Def Leppard Covers Its Own Songs With 'Forgeries' To Fight Back Against Universal Music
from the well,-that's-one-way-to-do-things dept
As we recently noted, there are compulsory licenses for doing cover song recordings, such that you don't need to ask for permission. It appears that the band Def Leppard is now taking advantage of that in an attempt to fight back against Universal Music (who they feel owe them royalties) by re-recording their entire back catalog (sent in by a bunch of you) and re-releasing them. They're referring to their own re-recordings as "forgeries."With newly recorded "forgeries" of "Pour Some Sugar on Me" and "Rock of Ages" now available, the quintet has begun a series of re-recordings of its catalog material and "wrestled control of our career back" from the Universal Music Group, which frontman Joe Elliott says the band refuses to deal with "until we come up with some kind of arrangement" over compensation, especially for digital downloads.Of course, you'd have to imagine that someone else still holds the publishing rights, but if the new "forgeries" -- which apparently take quite some time to get exactly right -- sell well, the band could end up keeping a much larger share of the money. Either way, this seems like yet another story in a very, very long line of such stories, of bands reporting on the many ways in which the major labels have screwed them over. Makes you wonder if there are any acts who feel they weren't screwed over by their major label...
"When you're at loggerheads with an ex-record label who...is not prepared to pay you a fair amount of money and we have the right to say, 'Well, you're not doing it,' that's the way it's going to be," Elliott tells Billboard.com. "Our contract is such that they can't do anything with our music without our permission, not a thing. So we just sent them a letter saying, 'No matter what you want, you are going to get "no" as an answer, so don't ask.' That's the way we've left it. We'll just replace our back catalog with brand new, exact same versions of what we did."
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: compulsory license, cover songs, def leppard, forgery, pour some sugar on me
Companies: universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah, "screwed over" so badly by a contract that they willingly entered into and benefited from. God, you're such a whiner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The irony in your statement is lost on you I bet. You continue to come in, article after article, to say Mike is a whiner, yet all you do yourself is whine about Mike whining. Here's what I suggest you do: Go find a new site to visit daily. One where there is no "whiner" like Mike. If that's the problem, the reasonable thing to do is quit visiting the site. Problem solved.
Or you lose the right to bitch about Mike and his whining. Be an adult and make a decision. Quit bitching or go elsewhere. It's as simple as that. Otherwise, you're acting like an idiot.
We'll also overlook the fact that even in the best of contracts, the labels still attempt to cheat artists at every turn. Or do we need to point out the recent case where the judge essentially flipped out over the labels attempts to cheat Eminem and pull a fast one on the judge? And that's ignoring that they already have a contract with him, which they're failing to honor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's fascinating to watch someone's argument be trounced from my perspective, yet from their own feel that they have done the trouncing. There is a basic dicotomy in ethics and values in the world today, and each side needs to learn about the other, rather than just shouting at each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Honestly, the one person who I fall back to pointing out is Hmmm in a recent article (forget which). Didn't agree with the article or most of us posting, but debated their point of view anyway and was willing to acknowledge differences of opinion in a respectful manner. Posters like that we need more of. Not "oh look at Mike whining again".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A contract that 1) He had no alternative too other than to get the same contract from a different label. 2) A Contract that has not kept up with the shift in the way that music is distributed or consumed. 3) A Contract that is weighted more heavily in favor of the label.
So, yes, they "willingly" signed the contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyway, this is why I want copyright reform so that control can be taken from labels and given to the artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Artists are finding that they can disintermediate the labels, using the internet. The labels that stick to abusive contracts (which apparently includes all the majors) are doomed. That is the famous "creative destruction" working just the way it is supposed to. Labels that choose to write non-abusive contracts have a chance to survive, provided they can execute well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You nailed it. They gladly rode the elevator to the top, took the ride all the way, and now that it isn't paying them off quite in the same manner as they use to, well, off they go getting all pissy.
Apparently Mike is no fan of contract law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, in the end, they signed the deal, they need to stick with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My comment below was spot on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sucks to be lying dishonest you. Amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Def Leppard is sticking with it, but the one getting stuck at the bad end of the contract in this case is the label. Universal Music shouldn't have signed such a bad contract if they didn't want to, now should they? Anyway, in the end, they signed the deal, they need to stick with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure DF didn't enter into the contract, realising that as sales became electronic their royalties would fade and place them in permanent debt. I'm equally sure that the label didn't expect the band to forbid them from doing anything when they signed the contract. BUT, there you go; shit happens. While neither party is in breach of contract, at least DF has one good argument on their side: the Internet is not "new media" and hasn't been for a frickin long time, and as such it should pay the same royalties as CDs. The problem is that the label would rather screw the artist, than get with the times.
This time the artist has found a way to fight the contract without breaking the contract. The artist has found a way to do something that usually only the labels get to do: screw the other party over without actually violating the letter of the contract.
I find it hard to sympathise with the label and say that Def should follow the intention of the contract, when the label has been ignoring the intention of the contract for years. Poor label. Boo-frickin-hoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It seems neither are you since you refuse to acknowledge things like; Misrepresentation and misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct (including such gems as economic duress), frustration, consideration, or my favourite estoppel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> Misrepresentation and misleading or
> deceptive conduct, unconscionable
> conduct (including such gems as economic
> duress), frustration, consideration,
> or my favourite estoppel.
I'm normally the first to join the anti-RIAA chorus, but in this case, I'm leaning toward the 'deal-is-a-deal' side.
If UMG committed all those offenses you listed above, then Def Leppard should take them to court and have the contract voided. That's what people in every other industry do when one party misrepresents or deceives in a contract.
On the other hand, if Del Leppard has found a legal way around their woes by re-recording their stuff, I have no problem with that, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
From what I have read Def Lepard have a good case of frustration and maybe deceptive conduct, though taking that to a court to prove breach is costly and fraught with standard dangers of any civil case ie: a gamble.
Personally I agree with you that if they can use another legal way and not have to bear the expense (all types) of going to court then good on them, its a great form of ADR. Also for UMG to try to initiate some sort of C&D or legal trickery would mean that UMG could be placed in the position of having to defend against interference plus instantly show to a court that the contract is being forfeitured by UMG under frustration of Def Lepard not receiving just consideration
Win Win for Def. Lose lose PR nightmare for UMG no matter what! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doctor of Contracts
Perhaps you should consider that there's good reason that there are guys with doctorate degrees involved in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doctor of Contracts
Than what?
> You make it sound like the domain of kindergarten
> students when it's not quite that simple.
Says the guy who apparently thinks there's some kind of 'doctor of contracts' degree. No, I described what actually happens when people have legal contractual disputes. They either settle, mediate them, or take them to court and get a verdict.
> Perhaps you should consider that there's good reason that
> there are guys with doctorate degrees involved in the process.
I have one of those degrees myself, skippy. Passed the bar in 1993. Where did you go to law school?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doctor of Contracts
maybe he's confusing Doctorates with doctors and thinks the law of Contracts is all there is and wants to have an 'assignment' of drugs for his consideration..
though if I had to choose between the different areas of law I think I'd pick neg.. then I could be a Doctor of Snails! ;)
For those that don't get the joke you probably don't have an LLB or JD and it's just a load of smoking balls (carbolic ones at that)
*goes to sit in the corner now*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In theory, this is so. In practice, not so much.
Let me illustrate with personal experience. In my own business, I have twice been burned by companies who did not honor their terms of a contract with me. In one, I lost 5 figures and in the other, 6.
In neither case did I sue for breach of contract even though I would have won easily. The reason I didn't sue was basic economics: once all of expenses (including lost productivity) were added up, I simply couldn't afford to do anything about it. Sure, I should have sued on principle, but it often takes a bankroll to have the luxury of doing such a thing.
It's easy to say that someone should just sue, but unless you have a warchest available that is often not an option, regardless of the merits of your case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point is that they don't get some special consideration for being celebrities or musicians or artists. They're in the same boat as everyone else when it comes to the courts and contractual disputes.
Yes, it's an expensive, time-consuming pain in the ass to involve the legal system, but it's an expensive, time-consuming pain in the ass for everyone else, too. It's just the way it is.
> It's easy to say that someone should just sue, but unless
> you have a warchest available that is often not an option,
> regardless of the merits of your case.
But that doesn't change the fact that a deal truly is a deal. The fact that it's unpleasant and expensive to assert ones rights under that deal in court isn't an excuse to pretend the deal isn't real and valid in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IANAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Catch a ride on a temporary market condition then get pissy, buy governments to alienate them from the will and service of their people in order to atttack everyone's rights in a massive hissy fit combined with an attempt to keep their stagnant, outdated and transitory business model going.
These people should move on or go away now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contracts
If the contract is "silent" or "unclear" about any fundamental issues then any legal interpretation of that is usually in favor of the party that DID NOT WRITE the document. It was the weasel recording companies that wrote all the documents.
The recording companies have also been found to use confusing financial terminology, and to categorize revenues differently than defined in their contracts, and just plain hide and launder money the same way as drug dealers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contracts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you read the article it says something about the record labels not paying royalties. In what universe should the band not be angry over this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (AC neglected to enter a subject)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I love how the standard defense is "well, they were stupid enough to sign our crazy deals..."
Great industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has been going on a long time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now is that because he's done well, or because he hasn't looked closely at the books?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now is that because he's done well, or because he hasn't looked closely at the books?
Interestingly enough the Eagles sued David Geffen and Asylum back in 1977 and won control of their publishing rights and a bunch of other perks that almost no other band in the industry has. So when you see Don Henley act like a label rather than a musician it is because they are one of the only bands that have a deal that was negotiated from a position of power where they were already an established group that the record company had to negotiate with rather than being stuck with the standard record company contract.
http://addicted2success.com/success-advice/10-well-known-musicians-who-are-brilliant-en trepreneurs/
(Additional citation needed. I Remember this from a book I read on publishing)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Henley#Geffen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So I suppose I'll be commenting from jail now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rock on Def Leppard!
On the flip side, as more and more bands come out in the open about the church-related, monetary sodomy meted out by the labels, we're bound to see more and more dirt surface.
Even more fuel for people to do DIY.
[ 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 ]
Well, how else am I going to get paid. The labels aren't 'screwing over' the bands, the labels are simply investing the money that would otherwise go towards the bands into shills like myself. This way I can defend artist rights and ensure that they get paid!! Otherwise artists will have no rights and they won't get paid anything. So what's better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outstanding!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iTunes 30%, record label 35%, artist 35%, if the labels pay the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another epic "Star Wars" battle is on the way
Contractually Shafted Band: Then I am a Independent Recording Artist.
Life Experience: No. Not yet. One thing remains. The company who still holds your contract. You must confront the company who still holds your contract. Then, only then, an Independent Recording Artist will you be. And confront them you will.
Def Leppard: I've been waiting for you, Universal Music. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the learner; now *I* am the master.
Universal Music: Only a master of evil, Def.
[contract lawyers begin arguing]
and to all other bands able to do the same thing in their contracts:
Universal Music: Impressive. Most impressive. Def Leppard has taught you well. You have rerecorded your music. Now, release your forgeries. Only your covers of your own songs can destroy me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From GMacGuffin's comment above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm torn....
It's a shame - The only people who are going to make any money are the lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm torn....
The labels tend to be creative with the books so that there is hardly anything left to distribute for royalties. They also tend to classify things that may not have been covered in the original contract however they feel is in their favor. I doubt that digital downloads were covered much in the Def Leppard's original contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm torn....
I realize you're being polite, but 'tend to' really should be replaced with 'in the majority of cases' or something along those lines. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm torn....
When it came time to make their third CD, per their contract, the Sony execs called them in to inform them that nobody in the band was young or sexy enough to be featured in a music video (music vids being the thing back then), so Sony was cutting them loose, entirely contrary to the signed and legal contract they'd purchased when they bought the smaller record company. If OP didn't like it, they could sue Sony... and never work another day in the biz due to the black-listing they'd get, plus Sony would have unleashed a legal team against them that have dragged out the suit out for decades (business as usual.) OP walked away with nothing despite a contract that said the record company owed them another CD or a legally-mandated buy-out of the contract, which would have helped them to self-record if they chose to continue. The band broke up under the strain and we fans never got our third OP CD. (Today someone would probably start a Kickstarter project for them.)
I know the mega-corp that Def Leppard is taking on isn't Sony, it's Universal, but this is the way each & every one of the mega-corporations maintain their huge profits: screw the artists out of every penny, illegally if necessary AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT. Universal did exactly the same thing Sony did to OP to other small and mid-level bands whenever they purchased other small record companies. This is only the tip of the iceberg of these corporations' illegal and near-illegal activities against the artists.
I find it difficult to be torn when it comes to any tiny, beaten-down David overcoming any over-blown, money-choked, mega-Goliath.
And as it happens, consider that what Def Leppard is doing is entirely legal and within the contract Universal signed, and you can bet Universal had an eagle-eyed legal team write that contract. Hoist by their own petard. So that takes away another barrier to your being torn: everything is open and above-board here, no legal team necessary, move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Douchetards...RTFA
Please RTFA, and understand what this issue is about. This is NOT about "we signed a contract but we just want more" this is "We signed a contract and the label IS NOT LIVING UP TO IT'S END OF THE AGREEMENT."
When you can actually grasp this concept and understand it, then you are qualified to comment on the situation. Otherwise, you just look like an "attack Mike/Techdirt at any cost" Douchetard.
Sincerely,
Disgusted Techdirt Reader
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Douchetards...RTFA
"think of the Artist's"..
...........Freetards
(it's IP an intellectual Phallacy) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please don't be idiots...
Look at their complaints. We all know the recording industry could care less about the artists, except for how they can benefit FROM them.
Like the music industry, they all engage in "creative accounting" where one part pays another part which pays another part... until in the movie industry, you have a Top Grossing movie that barely makes money according to their accounting.
Look at how they call iTunes a SALE in some instances and a LICENSE in other issues (much like ObamaCare - it's tax, no it's a penalty, no... it's a tax) - whatever benefits them in their current situation.
So, yeah... alot of artist are getting screwed over big time because of this - and many of them are sick of it.
Sure, they signed the contracts in good faith - but there is no good faith in the MPAA or RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it's not just Def Leppard crying that they want different contract terms - Universal is manipulating the terms of their pre-digital distribution contract to keep more of Def Leppard's royalties for themselves.
Maybe the guys in Def Leppard would rather spend extra months/years in the studio re-recording, than in the courtroom fighting over the definition of 'sale' vs 'license.'
More info on some other lawsuits:
http://www.fortherechord.com/royalties-reallocation-rock-stars-sue-umg-over-digital-dis tribution-dollars/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
Just like the Natwest fiasco, when they unfairly sacked all their ca-7 programmers (using a technicality in their contract to say they'd missed a tiny programming item that wasn't even on an active system), then 6months later the system fell over and they had to shell out several hundred thousand dollars to EACH programmer to get them to come back and fix it?
Sometimes the universe has a very cool sense of humor....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Power to Def Lepard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]