Sale Or License? Sister Sledge Sues Over ITunes 257
Hugh Pickens writes "The Hollywood Reporter reports that members of the iconic disco-era musical group Sister Sledge have filed a major class action lawsuit against Warner Music Group claiming that the music giant's method for calculating digital music purchases as 'sales' rather than 'licenses' has cheated them out of millions of dollars from digital music sales. Songwriters typically make much less money when an album is 'sold' than they do when their music is 'licensed' (the rationale derives from the costs that used to be associated with the physical production of records) but record labels have taken the position that music sold via such digital stores as iTunes should be counted as 'sales' rather than licenses. The difference in revenue can be significant as Sister Sledge claim their record deal promises 25 percent of revenue from licenses but only 5-1/2% to 6-1/2% of net from sales. Eminem's publisher brought a nearly identical claim against Universal Music Group and won an important decision at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 when the 9th Circuit ruled that iTunes' contract unambiguously provided that the music was licensed. The lawsuit argued that record companies' arrangements with digital retailers resembled a license more than it did a sale of a CD or record because, among other reasons, the labels furnished the seller with a single master recording that it then duplicated for customers. 'Unlike physical sales, where the record company manufactures each disc and has incremental costs, when they license to iTunes, all they do is turn over one master,' says attorney Richard S. Busch. 'It's only fair that the artist should receive 50 percent of the receipts.'"
Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the music labels aren't there for the protection of the artist!?
It also seems that 75% cut is still a lot for copying an mp3 file and drawing up some paperwork. Even if the label also provided the recording studio, etc, it seems like the artist is still getting the short end of the stick. Why is it that the artist always seems to be the last one to realize the label is screwing him even harder than its screwing the consumer?
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think of RIAA as an isolated case. They're the middlemen; the brokers. The only "benefit" they have for the artists is its distribution channel and marketing/ promotions (but that''s been eroding for the past decade, thanks to the internet.)
RIAA becoming greedy? That's what these brokers/ facilitators do. It's a service industry that's quickly becoming obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait (Score:4, Insightful)
They're the middlemen; the brokers. The only "benefit" they have for the artists is its distribution channel and marketing/ promotions (but that''s been eroding for the past decade, thanks to the internet.)
They also provide the equivalent of venture capital to small artists with potential to go big. There is lots of room to debate the pros and cons of how those relationships are formed and how they mature (just as with venture capital). Regardless of those questions, however, it is another benefit that has to be acknowledged when forming a complete image of the problem space.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Informative)
Well, as a musician with a pal who was in the music business for a while (I'm not his kind of act, so I didn't work with him), he described it like this:
"The big distributors screw the labels in a very uncomfortable place. The labels, in turn, screw the band managers, who screw the musicians. Every time you move up in the business, you basically get to shift your position so that you are more the screwer and less the screwee." He also mentioned that because of the cash involved, if he'd wanted to screw his bands he could very easily have taken most of their share of the door and told the band members (when they woke up) that they'd spent it on alcohol, hookers, and blow.
You can also read this article [salon.com] by Courtney Love explainin precisely how record contracts screw musicians very very badly.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Interesting)
Hardly obsolete - perhaps less relevant. RIAA has many, many faults, but internet has not magically removed the need for middle-man and promotion.
Just because you can distribute your music world-wide does not replace the need to market yourself and achieve the initial recognition. That is still expensive to do, perhaps more so nowdays. All of the self-published successes tend to come from bands that were first made famous by the very same RIAA. Just saying...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait (Score:4, Insightful)
Supply and demand.
There are tons of groups that would like a shot of making it.
There are a limited number of slots available.
The cost to get one of those slots is being willing to bid a large percentage of your future rights.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue the scarcity is natural. How is the RIAA creating an artificial scarcity? What are they doing to create star culture? And if it is the RIAA why do we see a similar culture in: books, movies, television dramas, journalism, sports... that the RIAA has nothing to do with?
Most likely without the music publishers, and their marketing music sales would be lower, and this would be more of a middle class occupation. That incidentally is what you see in Europe, the "stars" still don't do incredible
Re: (Score:3)
$30 more per month for Internet radio (Score:4, Informative)
With the Internet, there are effectively an unlimited number of slots
Not if your target audience lacks access to the Internet. For example, a lot of people aren't willing to pay roughly $30 more per month to replace their dumbphone with a smartphone just to listen to Internet radio instead of FM radio. (Dumbphone plans on Virgin Mobile USA start at $7/mo; smartphone plans on the same carrier start at $35/mo.)
on a single channel that can only show so much
The front page of a web site can only show so much. Not everybody's music video can be on the front page of, say, YouTube at once.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wait (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, they're not providing the recording studio for free. All of the costs of recording and production - at full retail value - come out of the artists share of their contract proceeds before they start receiving any money. It's just that the studio is lending them the money so they aren't out of pocket for those costs up front.
Re: (Score:2)
The same with nearly any artist whether they be video, comic, novelist, gaming, etc. Back in the day you had to go through a publisher. In this case for music we call the publisher a label. They had a monopoly. Right now, I can't say how fair their practices were or how much each level should get. That was then. Now? Aaron Diaz of the Dresden Codak had a blog post explaining that he makes more money going solo. Many artists are now making art through music, comics, eBooks, etc. because the publisher
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the music labels aren't there for the protection of the artist!?
It also seems that 75% cut is still a lot for copying an mp3 file and drawing up some paperwork. Even if the label also provided the recording studio, etc, it seems like the artist is still getting the short end of the stick. Why is it that the artist always seems to be the last one to realize the label is screwing him even harder than its screwing the consumer?
No, you misunderstand. All the expenses for renting a studio, mixing, marketing etc comes from the artist's share. The 75% goes to coke, hookers and limos for the bosses.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, the deceptive and pred
Re: (Score:3)
iTunes isn't being sued and from the sound of it, pays the label the same regardless of whether it counts as a license or a sale in this particular lawsuit. The license vs sale debate only comes up between the label and the artist: how much of what iTunes pays the label should go to the artist? So it doesn't matter what iTunes spends because they're a disinterested third party in this particular lawsuit. The only thing that matters in this case is how the label calculates what percentage to give the artist.
And yet it was always a licence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And yet it was always a licence... (Score:5, Interesting)
when labels argued that there was no right of resale for customers.
This lawsuit appears to be discussing the transaction between the record labels and the retailers -- the transaction with which the artist has some concern. The transaction between the retailer and the retail customer is none of Sister Sledge's concern, and a federal district judge has just denied a request to shutter ReDigi on the basis that MP3's may well be traditional property. It is very possible (I would even say almost certain) that the former transaction is a license and the latter transaction is a sale.
The reason the transaction between the label and the retailers appears to be a license is because the retailer gets a single master and license to duplicate for retail sale. Hence the labels do not incur, and should not be retaining, the cost of reproducing the "records".
Re:And yet it was always a licence... (Score:5, Interesting)
The label/retailer distinction is important, and it looks like the labels are wrong on both sides.
They claim that they are selling copies to the retailer, and the retailer is then licensing them to the consumer. That seems like an untenable position. Clearly, if they are selling to the retailer, the retailer must be passing the item "sold" to the consumer.
However, the reverse situation seems far more logical. They are giving a license to the retailer to make as many copies as needed. Each copy is then sold to the consumer.
If they win against the artists, I don't see how they could possibly win ReDigi. But if they lose to the artists, there's a chance that they could still lose to ReDigi.
How... interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
So, RIAA on one hand pays its artists as if it sells its digital files like CDs, but files legal papers claiming that these files are licensed, not sold (so that the doctrine of first sale will not enable reselling the music [slashdot.org]).
How typical.
Re:How... interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How... interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Trying to get a group of artists of any type to agree on *lunch* is hard enough. Getting them together to form an organization that would properly represent them would be near impossible. If you did get one started, it would last until the drummers decided to sue the lead singers. (Phil Collins and Don Henley's head would explode at this) There have been attempts, but no group has nearly the clout of the RIAA/MPAA
Real Thieves of Hollywood... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is hilarious that the RIAA has convinced artists that it is the file sharers stealing millions from them all while the record labels play their accounting tricks for "recouping" costs.
Re:Real Thieves of Hollywood... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a surprise considering that they are still charging artists for record-era "breakage" fees not only on CDs but on MP3s. Somehow, they figure that 10% of MP3s "break" and thus shouldn't count towards royalties. They love playing the "We're supporting the artists" line publicly while doing all they can to screw the artists behind the scenes.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a surprise considering that they are still charging artists for record-era "breakage" fees not only on CDs but on MP3s. Somehow, they figure that 10% of MP3s "break" and thus shouldn't count towards royalties. They love playing the "We're supporting the artists" line publicly while doing all they can to screw the artists behind the scenes.
Welcome to the world of Hollywood accounting - where no matter how much money something takes in it sell loses money. I actually had an accounting prof who specialized in that topic - it's really very fascinating, even if it is accounting. I wish I could use the same for my taxes...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Sister Who?? (Score:2, Interesting)
If it were Metallica or U2 this legal brawl would be interesting to follow, as both bands have a pile of cash and an army of lawyers ready to take on one of the big record labels, maybe even set a precedent.
Whatever money these sisters have left over from their drug abuse won't even tickle Warner.
Re: (Score:3)
I do love how the implication here is that it is money alone that will decide this.
I think you're right, but it's an interesting commentary on the state of affairs.
Re: (Score:2)
"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's how the smart money bets."
- Damon Runyon
A lawyer once told me that lawsuits are about 90% facts & law and 10% luck. No mater how good your case, there's always a chance you'll lose. That 10% is what keeps the other side going. (SCO was shooting for the 10%)
Re: (Score:2)
Bear in mind that lawyers are wrong half the time. On the other hand, they make $500 an hour for running a few searches then copy-and-pasting other peoples' arguments, so it's probably worth picking up a few tips.
Re: (Score:2)
Bear in mind that lawyers are wrong half the time.
So true, but I'd love to see a case where the Judge threw both lawyers out of his courtroom for incompetence. (I'm sure it's happened at least once)
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the money is always what decides it. There are some views of "civil" society that merely represent rather than spend our money on war equipment, we use that money to elect people to "fight" in court/congress... as opposed to the barbaric society that simply cuts out the middleman, and the rich get to buy the best (and, hence winning) army to go take all the plunder from the losers in that country. Either way, the effect is pretty much the same, after enough time...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but don't you think the artist should/have an organization to back them? Surely Metallica and U2 have as much to gain from this suit as the plaintiffs.
Certainly much like any class action type of suit you would want to have a pitiable plaintiff rather than one with tons of cash and the lifestyle of success.
Oh? So now its sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought we the music industry wanted to sue ReDigi into the ground because iTunes purchases were *not* sales but rather just licenses, and so the first sale doctrine didn't apply. So now its a license when that means they can restrict our right to resell our digital purchases when we no longer want them, but it's a sale when it comes to screwing artists out of money. I feel like maybe they're bit a teensy bit hypocritical.
Re:Oh? So now its sales? (Score:5, Informative)
Please RTFS again. Artists get a 25% percent cut when it's a license. The MAFIAA is telling them that music through iTunes is sold, which only gives artists a 6% cut.
Re:Oh? So now its sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please RTFS again. Artists get a 25% percent cut when it's a license. The MAFIAA is telling them that music through iTunes is sold, which only gives artists a 6% cut.
It's actually even worse than that. The label is arguing that when they give iTunes a single master file and a license to reproduce that file for retail sale, it is a sale. But when iTunes sells individual MP3 copies to end users, it is a license.
The legal truth is almost certainly reversed. When the label gives a single master file and license to reproduce to iTunes, it is a license. When they sell an individual copy to a retail customer, it is a sale.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Cyberllama has it backwards. It is a 'license' that the consumer purchases from iTunes (so the consumer cannot resell it like they could if it was a physical disk), but it is a 'sale' from the record company to iTunes (hence they pay the artist less because they get a smaller percentage of the takings from a 'license' than they do from a 'sale'.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be how they would like things to be, but isn't it the other way around?
Music company gives iTunes the master + the license to make and sell copies - license.
User buy copies from iTunes, without any kind of a license to make more - sales.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that sounds intuitive but you have this backwards in terms of copyright. Lets talk about the original album.
I band sold their copyright to the music company.
When you purchase a CD you get a license along with the physical media.
The music company sold sell the band's contract to another company.
The music company could licene a large music wholesaler (like Columbia or BMG) to print and distribute 50,000 copies of the album.
Re: (Score:2)
Under that theory, what rights did they sell to iTunes? They didn't give iTunes a right to redistribute since Apple pays them 30% per copy and in fact that's the only money changing hands.
Recording Industry Execs Suffering From Addiction (Score:3, Insightful)
It's sad really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, greed has throughout the centuries compelled people to do unethical things. Nothing new here.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy do these copyright holders like to use specific terms when it benefits them best. Oh, no, you're not buying this, you're just licensing it.
But, when talking to the authors/musicians, they refer to them as sales. Well, then. We'll see how this goes, damn double standards.
It's either a sale or a license. If it's a sale, then it is protected by the first sale doctrine and I can sell/give it away so long as I destroy the original copy. Otherwise, it is a license and the songwriters and musicians get a higher share. You can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have it both ways.
Maybe you can, so long as you pay the right people. I guess we'll find out soon enough!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Oh, right, I forgot: this is the U.S., where your politicians can be bought and paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right, I forgot: this is the U.S., where your politicians can be bought and paid for.
Which brings us to the following important question, are politicians bought or licensed?
I think it's more of a rental than either a purchase or a license...
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see them winning this (Score:2)
I can't see courts finding that a sale via. iTunes is for the purpose of duplication rather than for the purpose of listening. 2 years ago the store hit the 10billion mark for songs sold. Has there ever even been a single one whose intent was redistribution?
I can understand that artists don't like the small fraction of revenue they get from digital music sales. It is very frustrating for a still successful artists, that the label makes lots of money long after there are no promotional costs. But this l
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but iTunes is doing the duplication. They give a master to iTunes, which then proceeds to make copies for each customer. Technically, it could fall under license rather than sale terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I see. And then they argue that the 30% that iTunes pays the label was the sales cost and.... Gotcha. OK that makes some sense. BTW you have that the other way around. It is falling under license you are arguing it could technically fall under sale.
To be honest though I see iTunes as the store under this model getting the album/song on consignment. iTunes is the channel it isn't providing the channel.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll check again. If it is me that has it backwards then I'd be shocked this didn't come up sooner. There has already been about $20b that's changed hands in digital music.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't the intent. Besides pirated torrents could just as easily be from ripping CDs.
In interesting duality (Score:2)
This could go badly for the record companies on both fronts.
They are apparently licensing their content to iTunes - providing a master for duplication by a distributor - which could lead to them paying higher fees to the artists. At the same time, however, iTunes may be selling individual copies to their users, which may fall under first dale doctrine and allow resale of the "permanent digital downloads" - as is the case under consideration with reDigi.
Re: (Score:2)
It's time for the legislature to actually work this out. Given the current state of things, I don't expect anything to happen on that front, so companies and artists will try new business models, then let the courts decide if those are going to work. If Sister Sledge
It's a license! It's a sale! It's a license! (Score:2)
Wasn't there another case recently where the record companies were arguing that they were licenses and so MP3s cannot be re-sold? I have little doubt they know clearly what they are doing. They are simply very willing to lie, cheat and misrepresent at each and every opportunity to benefit themselves and they do so without shame or remorse.
As soon as we can separate these people from the politicians (I'm looking at you Occupy) we might finally be able to call these jack-holes before congress and get the re
I agree (Score:2)
Digital format counts as licensing, since there's no physical media to distribute. Therefore, there is no "first sale doctrine" when applied to digital formats. Don't like it? Stick to physical media.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
but can we please leave the absolutely needless apple bashing out of completely unrelated article headlines?
They aren't suing over iTunes, they are suing over them being defrauded by their label. Apple nor iTunes has anything to do with the suit except as a delivery vector.
For fucks sake the actual reason for the suit (the label) doesn't even appear in the headline.
Note to the artists: (Score:2)
Pretty numbers (Score:4, Interesting)
If an artist asks people down loading songs from their website to pay $1.00 and only 7% of the people pay, they make more than if they were in bed with a label.
RIAA/MPAA Bullshit Double Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the things that pisses me off the most about these fuckers is that their answer to the "Are you selling this to me or licensing this to me?" question always seems to be whichever one means they get paid again (or in this case, whichever one means they get to not pay someone else).
Your CD got scratched? Oooh, sorry, we sold you that music. Buy another copy.
You want to resell that legal MP3? Nope, that's a nontransferable license, no can do. (IIRC, this is currently being battled out in the courts.)
You think we owe you more in royalties? Nah, we sold those songs instead of licensing them. You mad, bro?
The sooner these dinosaurs get done in by their own greed, the better.
~Philly
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Age of Empires II always made me think a petard was a medieval suicide bomber. Those guys always got blown up with their own bomb.
Re:Insert Alanis Morissette Lyrics (Score:5, Funny)
Age of Empires II always made me think a petard was a medieval suicide bomber. Those guys always got blown up with their own bomb.
Close. The last five letters are the same.
Re: (Score:3)
I learned all k
random acts of pedantry (Score:5, Informative)
"Hoist with his own petard" is a quote from Hamlet: "For 'tis sport to have the engineer/ Hoist with his own petard"
"Hoist" in this context means 'lifted into the air'
"Petard" is a small explosive device.
"Hoist with his own petard" = blown up by his own bomb.
Re: (Score:2)
"Petard" is a small explosive device.
Literally the first thing I said. So yes.
Are you sure it wasn't a saying in the common vernacular before Hamlet? It could have been.
And I guess that "hoist" or the french origin implies being lifted, but that still seems like the wrong way to say it. You aren't really lifted by an explosive as much as ripped apart.
Re:Then what does a rocket do? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Then what does a rocket do? (Score:5, Funny)
No, Shakespeare did. It was in the same play where he wrote the immortal lines, "Pray tell, doth this teabag ail you? Cry some more, biatch, cry some more. Thy tears are sweet, for I havest pwned thee."
He also wrote, "Truly, thou art hax -- I can seest by the pixels." But that was a different play.
Re:random acts of pedantry (Score:4, Informative)
But "petard" had another meaning that Shakespeare was quite aware of: fart. So it's a scatalogical double-entendre (as he points out himself: "'tis most sweet/When in one line two crafts directly meet"). And you thought Shakespeare was highbrow.
I Like "Strike a Deal with the Devil" Better (Score:5, Insightful)
You're eventually carried off into eternal damnation in hell or eternal litigation in court -- I can't really say which is worse.
Re:I Like "Strike a Deal with the Devil" Better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Like "Strike a Deal with the Devil" Better (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait, didn't the devil lose his fiddle when he went down to Georgia?
All I'm saying is that somebody beat him at his own game.
Seriously speaking though, the record labels have supposedly done two things in the past: they have filtered out bad artists, and they have provided the large amount of capital for bands that is necessary to record studio albums, physically create the vinyl, tape, or compact disks, and go on tour to promote all of their work.
Now, have they really filtered out bad artists very well? Not at all! Britney Spears, every single boy band, Cristina Aguilera, Hillary Duff, Lindsey Lohan, etc. have all been terrible artists that were somewhat commercially successful because they had the industry connections to get some investors. That means though that instead of promoting talented artists who have honed their skills to perfection, the recording industry has actually made it more difficult for those people to get discovered and record deals. It took Britain's Got Talent for Susan Boyle to be recognized - and she was lucky to get on the show to begin with because she isn't a busty young selfish princess that people like to see, and she still had to overcome Simon's own cinematic prejudices against her the first two times she sang! So, promoting talented and practiced artists who "deserve" (read: would generate a good fanbase and make enough money to pay the bills, but not necessarily be a multi-million dollar commercial success) is not actually who the recording industry helps the most - the recording industry already helps those who have achieved fame somewhere else.
Recording albums nowadays is cheaper and easier than it has ever been in the past, primarily thanks to computers and advances in technology for soundproofing and instruments. Anybody can setup a home recording studio in their basement (or their mom's basement) for a few hundred dollars, and for a few hundred dollars more can get any number of instruments that will work for recording an album (they don't have to look nice or be ridiculously expensive). So, for about $2000, one person can record their own album using all their own equipment. Presuming the local economy is decent, anybody can get a menial job and save $2000 over the course of a year if they really want to. Will their recording be professionally mastered? No. Do you think that with the loudness wars and normal people's hearing/appreciation for music that people will notice? Probably not. And even if they do notice they probably won't care about the quality of the recording if the content is good, and if they do care you can spin it off as artistic and if they don't like it they can wait for a better quality recording to become a fan. So, this large expense has been mitigated so much by the current recording industry to be as cheap and easy as possible that normal people can do it without their help anymore, so they have stopped fulfilling that niche.
Finally, bands going on tour like to have some advance in the form of ticket sales from people in a geographic area, so they can judge whether or not it is worth it for them to play somewhere or not. I'm sure the recording industry does some market research regarding this, and that is useful still. But, with the rise of Kickstarter, bands could actually propose to come places and have fans sign up to pay for tickets to that show. But here's the thing - the fans would only pay if the band decided to come out, and the band would be able to decide for themselves whether performing in an area would be worth it to them or not. Kickstarter not only makes it easier for fans to put up advance money without the risk of the band deciding not to come and trying to get their money back from Ticketmaster, and it makes it easier on bands because it crowdsources market research and guarantees them money, and it lets bands scale to the geographical area that would be worth it to them. Bands could even promise "free" swag for people who pledge more an a certain amount (say, $50 instead of just $20 f
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Funny)
Both. It's a license or a sale depending on which benefits the RIAA more. Apparently, music files are like photons being waves or particles. They're both until observed (brought into a court of law) when they collapse into a single (RIAA-benefiting) state.
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
Both. It's a license or a sale depending on which benefits the RIAA more. Apparently, music files are like photons being waves or particles. They're both until observed (brought into a court of law) when they collapse into a single (RIAA-benefiting) state.
Right
Whether or not you own or license that copy of your your media when you get it online is something that the MAFIAA would like to remain vague. If it ever gets defined in court, one way or the other, big media is going to get sued all over the place. Currently they call it whatever works best for whatever court case they are involved in.
Owned, or licensed? You can't have it both ways. Not forever anyways.
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually it is both I think.
The music is licensed to Apple for sale to Apple's customer(s) via iTunes.
IMO for the Sister Sledge's purposes the music is licensed since Apple is who pays Warner Music Group.
Re: (Score:3)
No it is sold to Apple (so the low royality rate applies to the artist) so that Apple can license it to the customer (thus ensuring that the customer can't sell their copy).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
But if the copyright to digital versions of the file is what is sold than Apple would be free to make copies.
Selling the right to make copies is CALLED LICENSING. IT IS WHAT LICENSING MEANS.
aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrggggghghghghll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already own a license for it. They (presumably) sublicense it to customers?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe we can get a judgment to decide the issue once and for all. It's merely icing on the cake to watch the RIAA take both positions simultaneously.
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
Both. It's a license or a sale depending on which benefits the RIAA more. Apparently, music files are like photons being waves or particles. They're both until observed (brought into a court of law) when they collapse into a single (RIAA-benefiting) state.
That is funny, but bear in mind that the legal truth in this case almost certainly is that they are both -- but reversed from the RIAA's argument.
When a label gives a single master copy to iTunes and grants them a license to reproduce for retail sale, that is a license. That is important, because it means that the label is not incurring the cost of reproduction and distribution of many individual copies, and should not be retaining the pressing costs associated with vinyl records (the rational reason for copies paying the artist less).
When iTunes sells an individual copy to a retail customer, that is a sale -- but it has no bearing on the contract between the artist and the label. The artist's contract interest is in the transaction between the label and iTunes.
From a legal standpoint, it is almost certainly the case that the labels license iTunes to reproduce and distribute, and iTunes sells copies to retail customers. Trying to claim that something else is the case would require a judge with a very pliable sense of reality.
Re:And so it begins... (Score:4, Interesting)
From a legal standpoint, it is almost certainly the case that the labels license iTunes to reproduce and distribute, and iTunes sells copies to retail customers. Trying to claim that something else is the case would require a judge with a very pliable sense of reality.
Sweet. I like the way you think, because I am short on cash and thought I would resell my iTunes purchased music that I don't listen to anymore to a friend of mine to raise some extra cash. First-sale doctrine being what it is, I bet I could get him to pay me a quarter a song to transfer ownership to him.
Wait... what?
Re:And so it begins... (Score:5, Informative)
Sweet. I like the way you think, because I am short on cash and thought I would resell my iTunes purchased music that I don't listen to anymore to a friend of mine to raise some extra cash. First-sale doctrine being what it is, I bet I could get him to pay me a quarter a song to transfer ownership to him.
Wait... what?
Exactly so, go for it. And if your friends don't want them, there's even a market maker called "ReDigi." If they're relatively popular tracks, I think ReDigi pays more than $0.25 each.
Re: (Score:3)
Trying to claim that something else is the case would require a judge with a very pliable sense of reality.
This is iTunes. And Apple.
Ever heard of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field?
That the man is dead doesn't matter. That's probably just a distorted reality in and by itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And so it begins... (Score:4, Funny)
Both.
Schrödinger's Music ?
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what they will choose to argue in court.
That they manipulated the language in the contract, knowing they were going to sell licenses to resellers to avoid paying artists the higher percentage on each sale, without informing the artist of their intentions. There is legal ambiguity for a party to specify in a contract that he/she/it will "pay a cost if an action is (not) taken" when they know in advance that they themselves are not only eligible to (not) take that action but are knowingly going to (
Re:RIAA? (Score:4, Informative)
That's the whole point of the RIAA. Their only contributing members are the big labels. They can file lawsuits on behalf of those companies, but artists can only file against the companies directly. So the RIAA itself is pretty much untouchable.
Re: (Score:2)
There are so few major labels left that it can be implied that. Warner = RIAA
Re: (Score:3)
Actually - that may not matter what iTunes does. It appears that they are licensing the masters for redistribution by Apple. Apple is then selling permanent digital downloads (that, btw, has a specific meaning) - which makes them more akin to a CD sale. How Apple distributes the songs may be irrelevant to the case as the contract in dispute is about how the masters were licensed, or so it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't winning this particular case end in the increase of online music sales prices? I mean... if the distributors of digital music are forced to pay more money in order to "license" these songs/albums, won't they just pass those price increases on to the consumer?
In the case of iTunes, Apple will have a contract that says "we give the music to our customers for X cents (whether "give" is "license" or "sell" is irrelevant here), and we keep 30% of the X cents, and give 70% of the X cents to the record company. In return, Apple gets (probably) a single master, and a promise that the record companies are responsible if anything is wrong with copyright etc."
So how much the record companies have to pay to whom is of no concern to Apple. And what the customers pay is of
Re: (Score:3)
70? Don't you mean 120 years after artist's death [wikipedia.org]? It must be allowed for Mikey Mouse to belong to Disney perpetually. You don't want Mickey to fall into wrong hands, do you? Expect another extension in 20 years, not that anyone cares anymore.
The first extension was made after one of the World Wars, when a large number of authors had died at very young age, and this was cutting the number of years of copyright protection down for some people. Arguably quite reasonable at the time. On the other hand, they should really have changed it to "number of years since publishing". If a 20 year old writes some great music, it seems bizarre to me that the length of copyright is different, depending on whether he dies at 21 or at 99. Or that a 20 year old a