RSSOld musicians want their download money
By Tim Conneally | Published August 12, 2008, 4:44 PM
Four Allman Brothers band members sued Universal Music Group for more than $10 million in royalties from both hard-copy sales and downloadables.
Greg Allman, Jai Johanny Johanson, Butch Trucks, and Dickey Betts filed suit in the Southern District of New York saying that UMG has refused to pay the correct royalties for sales of songs contained on the "Capricorn Masters."
That set of tapes migrated from label to label, beginning with the band's original Capricorn Records, which filed for bankruptcy in 1979, and were then transferred to PolyGram, which was subsequently bought by Universal Music Group.
The Allman feud with UMG goes back at least seven years, when the same members of the band sued the conglomerate for using the Capricorn material without the band's knowledge or consent.
The current suit, however, focuses upon a clause in the contract between the band and Polygram, that says the band is entitled to half of the profits from third-party sales otherwise unspecified within the document. This means the artists would receive half the profit obtained through downloads from retailers like iTunes, Amazon, Rhapsody, and the like.
According to the suit, UMG has paid only a fraction of what the band is entitled to, and has refused to renegotiate the royalties for downloads and ringtones, displaying "wanton disregard" for their contractual obligations as stipulated in the 1985 agreement.
Earlier this year, a group of 14 artists or their respective estates shared a similar grievance, suing UMG for over $6 million in unpaid royalties collected between 1999-2007. Plaintiffs in that case included the estates of Count Basie, Benny Goodman, Sara Vaughan, and Woody Herman.
Give 'em SFA!
Cheers,
Dan
Score: 0
God forbid the porn industry would go away...
Score: 0
Such self-righteous indignation on the part of so many who so often justify theft of others property.
The sad fact is that many contractual agreements with artists, just like with the film industry, do not provide compensation for online or downloadable files. And like it or not, this is what determines compensation - the the emotional tirades of so many who are want to justify downloads without compensation to the owners of the material.
Hopefully, both the artists and the companies who too often own the rights to the material will each be fairly compensated. And to the degree that online distribution and compensation for artists is not accounted for, they will be able to renegotiate equitable compensation.
And, with a bit of luck, the dweebs who think that they are entitled to others' material without compensation will be the ones to pay.
Score: 0
Further proof that the powers that be in the music industry are not as worried about protecting their artists' rights as they claim.
Score: 0
The RIAA is screaming and hollering about illegal downloading of music because they claim that the artists are not getting paid, apparently the artists don't get paid regardless of where the music is downloaded from.
Hypocrites
Score: 0
The RIAA represents the major labels and some artists to a far lesser extent. It also thrives on the misconception that it represents the entire US recording industry.
Score: 0
^This^
Score: 0
Also: ^This^
http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp
A handy search tool for finding if your favourite artist is signed to a label that is in cahoots with the RIAA.
Score: 0
Amen2dat
Score: 0