (see: The Beatles, Led Zepplin, Rolling Stones, Madonna, AC/DC) others don't care.

Jefe
Jul 31, 2007, 10:23 AM
Just to clarify..

Eminem's publisher suing Apple, does not equal Eminem suing Apple.
The publisher shops the music around to labels on behalf of the artist for mechanical royalties. this has nothing to do with the performance, but the "intellectual property" if you will.

And while I'm not a fan of Eminem, I certainly recognize the guy is talented. I listen to a song like "Without Me" and realize the work that went into it. He has a gift, that doesn't mean you have to like it. There are plenty of rich/famous recording artists that are indeed without talent. I don't believe Marshall Mathers falls in that category.

----

Edit: wow.. as I was posting this, PDubNYC made almost exactly the same post and did a much better job than I did.

CJD2112
Jul 31, 2007, 10:29 AM
Well, I guess when your career is tanking, sue. lol :rolleyes:

thirdwaver
Jul 31, 2007, 10:31 AM
Apple makes more money then me so I'm gonna sue them and try to get some...yay for me the dead white rapper.:confused:

I don't have time to read every single comment posted on this right now so if this point was made by someone, please excuse me...

I seriously doubt that Eminem actually gets consulted about it. I mean really. How much of the winnings of this litigation do you really think he would get personally?

This is likely a stuffed shirt seat warmer who's trying to milk money on a legal technicality. It appears that Eminem's handlers are a little worse in this regard than other artists' are.

AdeFowler
Jul 31, 2007, 10:32 AM
i think they shoudl cease and desist selling eminems music even if there aren't any legal issues
Agreed. Apple should withdraw Eminem's material from iTunes, until the matter's resolved. Or would that break Apple's agreement with Universal? :confused:

This surely can't be why AAPL's tanking

rockosmodurnlif
Jul 31, 2007, 10:33 AM
People should read threads or the article before they post so I am going to repost NtotheIzoo's post in its entirety. Maybe with it appearing twice some one will accidentally read it before writing "why is he suing Apple?"

Possible reason 1:
seeing as I'm a law student and i'm most likely going into Intellectual Property...Eminem is suing Apple because you sue and name anyone and everyone who could potentially be a party to the suit...and seeing as Apple is the one distributing the songs it only makes sense to include Apple as a party. The main thing here, though, is Apple more than likely has an indemnity clause protecting them from any lawsuits of this nature. Thus, all the liability will pass to Universal.

But, I can definitely understand why Eminem is pissed. Eminem most likely writes his own music, but assigns all rights and title is said music to Universal for pennies on the dollar. He, like any other artist, is trying to claw back and I honestly don't blame him. The music industry is such BS. Consumers are the ones that will be screwed in the end with higher prices....I'll stop now...just my 2 cents

Possible reason number 2, From the article:

"Eight Mile and Martin have demanded that Apple cease and desist its reproduction and distribution and Apple has refused," the complaint alleges.

So let me barney-style it.

Eminem: Apple stop selling my music, Universal isn't allowed to allow you to sell it.

Apple: No.

Eminem's lawyers: We'll see you in court.

Apple's lawyers: Fine.

And that's without really trying to think of any reasons. They sort of leap out at you.

off topic...
iTunes, the future of music, I hope not.

JPyre
Jul 31, 2007, 10:33 AM
I really don't understand the premise of this suit, besides the very obvious "out of contract" part.

Lets say the publisher is right, what do they want?
How can they sue for damages when they've been receiving money for the downloads the WHOLE time.
Why would they want to end this or try and re-negotiate the contract? They risk making less than $.09 per download.

kalisphoenix
Jul 31, 2007, 10:36 AM
Well, I guess when your career is tanking, sue. lol :rolleyes:

The last album he released was a greatest hits album, two years ago, that sold over two and a half million copies in the US alone. Since then he's said he was taking a break, hence the name of the greatest hits album being Curtain Call.

If that's tanking, you have no idea how many musicians would cheerfully stand in line to perform fellatio on Satan to have their careers tank like that.

LOL indeed. LOL, LOL, and thrice LOL.

CJD2112
Jul 31, 2007, 10:44 AM
The entire record industry acts like a screaming brat

"oh cr*p we don't control the market anymore" *freak out*

seriously, they were the ones who dropped the ball, if they had implemented something like the iTS themselves before P2P took off, it wouldn't have been so big, if happened at all.

You evolve or get left behind, they really need to learn that...

Agreed....

On another note, I have to say I stopped buying from Apple's iTunes store, not because I have a fault with them but because I realize the song quality isn't that great. Now, before you jump all over me, here's my quick story.

I spent about $3,000 in my infiniti FX to update my sound system (Bose speakers suck, no highs and lows), without pulling out the Navigational unit (would have been pointless and cost about $7,000 more). They put in a clean sweep unit that bypasses the main hub and adds an additional auxiliary input for my iPod, plus Focal speakers and two amps and a sub.

My point in all this, is that my CD's sound MUCH better than my iPod, and the installation shop asked me what quality my music was on my iPod. When I stated that I ripped all my CD's at around 192 kps and the rest was 128 kps from iTunes, they pretty much laughed, said I was nuts for spending this money and didn't charge me installation for feeling badly about it.

Basically, iTunes is compressed MP3, NOT the same as CD. So I ripped a few new CD's I bought (for the first time in yeeeeaaaarrrs, was an odd feeling) at Apple Lossless (literally means "lose less") and the quality was a HUGE difference, even through my headphones at the gym on my iPhone. Crystal clear. Granted, the songs are 10x bigger, averaging about 600 meg's per CD, but truthfully, why pay more for less? I'm still a fan of iTunes, but my eyes opened up to the reality that they are sub-CD quality tracks selling for roughly the same price you might buy a song from a CD.

Ok, now I'm ready for any attack lol ;).

LethalWolfe
Jul 31, 2007, 10:45 AM
this is retarded. of course record labels have the rights to sell music digitally.

They can sell in Vinyl, Cassette, CD, Digitally or hell even in 8 track. it's a standard in industry.

This is just Eminem trying to shakedown his label for more money. Which is dumb. Digital sales are a way to offer it to more consumers who could otherwise be stealing it online.
That is incorrect. As another poster mentioned some contracts can be very specific and it is in the artists best interest to make them as specific as possible or they may lose out on future income if the contract is too vague. This happens in other places too. For example, when selling old TV shows on DVD became big the studios had to go back and rework contracts for people who would receive residuals because their original contracts had no clause talking about DVD sales as DVDs didn't exist at the time.

As an aside, I love how so many people talk about "artist's rights" as a justification for pirating music (i.e. I don't pay for my music as a act of defiance against the greedy label's that screw over their bands) but when it's perceived that an artist is attempting to exercise those right's he's branded a greedy, no talent hack.:rolleyes:


Lethal

Dr.Mac
Jul 31, 2007, 10:51 AM
This whole thing would be solved if Apple could somehow slowley sign individual contracts with individual artists. Skip the record labels, leave out the middle man. Then everyone's happy and the record companies all go bankrupt. How is that not perfect!

chukronos
Jul 31, 2007, 10:52 AM
I think It'd be more like Best Buy suing Microsoft for sellling Windows as a download on Amazon, AFTER Microsoft had signed a contract BEFORE the internet was developed, for BestBuy to be a sole distributor. If the internet didn't exist how can it be included/excluded from the contract... Make sense?

No, that isn't anything like this. best buy doesn't create or own the rights to microsoft software. Best buy just sells it after they buy it form a distributor. Just like apple does with eminem's music.


I think you're misunderstanding the suit, eminem isn't suing anybody


Nope, no misunderstanding. Eight Mile Style LLC own the copyrights to eminem albums. (which I assumed eminem was part of. Since, it is run by his long time business associate, Jeffrey Bass - I could be wrong about him being involved in that company). Music publishers, actually own the copyrights to music and not the labels. They have the right to protect the copyright of the music.

Gasu E.
Jul 31, 2007, 10:55 AM
Here's what I don't get. Why is Eminem suing Apple? He should be suing Universal if they're reselling to channels outside of their agreement with the artist / publisher.

Suppose I told you "you give me $100 and you can allow free downloads of all the Beatles songs you want off your website". And you set up a website to do this.

I own no particular right to grant you the right to do this, and you could sue me for fraud. However, as far as the Beatles are concerned, the fact that you failed to perform due diligence on me is irrelevant. You are the one whose action "injures" the Beatles.

That is the case that Eminem's side is presenting.

twoodcc
Jul 31, 2007, 10:59 AM
The whole music industry makes less and less sense every day.

yes they do.

not what i wanted to see on a Tuesday

RumMunkey
Jul 31, 2007, 11:00 AM
Just to clarify..

Eminem's publisher suing Apple, does not equal Eminem suing Apple.
The publisher shops the music around to labels on behalf of the artist for mechanical royalties ...snippy...

Yeah, but is there any "music publishers" anymore that aren't owned or in some way operated by the artists themselves?

I thought since the Beatles lost their catalogue to Michael Jackson just about every major artist established their own publishing company.

You can't tell me Eminem doesn't have a controlling interest in a company called "Eight Mile Style".

Tara Davis
Jul 31, 2007, 11:02 AM
News Flash, Eminem:

This is how the music industry works. You sell your very soul to a label, they spend money to manufacture a celebrity with your image, and everybody gets rich. That's the deal, take it or leave it.

You'd still be in some downtown VFW hall in Detroit, shouting your raps to a handful of disinterested drunks for free beer and $8, if it wasn't for the label pimping you out. Now get back in your cage and shut up.

dernhelm
Jul 31, 2007, 11:02 AM
People should read threads or the article before they post so I am going to repost NtotheIzoo's post in its entirety.
[snip]
So let me barney-style it.
[snip]


Please. We've read the threads and the article. Eminem simply has no case against Apple. So let ME barney-style it.

Apple: Hey Universal, can we sell some of the music you have rights to on-line?

Universal: Sure Apple, here's all the stuff we are contractually able to sell through you.

Eminem: Hey - I'm not making enough money here - it isn't fair that Apple can sell the digital version of my music, I never explicitly said they could! I should ask them to stop.

Apple: It would be ludicrous if we had to stop selling certain songs that we are contractually able to sell whenever a tempermental artist is unhappy. So no. Take it up with Universal.

Eminem: No - I'd rather sue you. It makes for better headlines.

Apple lawyers: OK - good luck with that.

:rolleyes:

ajhill
Jul 31, 2007, 11:03 AM
Agreed. Apple should withdraw Eminem's material from iTunes, until the matter's resolved. Or would that break Apple's agreement with Universal? :confused:

This surely can't be why AAPL's tanking



AAPL is under attack from New Yorkers.

1. NY Consumer protection board is telling Steve Jobs that he should redesign the iPhone with a user replaceable battery.

2. Goldman Sachs is spreading FUD about a "reduction" in Apple's iPhone production numbers. They claim their rumor is for a reduction from 9 million units produced down to 4.5 million units.

To this I say: Hey the iPod has never had a user replaceable battery. Hasn't hurt sales and people don't seem to mind.

Goldman Sachs used to have class. But spreading rumors, especially this DUMB. Apple said they are on track to sell 1 million units in the first three months and 10 million in the first year and a half. Why would they then order 9 million up front? Answer is: They didn't. But then if Goldman Sachs wants to give their customers a better entry point for AAPL shares, they have just done it.

The SEC should fine Goldman for this FUD. This is pathetic stock market manipulation. Shame on you Goldman Sachs.

I guess Gordon Gecko was right, for Goldman Sachs greed is good.

Jovian9
Jul 31, 2007, 11:05 AM
Hopefully he doesn't win any kind of lawsuit...........

but a lot of good could come from this; specifically his music being pulled from iTunes....which would be awesome as that ^&%$ doesn't deserve the $ it probably makes via Apple :)

erikistired
Jul 31, 2007, 11:06 AM
Well, looks like they demanded Apple stop selling his music and they said no. So lawsuit is the next step I guess.

arn

of course they did, apple's deal likely has nothing to do with eminem himself. now if universal had asked them to stop, well, that would fall back on whatever contract they have.

Peace
Jul 31, 2007, 11:08 AM
Suppose I told you "you give me $100 and you can allow free downloads of all the Beatles songs you want off your website". And you set up a website to do this.

I own no particular right to grant you the right to do this, and you could sue me for fraud. However, as far as the Beatles are concerned, the fact that you failed to perform due diligence on me is irrelevant. You are the one whose action "injures" the Beatles.

That is the case that Eminem's side is presenting.

Man using that analogy M&M has no clue whatsoever.

Artists always work directly with the Label that signed them.If Eminem doesn't read his contracts that's his problem.

erikistired
Jul 31, 2007, 11:08 AM
The last album he released was a greatest hits album, two years ago, that sold over two and a half million copies in the US alone. Since then he's said he was taking a break, hence the name of the greatest hits album being Curtain Call.

If that's tanking, you have no idea how many musicians would cheerfully stand in line to perform fellatio on Satan to have their careers tank like that.

LOL indeed. LOL, LOL, and thrice LOL.

i can understand. an artist puts out a bunch of albums with 1 or 2 "hits" and a bunch of filler. people hum along, but don't buy the cds. then he/she puts out a greatest hits cd, and people buy it up. rabid fans use this as proof the artist is selling crazy mad amounts of LOL albums. or something.

works for me. still a stupid lawsuit.

gifford
Jul 31, 2007, 11:11 AM
I wish Mars would sue him for trademark infringement.

Gasu E.
Jul 31, 2007, 11:11 AM
It seems to me that Eminem is doing Apple a big favor. Apple is operating in a state of legal ambiguity as to whether they can legally acquire download rights from the record labels. If Apple wins, the ambiguity is resolved. If Eminem wins, Apple no longer has to deal with the (large, powerful, oligarchic) record labels and can deal directly with the recording artists.

Either way, Apple wins.

Gasu E.
Jul 31, 2007, 11:13 AM
Man using that analogy M&M has no clue whatsoever.

Artists always work directly with the Label that signed them.If Eminem doesn't read his contracts that's his problem.

You seem to know the details of Eminem's contract. Can you share the wording with us?

erikistired
Jul 31, 2007, 11:15 AM
Suppose I told you "you give me $100 and you can allow free downloads of all the Beatles songs you want off your website". And you set up a website to do this.

I own no particular right to grant you the right to do this, and you could sue me for fraud. However, as far as the Beatles are concerned, the fact that you failed to perform due diligence on me is irrelevant. You are the one whose action "injures" the Beatles.

That is the case that Eminem's side is presenting.

but that's failed logic, because eminem has a contract with universal. universal seems to think this contract allows them to resell the music to apple to distribute (or whatever). universal is not joe random, they are his music label. if he gave up the rights to digital distribution, perhaps he should try reading the fine print. if he didn't, he should take that up with universal.

Peace
Jul 31, 2007, 11:15 AM
You seem to know the details of Eminem's contract. Can you share the wording with us?

Apparently I know as little about it as he does.:rolleyes:

kalisphoenix
Jul 31, 2007, 11:24 AM
i can understand. an artist puts out a bunch of albums with 1 or 2 "hits" and a bunch of filler. people hum along, but don't buy the cds. then he/she puts out a greatest hits cd, and people buy it up. rabid fans use this as proof the artist is selling crazy mad amounts of LOL albums. or something.

works for me. still a stupid lawsuit.

Actually, his greatest hits album sold fewer copies than anything but his first and second albums, which were an independent release (400 copies) and an EP demo. His best-selling album is diamond-certified and topped Britney Spears' record for most sales in one week, at over 1.75 million copies. So it's not like his albums languished in the dustbin while people hummed along to the radio. He's not like My Bloody Valentine or Talk Talk, artists recognized as putting out albums of near or total genius despite pathetically weak sales.

I'm not a fan of Eminem, or hip-hop in general. I listen to classic rock, post-rock, grunge, shoegaze, punk from its glory days, stuff like that. Pretty straight rocker. I'm not a rabid fan -- in fact, I had to go to Wikipedia to state the information I've given :)

But if someone says Eminem's career is tanking, I doubt it is. He said himself he's taking a break, and his last album has sold seven million copies worldwide. That's not tanking.

Then you come and say none of his albums ever sold that many copies, and I point out that he's sold tens of millions of albums.

Saying this doesn't make me a rabid fan. It just means I have a grasp on reality that you seem to lack out of pure intellectual laziness. I see something interesting, I try to learn more about it. It's in my nature :cool:

mozmac
Jul 31, 2007, 11:24 AM
I don't understand this.

"Hi, we're going to give you lots of money to sell your product in shop A and B instead of just shop B."

"No"

"Sorry, what now?"

:rolleyes:

"You see, I'm a musician. I don't enjoy making money and would appreciate it if you would stop forcing me to."

NOFX is notorious for not wanting their music played on the radio as they don't want to be too popular. They're in it more for the fun and entertainment than money...or so they say.

JPyre
Jul 31, 2007, 11:28 AM
Nope, no misunderstanding. Eight Mile Style LLC own the copyrights to eminem albums. (which I assumed eminem was part of. Since, it is run by his long time business associate) Music publishers, actually own the copyrights to music and not the labels. They have the right to protect the copyright of the music.

Im not trying to be smart here but if the label doesn't distribute, doesn't own the masters, doesn't create music, what do they do? Just lend money out and promote?
It's Eminems own fault for being as dumb as all the other artists. (Smart enough to publish, but not smart enough to be his own label)
Another thing, Eminem has been out for how long? 4 years before iTunes was even invented, why sue now? Statute of limitations running out after 7 years, huh?


Edit: ahhh misread that... owning the "copyright" does not mean you own the masters, k

Edit: Um i'm not a law student but it looks like BMI is the copyright holder. ;)
http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?fromrow=151&torow=175&keyname=MATHERS%20MARSHALL&querytype=WriterID&keyid=757375&page=7&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&affiliation=BMI&cae=354929431

logandzwon
Jul 31, 2007, 11:31 AM
Hope he wins! More music will go DRM-less quicker till publisher have to be DRM-less to compete.

CaptainScarlet
Jul 31, 2007, 11:32 AM
This doesn't make any since to me. Why sue Apple, when it was Universal who actually "Uploaded" the music. Apple is only offering a service here. They should be suing the record label and not Apple.

PDubNYC
Jul 31, 2007, 11:39 AM
I'm sorry to say this, but...

CAN YOU PLEASE GET IT STRAIGHT. It is not Eminem suing, it is the music publisher. It even says so on the title bar of this browser


So for the love god, if you don't know what you are talking about, or haven't even read the relevant articles and made a reasonable effort to go through some of the comments here to cut down on the repeats. Please ****.

Sorry, I couldn't hold it in.

Thanks
Have a bitchin' summer

EagerDragon
Jul 31, 2007, 11:41 AM
Sounds like bull crap. If the label is authorizing Apple, then it is a label artist issue, Apple should not be mentioned.

If the Artist have the ability to demostrate that the label does not have the right to contract with Apple then Apple will comply. He is just blowing smoke and trying to say the current contract does not cover digital rights. Apple is not going to stop over a baseless claim, show the contract or get a court rulling them come back and we will stop.

Black Belt
Jul 31, 2007, 11:41 AM
This whole thing would be solved if Apple could somehow slowley sign individual contracts with individual artists. Skip the record labels, leave out the middle man. Then everyone's happy and the record companies all go bankrupt. How is that not perfect!

Actually it's starting to happen. http://www.tunecore.com/

Music companies have had a terrible rule over musicians, probably by illegally controlling radio play and music distribution in stores. As things have become more digital, it has become increasingly hard to maintain this control. Podcasts provide a cheap way for musicians to get their music out and heard. Now places like TuneCore allow musicians to produce their own music and completely bypass the corrupt music industry and sell direct through online music stores. I would like to see Apple play a more active role in facilitating independent artists.

Regarding Enimen, if Universal is illegally selling digital music then he has every right, even an obligation, to sue Apple as well as Universal, to cease and desist as he is the legal copyright holder.

And yes Kalis, some people here think Apple is a cult and not a product/service and find it difficult to discuss things rationally and intellectually.

destroyboredom
Jul 31, 2007, 12:00 PM
I dislike the music industry as much as the next guy, however in their defense. If Eminem wants more profits from his music, don't sign with a label. Pay his recording,distro costs out of pocket. I'm not sure how much it costs a label to put out a typical cd, but lets face it, there is expenses involved in recording, distributing, promoting a cd that the artists don't pay for out of pocket...the label does.

Porchland
Jul 31, 2007, 12:03 PM
According to the article, the main issue appears to be a contractual one, questioning the right of record labels to also sell recording artist's music digitally as well as on CD.


That's not what the article says. The article says that label rights is a "'burning issue' in the music industry" today." This case does not sound like a contractual dispute at all, though Apple's defense will likely be that it contracted with the entity (Universal) that controlled the rights.

I haven't read the complaint so I don't know what Eminem's publisher is alleging, but it doesn't sound contractual at all. That would be a dispute between Eminem/Eight Mile and Universal.

My guess is that this is a straight-up infringement case.

Fukui
Jul 31, 2007, 12:03 PM
Um... he's not, read the title... His Record label is trying to get around the original contract with the publisher. The contract probably had no "digital" reference in it, as emininem came out before mp3s really became main stream, and WAAAAY before iTunes was even thought of.


I guess they don't realize..... CD's are um digital.

ATG
Jul 31, 2007, 12:03 PM
So they are suing Apple because of an issue in the contract between Eminem's Publisher and Universal?

Okkkaaayyy...

blindzero
Jul 31, 2007, 12:08 PM
I think you guys attacking Eminem are missing the point...Anyone can get their music on Itunes for a very low cost and receive way more than 9cents per song. I'm putting the soundtrack to my film up and it costs me around 60 bucks. If Record Companies opened this chain of distribution up without a contract, this is indeed a big deal. Each possible form of distribution with compensation needs to be in the contract.

Record companies are essentially paying nothing for digital distribution yet still reap all the money with a fraction going back to the artist and publisher. In the old days it was because of cost of printing/and sending out the CD. That's not the issue now. It is for all intents and purposes FREE to put your music up digitally. Artists should get more.

In a world where it's moving to digital artists don't need record labels and record labels know it but they still insist on taking 70 cents and giving the content creator only 9 cents? That's ridiculous.

SPUY767
Jul 31, 2007, 12:17 PM
I say, Eminem needed some extra cash. So he knows how sensitive AAPL is to news. He devises this plan to get a negative headline, cause the share price to drop a few bucks so he can snatch it up at a lower price, let it go back up to 150, then dump it for profits. Good talk.

blindzero
Jul 31, 2007, 12:18 PM
Hehe. Maybe! We should all buy before the case is dropped tomorrow.

I say, Eminem needed some extra cash. So he knows how sensitive AAPL is to news. He devises this plan to get a negative headline, cause the share price to drop a few bucks so he can snatch it up at a lower price, let it go back up to 150, then dump it for profits. Good talk.

inkswamp
Jul 31, 2007, 12:19 PM
It was very kind of Apple to provide M&M with a steady income source now that his 15 minutes are over.

inkswamp
Jul 31, 2007, 12:21 PM
I'm sorry to say this, but...

CAN YOU F*CKS PLEASE GET IT STRAIGHT. It is not Eminem suing, it is the music publisher. It even says so on the title bar of this browser

Wow, got issues?

It most certainly is M&M behind some of this. It's like when Fox News sued Al Franken because he was daring to use his free speech rights. The real force behind that turned out to be Bill O'Reilly. Don't kid yourself into thinking that M&M isn't at least, in part, behind the push to sue Apple.

studiomusic
Jul 31, 2007, 12:27 PM
I wish Mars would sue him for trademark infringement.

They did, he won.

rstansby
Jul 31, 2007, 12:33 PM
I thought since the Beatles lost their catalogue to Michael Jackson just about every major artist established their own publishing company.


The Beatles started their own publishing company, "Northern Songs", on February 22nd, 1963.

Trooperof3
Jul 31, 2007, 12:33 PM
WAIT! hold the phone, why is it Apple's fault anyway?? Shouldn't he be suing Universal? There the ones that put his music there.

gwangung
Jul 31, 2007, 12:40 PM
There's some legal maneuvering going on here. Unfortunately, it's all going over people's heads. (Perhaps mine, too, but then again...IANAL).

I'm not expert, but what I'm seeing is that Eminen is trying to split off digital distribution rights from physical distribution rights and broadcast distribution rights (the first has not been EXPLICITLY covered in the standard contracts). To do that, he needs to sue everyone involved in digital distribution. That includes Apple.

Further, this MAY be something that Apple really doesn't care about. If the rights ARE split off (and the best two ways to do so are to either write it into a contract or establish it in court), then that's something that may rebound to Apple's advantage as they could now negotiate individually with artists, and get a somewhat larger cut.

johnee
Jul 31, 2007, 12:40 PM
wow, lots of evil venom in this thread, i love it! :)

anyway, after seeing how things are going in the digital music age, I have very recently begun to support independent music :

1) a few less middlemen, and traditionally people in the independent markets have more than $$ on their mind, but not necessarily always.
2) going to local shows supporting musicians on their way up if I like what i've heard about them
3) buying CDs directly from the bands/artists themselves.
4) on par with #3, I've actually found AMAZING music from street musicians who have CDs. Sometimes the quality engineering isn't there, but I do like making the personal connection.

theman
Jul 31, 2007, 12:44 PM
Jeez! The music industry finally has a system in place that prevents MOST people from getting their music without paying. Now, all they want to do is destroy it? Doesn't make any sense. Do they want me to go back to taking it for free? Those guys are such scumbags. What more do they want? It's like a spoiled child.

L3X
Jul 31, 2007, 12:44 PM
This is all going to come down to semantics in the contracts regarding the word "digital." As the previous poster said, there's a difference between digital music on physical mediums as opposed to digital music on the internet for copying/downloading.

I will be very interested to see what the Intellectual Property expert (Google's senior attorney) William Patry has to say about this in his blog.

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/

RealMcCoy
Jul 31, 2007, 12:46 PM
Now, I am far from an expert on this stuff, but what most of the people posting here are failing to realize is that in many cases, neither the record company nor the artist owns the publishing rights. That is where the music publisher comes in. They control how the music is distributed in many cases, right down to the sheet music at a guitar store.

So chances are this is NOT Eminem suing, and Universal technically did not have the right to distribute his music this way, and as Arn stated originally, this probably comes down to the wording in a contract.

And just my 2 cents, but if you don't think that Eminem has talent because you don't like his music, then that is a pretty self-centered statement. I, for one, am not a big fan, but I can certainly see what he has brought to to hip-hop/rap etc. I think that pretty much anyone in the music industry would agree that he has made some significant contributions to his genre, his dickhead personality aside.

Just my opinion, but at least it is an open one.

And here we go ... an opinion is the right kind of statement to this issue. And that is for a couple of reasons.

First of all Music donīt need Music Biz ... it is self-fullfilling and an object to taste of the individual. So it can not be judged in any way, although "judging" is a common sport these days ;o)

Then there is the fact that most of the posting about this issue, arenīt really aware of the music biz details and norms. So most of the postings are simply based on speculations and guessings.

There are loads of different contract versions in the music biz, loads of different regulations that vary by country or even state. So one is not able to judge issues like the above mentioned, unless you know the concrete contract, that has been made.

The case could have some truth in it or it is just a platform to keep the "brand" Eminem in the buz. Just like (for example) the endless Briteny Spears stories ... blah blah blah ... but everybody gets reminded of the artist (brand) ... for whatever future biz activity. Remember, there is no such think as "bad news" ;o)

Besides all of that ... there is one real truth here. The music industry has created there own monster by sleeping for a long time on the digital issue. This is also a reason, why loads of contratcs in the music biz are missing regulations for the digital issue. Most of these "missing parts" have been taking care of but some are still there ... and if someone (artist, publisher, label, sub-label, producer, musician, etc.) is financially independent enough ... he will wait for the right kind of moment to claim his interest.

Most likely ... Apple is not the right address to sue ... bt like someone stated before ... it is the most effective address to gain media attention ;o)

Saludos

corywoolf
Jul 31, 2007, 12:55 PM
seeing as I'm a law student and i'm most likely going into Intellectual Property...Eminem is suing Apple because you sue and name anyone and everyone who could potentially be a party to the suit...and seeing as Apple is the one distributing the songs it only makes sense to include Apple as a party. The main thing here, though, is Apple more than likely has an indemnity clause protecting them from any lawsuits of this nature. Thus, all the liability will pass to Universal.

But, I can definitely understand why Eminem is pissed. Eminem most likely writes his own music, but assigns all rights and title is said music to Universal for pennies on the dollar. He, like any other artist, is trying to claw back and I honestly don't blame him. The music industry is such BS. Consumers are the ones that will be screwed in the end with higher prices....I'll stop now...just my 2 cents

Eminem may write SOME of his lyrics, everything else is sampled/ stolen. It's not an overstatement either, this one guy I worked with showed me all these old songs from the 80's/ 90's that Eminem completely ripped off. Let me put it this way, it is often as blatant as Vanilla Ice's famous case. Well then again, this is the same for 99% of hip hop. Kanye West does the same, Snoop Dogg, not Dr. Dre though. Also Scott Storch writes almost everything himself. I wouldn't say these artists who steal have no talent, but they should at least give the artist they stole it from a cut of the money.

arn
Jul 31, 2007, 01:01 PM
This doesn't make any since to me. Why sue Apple, when it was Universal who actually "Uploaded" the music. Apple is only offering a service here. They should be suing the record label and not Apple.

Apple is selling (making money off of) copyrighted items that Eminen's publisher claims they don't have permission to sell.

arn

cliffjumper68
Jul 31, 2007, 01:10 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Eminem sues Apple for iTunes sales (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20070731084952)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

This is an interesting issue that could improve artists rights to their music. If it is successfully argued in court that labels existing rights do not cover digital downloads, then a further extension of the same principle is that they do not cover internet radio. Sound exchange would have no basis for representation of the labels since they would not have standing. This could really be interesting.

JPyre
Jul 31, 2007, 01:10 PM
Eminem may write SOME of his lyrics, everything else is sampled/ stolen. It's not an overstatement either, this one guy I worked with showed me all these old songs from the 80's/ 90's that Eminem completely ripped off. Let me put it this way, it is often as blatant as Vanilla Ice's famous case. Well then again, this is the same for 99% of hip hop. Kanye West does the same, Snoop Dogg, not Dr. Dre though. Also Scott Storch writes almost everything himself. I wouldn't say these artists who steal have no talent, but they should at least give the artist they stole it from a cut of the money.

ROFL, literally. Hip-hop has always been based on samples and loops. Spining others' records and "rapping" over it is the core foundation of Hip-Hop. Where have you been under a rock?
Dr Dre does so sample music, "Let Me Ride" is a total knockoff of George Clinton and Bootsy Collins. Also Jay-Z GHOST-WROTE (http://headmasterz.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/ghost-writers-expose/) most of Dr Dre's Chronic 2001 verses as well as alot of others'. I could name a dozen more examples. Just look at Palms Out Sounds (http://palmsout.blogspot.com/search/label/Sample%20Wednesday) site, it's a HUGE list of original music thats been sampled.
Hip-Hop is synonymous with sampling, they go hand in hand, I challenge you to find me an artist in the scene that hasn't. MCs rarely make beats, and very often have ghost writers. Same goes in any other music category.
If you think Scott Storch is the most talented and original producer you really have no idea what your talking about. Long live Rick Rubin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rubin). From Slayer to Beastie Boys to Johnny Cash to Metallica to NAS to Jay-Z to Dixie Chicks - Rubin torches Storch on every level.

oldwatery
Jul 31, 2007, 01:44 PM
What total B.S.
I am not a great lover of the music industry but of late I'd say I'm even less enamoured with the so called musicians themselves.
Arrogant, spoiled, money grabbing low tallented children who think the world owes them a living.
It's as if being a Hip Hop star makes them better than us mere mortals.
The music industry piles billions of dollars into these no tallents and all they can do is bitch and moan all the time.....that and get drunk or drugged up smash cars, beat girlfiends and shoot their competitors. I guess you're lucky youre only getting sued Steve:eek:
If they were any good at what they do then maybe they would have my sympathy but M&M is a plaigarist and he's already earned millions from other peolple's efforts.
And anyway, why the hell didn't his manager notice this fact years ago.
I guess any publicity is good publicity for a faded star.

blindzero
Jul 31, 2007, 01:44 PM
They are suing apple because the publisher (albeit possible owner of copyright OTHER than physical distribution and broadcasting) asked Apple to stop selling and Apple refused.

How else could they get them to stop selling their copyrighted material?

This forces Universal's hand. If there is no money coming into Universal via digital downloads they will have to renegotiate possibly giving the artist a better share.

It's fair. Who cares if you don't like his music. This may be VERY good for the music industry especially independents that rarely make any money out of the recordings themselves.


Read the last paragraph of the article. It makes 100% sense.

blindzero
Jul 31, 2007, 01:50 PM
I think you should do some reading on the subject. A lot of the money paid to musicians is billed back to them by the record companies. They put (sometimes force) these artists on promotional tours then charge the artists fees associated with it while only paying the artists a small fraction of sales. Touring merchandise and tickets are a source of income but many times artists pay for the huge rigs and crew out of their share.

There's a lot of unfair practices against the artists and the artists heretofore don't have a lot of leeway in fighting it.

What total B.S.
I am not a great lover of the music industry but of late I'd say I'm even less enamoured with the so called musicians themselves.
Arrogant, spoiled, money grabbing low tallented children who think the world owes them a living.
It's as if being a Hip Hop star makes them better than us mere mortals.
The music industry piles billions of dollars into these no tallents and all they can do is bitch and moan all the time.....that and get drunk or drugged up smash cars, beat girlfiends and shoot their competitors. I guess you're lucky youre only getting sued Steve:eek:
If they were any good at what they do then maybe they would have my sympathy but M&M is a plaigarist and he's already earned millions from other peolple's efforts.
And anyway, why the hell didn't his manager notice this fact years ago.
I guess any publicity is good publicity for a faded star.

RealMcCoy
Jul 31, 2007, 02:00 PM
Eminem may write SOME of his lyrics, everything else is sampled/ stolen. It's not an overstatement either, this one guy I worked with showed me all these old songs from the 80's/ 90's that Eminem completely ripped off. Let me put it this way, it is often as blatant as Vanilla Ice's famous case. Well then again, this is the same for 99% of hip hop. Kanye West does the same, Snoop Dogg, not Dr. Dre though. Also Scott Storch writes almost everything himself. I wouldn't say these artists who steal have no talent, but they should at least give the artist they stole it from a cut of the money.

Itīs called sample clearance ... and trust me ... most of them (at least nowadays, since a lot of lawers and music lovers are watching ;o) are paying ... either cash, roayltist or both ... plus you have to get clearance from the publsiher / songwriter(s) ....

It is a nice little side biz ... for both sides ... and nothing special ... like I said ... music biz (charts) has nothing to do with good or bad music ... it is just a product sales place ...

Rocketman
Jul 31, 2007, 02:04 PM
The last CD I bought I paid $15 at retail. The last live performance I went to was about $180.00. That was for a seat about halfway back in the room. I think that since the artist HAS a label who gets the lion's share of the 70 cents Apple pays to somebody, he is upset about that since newer artists are getting larger shares to not bypass record labels. This is a negotiation ploy. Apple is the hapless victim in tis and owes no special duty of care to the artist beyond honoring their contract with the label. Apple will receive damages for a baseless suit. Eminem will have pissed off Apple for the second and last time. Apple will simply shun him to the degree they can without violating their contract with the label generally. No special offers, no cross-marketing.

Eminem should do a live performance. Oh wait, his contract gives most of the money to his label! Hmmm, maybe he should form a foundation and do some fund raising concerts for free :)

This boils down to "a contract is a contract". That's the problem with negotiating from a position of weakness.

Rocketman

JPyre
Jul 31, 2007, 02:19 PM
Apple is selling (making money off of) copyrighted items that Eminen's publisher claims they don't have permission to sell.

arn

True, but that's kinda (not really) like going after drug users and not the dealers themselves. Why go after the small fish? Why not go to the source? Apple IS a dealer, but Universal is the supplier to the dealer. Universal has made a lot more than Apple from this arrangement.
If this was the feds' suit they'd let Apple plead out and turn state's evidence against Universal.
I just don't get it, I mean, I do, but I don't. Unless they plan to go after Universal next...

bigandy
Jul 31, 2007, 02:35 PM
and how many other online music stores are they pursuing in this lawsuit?

or is it all about keeping an artist who's not done anything in a while in the limelight?

daviddpg
Jul 31, 2007, 02:38 PM
Sounds like eminem needs more crack money.

Peace
Jul 31, 2007, 02:42 PM
and how many other online music stores are they pursuing in this lawsuit?

or is it all about keeping an artist who's not done anything in a while in the limelight?


Just for the sake of argument it may well be eminem's publisher has agreements with other online services.We don't know one way or the other.

chukronos
Jul 31, 2007, 02:51 PM
Just for the sake of argument it may well be eminem's publisher has agreements with other online services.We don't know one way or the other.
Very true. We don't know everything with this case. What we do know is that the legal owner of the music asked apple to stop selling and Apple refused. Hence the lawsuit. Should they sue universal? sure. But, if I pay 19.99 to limewire for "legal" downloading, does the RIAA go after limewire or me for using the service? They go after me because it is illegal for me to download the songs. Same with Apple, it is illegal for them to sell the songs. I think if the company being sued was microsoft, instead of apple, the sentiment on this forum would be much different, IMHO.

oldwatery
Jul 31, 2007, 02:54 PM
I think you should do some reading on the subject. A lot of the money paid to musicians is billed back to them by the record companies. They put (sometimes force) these artists on promotional tours then charge the artists fees associated with it while only paying the artists a small fraction of sales. Touring merchandise and tickets are a source of income but many times artists pay for the huge rigs and crew out of their share.

There's a lot of unfair practices against the artists and the artists heretofore don't have a lot of leeway in fighting it.

Oh please.
Don't give me the bleeding heart thing.
It's a business they are all into for profit.
Deals are made after negotiations and there are always winners, losers and I guess in the case of M&Ms....whiners.
And maybe you should do some research into the subject....the bands that pay for their touring rigs do so because they want to have the whole Las Vegas style show rather than rely on their own talent.
I was in the business for over 6 years as a publisher and promoter so I can tell you the artist is not the only one who sometimes gets a bad deal. You would not believe the riders these prima donnas write into their touring contracts. They really believe they are royalty and should be treated like gods.

Please note I am not incuding the vast majority of tallented hard working artists out there in my rant. Just the so called super stars who have been made wealthy beyond belief by the very huge amounts of money invested in them by the music business.

Plus as has been stated before....why isn't the poor lad going after his Record company and all the other download services.
Just another wanker trying to get some newsprint off the back of someone truly worthy of it...in this case Apple.

blindzero
Jul 31, 2007, 03:24 PM
I'm not saying these guys are living off of Ramen noodles, And artists like Eminem can afford to only get 9 cents a song since they sell millions. But this is besides the point as it's about OWNERSHIP. If the record companies don't have the right to distribute digitally through downloads this is an incredibly valid point. Who knows what the contract says.

And I agree with you - Prima Donna's are such a SMALLLLLL part of the music industry. But that is a totally different issue entirely.

I'm sure this is only part of the step in going after Universal. Cut the distribution chain, negotiate.

I own Apple stock and I don't believe Apple will be hurt by this one bit. Apple Itunes will continue to sell, the dispensation will just change.

If he is just whining about a crappy contract he may have signed years and years ago, then I agree with most of ya, but attacking him without knowing the full story is not fair.


Oh please.
Don't give me the bleeding heart thing.
It's a business they are all into for profit.
Deals are made after negotiations and there are always winners, losers and I guess in the case of M&Ms....whiners.
And maybe you should do some research into the subject....the bands that pay for their touring rigs do so because they want to have the whole Las Vegas style show rather than rely on their own talent.
I was in the business for over 6 years as a publisher and promoter so I can tell you the artist is not the only one who sometimes gets a bad deal. You would not believe the riders these prima donnas write into their touring contracts. They really believe they are royalty and should be treated like gods.

Please note I am not incuding the vast majority of tallented hard working artists out there in my rant. Just the so called super stars who have been made wealthy beyond belief by the very huge amounts of money invested in them by the music business.

Plus as has been stated before....why isn't the poor lad going after his Record company and all the other download services.
Just another wanker trying to get some newsprint off the back of someone truly worthy of it...in this case Apple.

oldwatery
Jul 31, 2007, 03:38 PM
I'm not saying these guys are living off of Ramen noodles, And artists like Eminem can afford to only get 9 cents a song since they sell millions. But this is besides the point as it's about OWNERSHIP. If the record companies don't have the right to distribute digitally through downloads this is an incredibly valid point. Who knows what the contract says.

And I agree with you - Prima Donna's are such a SMALLLLLL part of the music industry. But that is a totally different issue entirely.

I'm sure this is only part of the step in going after Universal. Cut the distribution chain, negotiate.

I own Apple stock and I don't believe Apple will be hurt by this one bit. Apple Itunes will continue to sell, the dispensation will just change.

If he is just whining about a crappy contract he may have signed years and years ago, then I agree with most of ya, but attacking him without knowing the full story is not fair.

Fair comments.
But my point is that if the contract does not include digital downloads...and that is a real stretch in this day and age...then sue the damn record lable or whoever made the deal with Apple.
You've got to figure that Apple did not start carrying his stuff without asking the lable if it was legal.
Oh...and only M&M has been affected by this...I can't believe he has the only contract excluding digital downloads. So where are the rest of the law suits?
Sorry, this smacks of a PR stunt by a has-been trying to get some attention.
Look at me....I'm so bad I can sue Apple......yeh right:p

Black Belt
Jul 31, 2007, 03:39 PM
I think if the company being sued was microsoft, instead of apple, the sentiment on this forum would be much different, IMHO.

Wurd.

Sounds like most of these people are suckling Jobs' nipple and know nothing about copyrights, legal obligations of their defense, or the music industry in general - so they say Eminem's a loser, a whiner, a crack user, a whatever and that's the extent of their "intellectual property". WAHHH!!!! (slurp)

yzp
Jul 31, 2007, 04:00 PM
The problem is a Universal's one???

I simply dont get it???

powermac_daddy
Jul 31, 2007, 05:20 PM
why even bother to buy music these days? the music industry makes way too much money anyway.

Rocketman
Jul 31, 2007, 05:37 PM
Very true. We don't know everything with this case. What we do know is that the legal owner of the music asked apple to stop selling and Apple refused. Hence the lawsuit. Should they sue universal? sure. But, if I pay 19.99 to limewire for "legal" downloading, does the RIAA go after limewire or me for using the service? They go after me because it is illegal for me to download the songs. Same with Apple, it is illegal for them to sell the songs. I think if the company being sued was microsoft, instead of apple, the sentiment on this forum would be much different, IMHO.

I was wondering when someone was going to say this. (Safari is snappier as a result of this post)

Apple has a contract with Universal, not with Eight Mile Style LLC or with Eminem, or with Matthews or whatever his given name is from his formerly drunk-a$$ mother.

It would be a normal and customary provision of a contract between Apple and Universal to have a provision to hold Apple harmless (Universal pay attorney fees and costs) to defend a suit from an artist represented by Universal, to be under contract, and for content agreed to be under contract.

My own efforts at getting stuff on iTunes tells me that Apple is hyper-aware of these issues. You will find this suit goes nowhere.

Rocketman

BlackLilyNinja
Jul 31, 2007, 05:42 PM
just an opinion


universal is behind it. Smoke and mirrors to try and make apple look bad. Otherwise Universal would be named in the suit only. Not that im a lawyer. Fact is Universal is the criminal for only giving Marshal 9.1 cents of the 70 cent share. He's earned them much more than they ever dished out for him. So ... he is their poster boy (most likely paid or unwittingly) for the artist rebellion against apple. I don't honestly think Marshal would go into this without a motivation. Record Labels are still powerful organizations
with money to throw about for their own interests.... usually without any moral track. Just public self interests.

oldwatery
Jul 31, 2007, 07:15 PM
why even bother to buy music these days? the music industry makes way too much money anyway.

Let me know the name of your company so I can come over and rip you off :rolleyes:

macidiot
Jul 31, 2007, 08:19 PM
Are you thinking of the one Eminem is actually in or the one that just featured the song "Lose Yourself"? I know I've seen both but I'm not sure if the one in question was aired on television or if I just saw it online.

I saw it on tv. Over and over again for about 3 months straight.

rockosmodurnlif
Jul 31, 2007, 09:14 PM
Please. We've read the threads and the article. Eminem simply has no case against Apple. So let ME barney-style it.

Apple: Hey Universal, can we sell some of the music you have rights to on-line?

Universal: Sure Apple, here's all the stuff we are contractually able to sell through you.

Eminem: Hey - I'm not making enough money here - it isn't fair that Apple can sell the digital version of my music, I never explicitly said they could! I should ask them to stop.

Apple: It would be ludicrous if we had to stop selling certain songs that we are contractually able to sell whenever a tempermental artist is unhappy. So no. Take it up with Universal.

Eminem: No - I'd rather sue you. It makes for better headlines.

Apple lawyers: OK - good luck with that.

:rolleyes:

Where do you get your information? Certainly not from reading anything. You must just make everything up as you go along?

Let me make it two simple sentences for you: Eminem's publishers say Universal has no rights to sell his music digitally. Apple sells the music and won't stop selling the music when Eminem's publishers asked.

How does anyone not see the case?

On another note, where did all these defenders of Universal Music Group come from? I thought everyone on Macrumours wanted to see them die out and fade away after they changed their contract with Apple (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=325915&highlight=universal+itunes+music+store). I mean Eminem is fighting the "big bad record label" to stop them from using his material in ways he did not approve. That's why there is a contract. I wonder what the reaction would be if it was an "indie" artist.

Badandy
Aug 1, 2007, 01:26 AM
I don't like having my posts deleted. Don't do that.

CJD2112
Aug 1, 2007, 08:42 AM
Over at "The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs" forum ( http://fakesteve.blogspot.com ), this was posted:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_pNJFZtinpKY/Rq-eAbF6CEI/AAAAAAAABhQ/qmNF3brIixU/s1600-h/url.jpg

Vanilla Ice imitator Eminem is suing us over downloads. Or something. See here. My lawyers looked at the complaint and said it's all written in fake ghetto slang and rhymes. But when they translated it into English it said: "Dear Mr. Jobs, My career is over and nobody pays attention to me anymore, but I'm hoping this publicity stunt will spark some interest in me again. Thank you."

My lawyers say we'll just drag it out for a while and mess with his head. Personally I'd like to send Moshe Hishkill and a couple of his guys out to Detroit and have them track down this punk and put a cap in his ass. We'll see.

end quote...

LMAO SOOOOOO perfect.

You guys should check out "The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs", some funny s*#t, and there's a matching "The Secret Diary of Jonathan Ive"...

Draelius
Aug 1, 2007, 08:51 AM
Wurd.

Sounds like most of these people are suckling Jobs' nipple and know nothing about copyrights, legal obligations of their defense, or the music industry in general - so they say Eminem's a loser, a whiner, a crack user, a whatever and that's the extent of their "intellectual property". WAHHH!!!! (slurp)

But the milk tastes so good!

JobsRules
Aug 1, 2007, 09:04 AM
Eminem may write SOME of his lyrics, everything else is sampled/ stolen. It's not an overstatement either, this one guy I worked with showed me all these old songs from the 80's/ 90's that Eminem completely ripped off. Let me put it this way, it is often as blatant as Vanilla Ice's famous case. Well then again, this is the same for 99% of hip hop. Kanye West does the same, Snoop Dogg, not Dr. Dre though. Also Scott Storch writes almost everything himself. I wouldn't say these artists who steal have no talent, but they should at least give the artist they stole it from a cut of the money.

Er, sometimes they go get a cut of the money, or have to pay a one off fee to clear certain samples.

In the early days in particular hip-hop generated ways of using the emerging affordable samplers that no one had thought of before. Lifting a sample from a record, combining it with other beats and elements and making it all fit was quite a big skill back in the day of Akai S1000s - far more difficult than some alt-rockers limply strumming E5-shape chords up and down a fret board while moaning some drivel about being miserable. It's not a trivial task now to do well, even with software samplers, ReCycle and decent time stretching tools.

Nowadays some of that underground skill has been lost and, yes, there is loads of glossed-up hip-hop with some talentless millionaire mumbling nonsense over the same one looped bar while a gyrating booty-shaker ocasionally chips in with a few lines of r'n'b. It's another symptom of the got-no-talent-but-wanna-be-rich-and-famous-instantly plague that's part of the celebrity cess-pit culture that's taking over the planet.

CJD2112
Aug 1, 2007, 09:04 AM
Wurd.

Sounds like most of these people are suckling Jobs' nipple and know nothing about copyrights, legal obligations of their defense, or the music industry in general - so they say Eminem's a loser, a whiner, a crack user, a whatever and that's the extent of their "intellectual property". WAHHH!!!! (slurp)

Oh please, let me call you a Waaaaaaaabulance :p . You're on a Mac/Apple fan site after all, what do you expect. ;)

studiomusic
Aug 1, 2007, 10:02 AM
Lifting a sample from a record, combining it with other beats and elements and making it all fit was quite a big skill back in the day of Akai S1000s -
S1000s? I started out with the S900... now THAT was a sampler! 12 bits, almost zero memory and a slow floppy... sweet memories indeed!

Badandy
Aug 1, 2007, 04:30 PM
CDJ: Do you not get that eminem's career is not over? I mean, I thought that was explained to you well enough. The guy sells millions of copies every CD, most artists would give anything to do that...

Rocketman
Aug 1, 2007, 09:27 PM
I don't like having my posts deleted. Don't do that.

Me too. But I am not delusional enough to think they will not delete posts at will. Several of the other sites I go to using this particular site software save deleted posts to a pool where people can see first hand what was deleted so they can get a sense of why. I cannot see where this site does that.

Rocketman

CJD2112
Aug 2, 2007, 06:57 PM
CDJ: Do you not get that eminem's career is not over? I mean, I thought that was explained to you well enough. The guy sells millions of copies every CD, most artists would give anything to do that...

lol Sorry, are you talking to me? Or the countless other Macrumors members who have made the same (joking) comment? Get over it, I couldn't care less anout M&M or Enima or whatever his name is, it's a J O K E :rolleyes: .