News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

July 31, 2007

legal

Mathers v. Apple: take two

Posted Jul. 31, ’07, 9:13 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | Legal

EminemAnd here we go again. Three years ago, rapper Eminem and his music publisher sued Apple for using Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself” in a TV ad for the iPod. The case was later settled out of court, but now the musician and his posse are back for another round. They’re suing Apple for “allowing unauthorized downloads” of Eminem songs.

At stake? Surprise, surprise: money. The issue seems to be how much money Eminem and other artists make from the downloads of their music and whether the contracts artists have with their labels give the labels the right to sell the download rights.

Now, I’m all for artists making their fair share of the money, and I think the record labels are clearly getting the big piece of the pie. Though exact figures aren’t known, it’s estimated that about 70 cents of the 99 cent track price goes to the label, with about 9 cents of that going to the artist. I can see why artists would be miffed, to say the least.

What I don’t understand, coming from my totally non-legal background, is why they’re suing Apple. Apple is presumably operating under the assumption that the record labels do have the rights to approve downloads; it seems like this is something that should be worked out between the artists and the labels. But maybe I’m missing something.


3 Comments

DBL said:

"Mommy! Make Daddy let me go to the party!!! Pleeeeeeeezzzzeeee?!?!"
--Eminem

August 1, 2007 6:57 AM
Neil Anderson said:

Eminem. The money melts in their hands.

August 1, 2007 7:45 AM
E.T.Cook Author Profile Page said:

It is a matter of due diligence, even if Apple acted in good faith, if it can be proven that they did not fulfill their obligations of making sure that their business dealings were on the up and up, they might be held liable if damages are appropriate.

I could be wrong but punitive damages might apply depending on the type of negligence.

This is of course assuming that the songs were wrongfully sold.

August 1, 2007 9:28 AM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: