MAFIAA not giving artists royalties from lawsuit settlements

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2008-03-01 11:47am

Sorry about the title, I was channeling Einy there for a moment.

February 27, 2008 -- Artist managers are girding for battle with their music overlords over when their clients are going to see some of the dough negotiated last year in copyright-infringement settlements with a host of Web sites.

Universal Music, Warner Music and EMI - either collectively or individually - settled claims with Napster, Kazaa and Bolt.com. Napster alone had to cough up $270 million.

The fourth major label, SonyBMG, was not part of the suit because Napster was owned by BMG parent company Bertelsmann.

All four struck separate deals with YouTube that included revenue participation.

A contingent of prominent artist managers claims that little to none of that money has trickled down to their clients. They are now considering legal action.

"Artist managers and lawyers have been wondering for months when their artists will see money from the copyright settlements and how it will be accounted for," said lawyer John Branca, who has represented Korn, Don Henley, and The Rolling Stones, among others.

"Some of them are even talking about filing lawsuits if they don't get paid soon."

Record label sources said corporate bosses are still deciding on how best to split the money. In determining the payout, they said not every artist is owed money and it must be calculated with regard to the level of copyright infringement for each artist.

What's more, these sources said that after the labels recouped their legal expenses, there wasn't much left to pass along to the artists.

But a source on the artists' side said that is an argument heard all too often in the music business.

Getting money out of the major labels is never easy, but given the industry's downward financial spiral it is exponentially more difficult now, the source said.

"The record labels are experts at transferring money around and putting the onus on artists managers to find it."

Irving Azoff, the legendary talent manager for The Eagles and Jewel, among others, echoed that sentiment.

"They will play hide and seek, but eventually will be forced to pay something," Azoff said. "The record companies have even tried to credit unrecouped accounts. It's never easy for an artist to get paid their fair share."

Reps for the three labels dispute the notion that they are withholding settlement money.

A spokeswoman for EMI said the label has started the process of "sharing proceeds from the Napster and Kazaa settlements with artists and writers whose work was infringed upon."

Warner Music's representative said the label "is sharing the Napster settlement with its recording artists and songwriters and at this stage nearly all settlement monies have been disbursed."

A Universal Music spokesman said the label's policy "is to share its portion of various settlements with its artists, regardless of whether their contracts require it."

KlavoHunter · Post by **KlavoHunter** » 2008-03-01 07:47pm

Hopefully the artists decide to drop the RIAA like a rock after being fucked around with like this one time too many.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2008-03-01 11:02pm

it's already started, NIN and Radiohead have proven that self publishing through an overseas site nets the artist more than using a label. OF course the NMDRA (New Melinium Digital Recording Act) makes such publishing illegal in the USA, so bands just ask some freind in Canada or Mexico to publish your music online and send the proceeds to your paypal.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2008-03-02 12:34am

What? It's illegal to self-publish music in the US?

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2008-03-02 01:02am

Drooling Iguana wrote:What? It's illegal to self-publish music in the US?

Even after correcting Bear's spelling, a google search for New Millenium Digital Recording Act turns up nothing.

Academia Nut · Post by **Academia Nut** » 2008-03-02 01:08am

I think Bear meant the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which makes it illegal to not use proprietary DRM technology. Yeah... that's not going to end well I would think.

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2008-03-02 01:13am

Dominus Atheos wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:What? It's illegal to self-publish music in the US?
Even after correcting Bear's spelling, a google search for New Millenium Digital Recording Act turns up nothing.

I think you need to get your sarcasm meter checked.

Or maybe I need to get mine checked. It's like one in the morning over here, so I may be hallucinating or some shit.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2008-03-02 01:24am

Academia Nut wrote:I think Bear meant the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which makes it illegal to not use proprietary DRM technology. Yeah... that's not going to end well I would think.

That's not even close to what it does. The two main things DCMA does is criminalize circumventing DRM and states that if a user posts a copyrighted material on youtube or some equivalent site, that site can't be sued. (there's also some bizarre shit about boat hulls)

Academia Nut · Post by **Academia Nut** » 2008-03-02 01:43am

Yeah, I misread it, it was the producers of audio and video equipment who are forced to implement some sort of DRM stuff. Still, it was the closest I could find to what Bear was talking about, so I'm guessing we're looking at an instance of Internet Telephone going on here unless he has something he can show us otherwise.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2008-03-02 07:06pm

yeah, sorry, however, the articles I have read stated that Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have made pennies on a download and still have made more than they would have under RIAA...