Allman Brothers Sue Yet Another Record Label Over iTunes Royalties
from the all-for-the-artists dept
Reuters is running an article about how the Allman Brothers Band is suing Universal Music for apparently not paying the band royalties owed for iTunes downloads. This seemed like yet another example of a record label squeezing its artists, while insisting that it's always looking out for the artists' best interests. Of course, then I remembered that this isn't the first time this has come up with the Allman Brothers. More than two years ago, we wrote about the Allmans suing Sony over the same issue. At that time, there was a dispute over how the label was counting iTunes downloads, and which clause iTunes downloads fit under in the band's contract. This recent lawsuit seems like a similar dispute with Universal, but it does make you wonder why the band sued Sony back in 2006, but waited until now to sue Universal?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
They probably waited because they wanted to see what the outcome would be from the first case and didn't want to engage in a legal battle with two record companies at the same time.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Guess they are just tryin' to make a livin' and doin' the best they can, huh?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
They had one more silver dollar
and they were not going to be caught
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Probably took 2 years to rack up enough downloads so they can claim significant loss.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
*added to list of boycotted musicians
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Yeah, we should definitely boycott all musicians who try to use the legal system to protect their legal rights, as well as anyone that places making a living above entertaining others.
Luckily for me, I spend my days just trying to make people happy at all costs, even when they walk all over me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
you said it
and beat me to it!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Well Said!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You only see 5% of the problems
I wonder what the record labels would say if artists started requiring labels to be subject to external audits. Like what we do in the real world...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"*added to list of boycotted musicians"
Wait, what? I have the opposite reaction. These guys are not suing iTunes or their listeners: they are suing the sleazy labels who claim to are trying to con the artist out of what money they can. I am 100% behind any band that wants to sue their label for skimping on royalties, and I believe that those who are anti-RIAA and such should feel the same. I can't help but think you hopefully just misread the article?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Luckily for me, I spend my days just trying to make people happy at all costs, even when they walk all over me.
So you are saying that you are a mop of a person. Wanna wash my car? It's dirty.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
That should have said "added to the list of sleazy labels I'll boycott", right?
if not, take a deep breath and think about what's happening here. this isn't the abuse of the legal system against music fans (as Sony and Universal have been doing). This is a band who have a contract with these record labels, have gotten screwed over and are suing for the money they're due.
To put it another way, you know when the RIAA say they're suing people "for the artists"? Well, they're not even paying the artists themselves! Why would you be boycotting the artist for this?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Or maybe they don't have all the lawyers the record companies seem to have and can only fight one battle at a time.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: allman bros and others
oddly, the **aas claim that downloads cheat their clients, those being the artists, yet when they figure out how to provide downloads, they claim the artists shouldn't benefit from them.
they aren't pirates, they're organized criminals, and should be prosecuted under rico, not sued by individual artists.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Are you missing the sarcasm, or am I?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: You only see 5% of the problems
External audits are written into every contract. If it is not then the artist has a terrible lawyer.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What are you people talking about?
Why would anyone boycott a musician for suing his record company (unless you really love record companies or something)? I dont understand, what offense have these guys commited again, except wanting to get thier share of money a record company already collected, supposedly for them. Seriously people . . . read . . .
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What are you people talking about?
Many who post on this site are seriously lacking in reading comprehension skills. The motto is "Comment first, read later, comprehend never."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: allman bros and others
Pirates VS MAFIAA! (coming live to Pay-Per-View!)
An all-out, balls-to-the-wall deathmatch! Let the subpoenas fly, let the judges be bribed, threatened or coerced! It'll be the end-all, be-all of mortal combat! Come watch to gore of live deadly combat!!
[May not be available in your or, or at all]
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: You only see 5% of the problems
It's not even the terrible lawyer the artist may or may not have. It's just that pretty much every artist would be suing over every release.
Hollywood taught the RIAA a thing or to about "creative" accounting and some of these cases take years to settle.
Anyway, if you're an unknown band that plays a few bars and a few neighbourhood garages you're probably likely to sign on the dotted line in the distant hope of something better.
ttfn
John
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yeah, we should definitely boycott all musicians who try to use the legal system to protect their legal rights, as well as anyone that places making a living above entertaining others.
A boycott is quite legal as well.
In this case - well, never cared for them at all anyway.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
A boycott over this particular issue would be doubly stupid as they are suing their own record company who collected money in their name and never actually paid them. They are not going after anyone for downloading their music, free or otherwise. Also the Allman Brothers, much like the Greatful Dead, would be the last people to get up in arms about freely distributed music as they only really achieved success after years and years of playing basically for free (they would have given up long before they achieved any success if fame and fortune were the ultimate goal). These guys are real musicians, who love to play music and I seriously doubt any of them are kept up at night worrying about getting the .001% they are due from every bootleg "Melissa" download out there. However, when a record company does collect that .001%, the brothers want their cut . . . as they should!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment