Jan 31, 2002

Napster Case May BackFire On Labels

According to this New York Times article, the major music labels' request for a thirty day pause in the Napster case was due to their concerns over collusion and copyright ownership issues. Napster would have asked for and have been granted permission to investigate these matters. The labels must have a legitimate concern to suspend the case temporarily after whipping Napster for the past three years.

The collusion issue is insiginificant since the federal government has refused to intervene and put pressure on the labels to make a level playing field for online music. The music industry is an oligopoly and heading towards becoming a monopoly. Only the financial collapse of the labels will change these market conditions.

As further proof of the monopolistic conditions of the music industry, it has been reported the labels plan to work with only five or six online music distributors. Apparently, the US Department of Justice antitrust investigation against the labels is doing little to change industry market conditions. What a surprise!

Now, as for the copyright issues, it appears the labels are quite concerned about this agenda being dragged through court. According to the New York Times story:

"Mark Radcliffe, a copyright lawyer in Silicon Valley, said that if Napster was permitted to seek evidence about copyright questions, such evidence could provide the basis for a viable defense in trial. And it could challenge how much control over music copyrights the labels were entitled to have, he added.

"The labels are deathly afraid these ownership issues will come up in court," Mr. Radcliffe said.

Apparently, the labels are concerned that a court case focusing on copyright issues may actually open up a can of worms. It may shed light as to how archaic, static and insignificant copyright laws (especially the DMCA) actually are when applied to today's dynamic technology. More importantly, it may even challenge the labels to legally prove they are the actual copyright owners of the numerous titles in question.

Since copyright law has undergone several changes over the years, loop holes may exist where certain works were not properly copyrighted. With the abundance of musical titles, it is hard to believe that some have not slipped through the cracks of the copyright system and into the public domain, an area which is the equivalent of hell for the labels.

Another issue to consider is that a good portion of the music which is owned by the labels was acquired from smaller independent labels. These indies may not have had the proper legal resources or knowhow to properly copyright their material when they released it. Therefore, you have a situation where the labels want to let sleeping dogs lie and have everyone assume they are the copyright owners.

For more information on the copyright issue, go here.

These music copyright items have been swept under the rug for long enough. It is long overdue for copyright ownership to be verified, simplified and properly organized. A web site database showing who has ownership to what titles is long overdue. It would also be nice to give access to these titles to entities who actually know something about the music.

Heads up to the Napster legal team for finding the labels' Achilles Heel. At this point, it may be in the labels' best interests to befriend Napster and provide them with a licensing deal and drop any claim for damages related to this case. After all, how can you claim damages for something you may not own.

Even if the labels manage to curb Napster, the cat is out of the bag. The labels blinked and were noticed by those who were watching closely. It is hard to say whether or not it will make much of a difference to an industry which already is approaching death's door at an alarming pace.

Quality Live Acts Scarce

After a horrible showing in 2001, the live concert circuit continues to be uninspiring. The acts which are currently touring and have announced tours fail to excite anyone whose clothing approaches normal standards.

Since new rock talent mysteriously evaporated during the 90s, today's live shows are now suffering big time. Most of the newer artists in the industry perform a live show as intense as a high school prom.

The formula is simple: concert prices go up as quality goes down. These sort of things are to be expected when qualtiy artist development is not a priority - for anyone. This is similar to a baseball team neglecting their farm system for a decade and then expecting to win the World Series with a combination of flash-in-the-pan and washed up talent.

Courtney Love A Free Agent?

According to this NME story, Courtney Love has won a court decision to proceed with her case against Universal/Geffen.

Love is challenging an unfair California Labor Law which states recording artists are exempt from terminating a personal services contract after seven years. Under the controversial law, other entertainers and workers are permitted to put an end to such contracts after seven years.

This case could open door for artist free agency, like the Curt Flood case did for baseball players in 1972. Although flood lost his antitrust case against MLB, his case opened the door for free agency just three short years later. You can read Flood's story here http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/flood_curt.html

Due to bidding wars, free agency raised baseball players' salaries significantly. If Courtney Love wins her case, many artists are sure to jump ship from their present labels and go to the highest bidder.

Several big name artists have decided to split from their labels after their contract ended. Imagine the exodus of artists once they are legally able to terminate their contracts with a label they no longer want to be associated with.

And with all that said, today's music scene continues to decay at a high rate. Any efforts to revive it are too little and too late.

Sphinx
"There's Only 1 Station"

Related Links

Music News

Artist Gallery

Music Genres

Download Music

Internet Radio