Did Universal Music Try To Expense The Costs Of Eminem's Producers Suing Over Unpaid Royalties... Back To Eminem's Producers?
from the and-again-and-again dept
We were just discussing some of the details from Kenny Rogers' lawsuit against EMI/Capitol Records which showed the many, many ways in which record labels avoided paying artists what they were owed... and now some more details have leaked in the very similar (but further along) case concerning Eminem's royalties. You may recall that, back in 2010, Eminem's producers, FBT Productions, won its case against Universal Music, for the first time establishing that iTunes sales should be counted as licenses rather than sales. This was important, because sales get a royalty rate that's usually around 15%... but licenses get a royalty rate around 50%.While Universal Music insisted that its deal with Eminem was unique and such a ruling wouldn't apply to most other artists, plenty of other artists have been suing their labels (like Kenny Rogers above), and estimates of upwards of $2 billion in back royalties that the labels may have to pay out.
The Eminem case is back at the district court as they try to sort out just how much FBT is owed, and Eriq Gardner, over at THResq, got his hands on one of the audit reports put together by an expert for FBT. It only shows a limited range of years (July 2005 to December 31, 2009), but also shows (similar to the Rogers lawsuit) how the report turns up all sorts of other areas where Universal likely underpaid FBT.
However, the most insane thing here may be the line at the bottom, in which it appears that Universal held back $2 million in a "legal hold." Gardner notes that this is money held back to pay for this very lawsuit. This is classic record label economics. Everything that you do that costs money, they charge against the artists' royalties. Order pizza at the recording studio? They charge that against your (small) cut of the royalties. Want to do extra promotions? Charge it against the royalties.
And... apparently, sue Universal music for withholding millions in royalties? It looks like they'll charge that against your royalties too...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eminem, licenses, royalties, sales
Companies: fbt productions, universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
All I can say is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I can say is...
I wonder if UMG's offices in Hollywood can be foreclosed upon for pailure to pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All I can say is...
With Battleships!
woo!
Battle-air-ships even?
hehe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they LOSE and have to pay a judgement . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
Anyone claiming differently is trying to sell you something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So...
Do you mean something like a record or a book or an indie game?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets compare this to a similar situation, to show Universal Music's point.
-Universal Music hires you as an employee paid at the end of each month, with a $120,000 dollars a year salary.
-At the end of the month Universal Music pays you only $4,000 before taxes, not the $10,000 you were expecting, so you sue Universal Music.
-As the lawsuit continues you continue working for Universal music for an entire year, getting paid $4,000 dollars each month
-You win an expensive lawsuit against Universal Music, so Universal Music gives you an accounting statement saying you're owed $72,000 in back salary. But Universal's statement also says it cost them $60,000 to defend against your lawsuit (and that's not counting the $20,000 you spent on your own lawyer in that lawsuit), so Universal writes you a check for $12,000 and calls it even.
You see, perfectly reasonable of Universal Music! It's also a darn convenient way to get around pesky minimum wage laws, thanks to a little bit of creativity. Creativity is good! If we punish Universal Music for their creativity then the artists Universal Music represents won't be motivated to create new music!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
good use of strawmen, actually sounding logical and completely serving the interests of the wrongdoer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
then we have: corporation friendly laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Universal looses, they have to pay the legal fee's for both sides of the case as far as i'm aware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
>.>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Got the ad hom, false dichotomy, and not one, but two chubby's!
I had to subtract 2 points for explaining it was trolling, and you could have shot for the moon if you'd have blamed it on Google, emphasized some words with /derp/, or insulted the overall techdirt community.
Also, needs more cowbell :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
use of first name to imply peerage: check
pedo reference: check
use of 'filthy pirate': check
This would be a 9/10 except for the lack of (and I cannot stress this enough) capitalizing Important Ideas (extra points for random cap). And, this is a small quibble, but your spelling and syntax corresponds too closely to the output of a rational mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Balls of solid brass.
When life gives you lemons, charge life a handling fee for those lemons, write them off as a lemonade-making business expense, claim an organic food producers' tax credit, and then sell the lemonade. Don't forget to charge for the cup, a modest pouring fee, and a bathroom access fee. You'll need that money to pay lobbyists to get laws passed outlawing those cute little kids on the corner of the next block.
Note that you'll probably lose money on this whole venture, but hey - write-off, plus it's more evidence of the economic harm those kids are causing you. Win-win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not nice, but it's in the contract and legal.
Sucks, but that is life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Riposte!
Although technically, the MAFIAA's brand of white-collar theft/fraud isn't illegal (yet), just immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Riposte!
Is it nice? no. Is it a good idea? Probably not, but I don't think either party considered the type of legal action that happened here, not the scale of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Riposte!
how is anything in it (ie. the parts that benefit UMG) still enforcable?
is the contract not voided by this? and now through some clever accounting UMG doesn't have to pay for breach of contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Riposte!
If that were true then the contract would have zero value to the artist - since Universal could perpetrate ANY wrongdoing they liked with impunity. No court would accept that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Riposte!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think either side really considered this type of long running lawsuit, nor considered the full implications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Imagine all employers doing this. Oh, you sued because you're being paid less than minimum wage? Here, we'll just deduct the costs of the lawsuit from your paycheck. Not our fault you didn't read that 8 page employment contract, right?
Of course, in a sane universe, nobody would ever enter a contract with such a company ever again. We apparently do not live in a sane universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know the feeling. I had one short story published UNPAID in an anthology, and I was walking on clouds for days. I almost accepted ridiculous and destructive edits just to see it published. Fortunately, I had enough peers to look at the edits, slap me upside the head, and say, "No, those do not improve the story. The editor is trying to be the author of the anthology, and a full rewrite and re-imagining of your story does not qualify as an edit." Still, it took all I had to write back and state that I could not accept the edits. (Unlike the story, there was a happy ending, and they published in original form.)
Back to the point, you are correct. Such contracts are not sane. But these are corporations who know how to exploit the starry-eyed dreams of artists, drown them in flattery, and strangle them at their weakest moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Belay that assumption, mate!
So, why, a mere one sentence later, do you say "it's in the contract"? Are you privy to some sort of inside information? Is so, why stay anonymous? Why not come out authoritatively and squelch any dissent? If not, I call BS on you.
A third option is that you've read all the trial's affidavits etc, and you do know what the contract says. Why not just refer to that document? Anybody really really interested can pay for a copy from the court. Why not be a good internet citizen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"They're great patients. They have excellent health insurance and they never get better."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brazil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deduct this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Despair the assholes
Who needs to look very closely indeed are the law makers and their door busting cops running around like puppy dogs for the freakin music industry of all people. I dare say the movie business is not much better or are these guys as pure as snow ?
If was not so sick it would be so funny ,law enforcement taking sides with these assholes. I despair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Despair the assholes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eminem doesn't get one dime of the money because his manager, who's does side business with Interscope and essentially owns a huge portion of Eminem's masters (rather than Eminem owning them) refused to cooperate with FBT. Even at one point trying to get FBT to drop the lawsuit and settle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sooo about megabox..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
requires advance notice to label...who of course grants full access/disclosure...seriously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pure genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]