According to Rolling Stone, Judge John A. Kronstadt has dismissed the high-profile lawsuit against Universal Music Group. The class action suit was initially brought by multiple artists and estates for dead artists (including Soundgarden, Hole, Steve Earle, and the Tupac Shakur estate) last year after a New York Times Magazine story claimed that a fire at UMG’s vault in 2008 destroyed significantly more recordings and master tapes than the music publisher had initially claimed. The accusers claimed that UMG purposefully downplayed the damage caused by the fire while filing massive insurance claims to recoup the losses, all without actually telling any of the artists whose work was destroyed.
The judge, however, had a different take. A number of the original plaintiffs had dropped out of the class action suit before now, so it was already on shaky ground, but the judge’s decision was essentially that UMG is the one that lost something here, not the artists involved, because it owned the rights to this music and not the actual artists who created the music. As Rolling Stone explains, the judge denied that UMG had “failed to properly maintain a valuable placed in its possession” because the recordings and master tapes were UMG’s possessions and it could destroy them however it wanted to.
Judge Kronstadt also decided that UMG didn’t owe the artists a cut from the insurance money, because the contracts didn’t make any specific references to insurance claims and there was no legal precedent requiring the publisher to “exercise reasonable care to avoid economic loss in storing its own property”—referring, again, to the music that other people made but UMG “owned.” Essentially, the takeaway is that the artists signed away any right to be concerned about what happened to these recordings the moment they agreed to have them published, which is a little grim (and a fairly clear indication that Judge John A. Kronstadt has never recorded an album). Rolling Stone notes that another suit is “technically possible,” but it would have to be based on a “completely different set of legal arguments.
26 Comments
The music industry is a giant mess that needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt from the ground up.On a tangentially related note, can we talk about what the Hell is going with The Weeknd’s new album and how surprised surprise it seems like a label is screwing people.The album released on March 20.A week later, a deluxe version was released with bonus tracks for 13.49 on Amazon, 14.99 on iTunes. The iTunes version had 5 more songs. Mind you there was no warning or advance notice of these deluxe versions and if you bought the album on release date, you don’t receive a discount for the deluxe version. And buying the bonus tracks would end up costing more than if waited for a week to buy the deluxe.On top of that, Another week later and iTunes has pulled the deluxe version that was 14.99, listed a deluxe for 13.99 with the same track listing as the version on Amazon and now list an EP with 6 songs for 5.99. Meaning in a week an album that was 14.99 would not cost someone 20.98 for the same songs.I know a lot of comments will say, who buys music in 2020, but some people do and this is kinda crazy how labels are just openly trying to gouge fans.Mac Miller’s label and Jessie Reyez have done a similar thing, releasing deluxe albums within weeks of their standard. Just feel like it might be worth talking about.
Holy hell.
You know, if the music industry really wants to reduce piracy, maybe stop encouraging people to think of this as a fundamentally adversarial relationship.
Sounds about right.I can’t think of the last time I bought an album from a major label, supporting small/indie labels is the way to go really.
The music “industry” has been a shite-show that’s exploited the artists since its inception. The reprehensible neglect of UMG in protecting the valuable property in their care is yet another stark reminder why monolithic faceless corporations are the bane of mankind.
I need someone more knowledgeable than me about this lawsuit to explain if this makes any sense. Because to me it just sounds batshit insane. Are there legal back dealings here I’m not aware of? Or is this the giant “fuck you” to the artists it sounds like?
It sadly seems straightforward. If the recordings were the property of the studio then the artists cannot sue for the loss of those recordings. I presume that the counter argument is that if the artists wanted to preserve their work they should not have signed the ownership of the tapes and rights to reproduce the works over to the studio. I think it is a terrible loss and the expectation by the artists that the studio would take appropriate measure to prevent loss of their work is understandable. It represented a huge economic loss to the studio. The trouble being that the economic loss can be compensated, but the artistic loss cannot. I know of no fair way to handle that. I would not be surprised if future contracts included stipulations against loss of and damage to such things. An odd parallel is movie props, which take a great deal of artistic effort, but almost always rapidly degrade due to the lack of care in storage and the choice of materials that are used to create them, as well as a certain expendability during production. Latex items are especially quick to go, looking like horror props no matter what the original was like.
It’s an old and simple thing: The company says “you get the fame and we get the money”. Horrible and unfair, literally Faustian, that’s how the industry works, and if artists don’t like it, they shouldn’t sign the contract.
You sign, and those are the rules. You can look for a better contract with small labels or do it yourself if you don’t like it.
Prince gave an interview where he revealed that he became friends with Ani DiFranco after finding out she made more money than he did. Prince made less money than Ani DiFranco in the late 90’s. That’s how the record industry works.
Man, I fucking love Ani DiFranco. I never heard that story, and I love it and totally believe it.
AND if I had a daughter, instead of being a dumb f@g, I’d want her to be exactly like “I’m No Heroine.”
Prince fought like crazy to get more control over his music, and the whole symbol and “artist formerly known” deal was a part of that. He finally had some success.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/cover-story/7348551/prince-battle-to-control-career-artist-rightsHe realized that ownership of masters was incredibly important to artists, and he was understandably infuriated to find out that in almost all cases music companies had no intention of ever doing anything with them except keep them locked up.
A small fraction of it is valuable — you could reasonably expect there to be a financial reason for a company to keep an alternate take of When Doves Cry under wraps. But a huge amount of what went up in flames had no value in the marketplace.
off topic but I *LOVE* the idea that Prince and Ani DiFranco were friends. Thanks.
A semi-informed opinion (in other words, I’m a lawyer, but I do totally different stuff from this): it’s about standing. I’m not sure, since I’m only reading reporting on the case and not the opinion itself, but I think it’s a fair guess.
To bring a case like this, you essentially have to prove that harm was done to the plaintiff (or, rather, harm that could be rectified through either injunctive relief – making the defendant do something – or financial recompense). Here, because the artists didn’t own the recordings, they can’t legally argue that they were harmed – the stuff that was destroyed wasn’t theirs. They signed away the rights to those specific recordings (or, rather, were under contract when they were made, and the contracts said that any recordings made were the property of the corporation). UMG (or whatever) is at their liberty to sell the recordings, and artists can profit from that through royalties, but even if they own the songs they don’t own the specific recordings of those songs.
Thus, the case was probably dismissed because the plaintiffs couldn’t reasonably articulate any harms that were done to them, at least that could have been rectified legally. No financial harm (since they signed away ownership) and no injunction (since it’s not like they can un-burn the recordings). Notions of artistic integrity aside, it’s like saying Toyota can’t sue you just because you purchased a Corolla and then drove it into a ditch. You bought it, so if you fuck it up, you’re the one that suffers, no matter who made the thing.
It may seem unfair because we’re predisposed to side with artists we like over faceless (and likely somewhat evil) corporations that failed to protect the unique items in their care, but the law is designed to ignore those biases, for better or worse.
Also a different kind of lawyer, although I do specialize in IP law.Essentially, the ruling says the recordings were either purchased by the label or works-for-hire at the direction of the label. While the songwriters and performers have some of the bundle of rights (more a property law thing, but such is life), the fixed versions which burned up were the property of the label.This is a variation on the disputes Taylor Swift and Kesha have recently had. They can’t be excluded from some set of transactions regarding their music, but others can be traded for value without their knowledge, consent, or inpu . Recovery for the destruction thereof relies on the same concept.
Yeah, I’m not sure what the artists expected. It’s like selling your car and then expecting a cut of the insurance if the new owner crashes it. Plus it makes absolutely no sense for UMG to underquote its losses to the insurer for the purpose of not paying the artists.I think what’s really happening here is that many artists were pissed that their work was lost and lashed out. Which is fair enough. But our current laws treat important cultural and personal works as commodities. Perhaps an actual lawyer can speak on this, but it seems to me that just as the owner of a tennis racket can smash it to pieces if they get frustrated on court, so the owner of a classic recording can burn the masters if they feel like it.
Also a different kind of lawyer, although I do specialize in IP law.
Can you help me beat a Public Urination charge?
Not a lawyer, but it looks to me like the judge correctly interpreted America’s IP laws. It just so happens that those laws were crafted by vampire media empires who bought off Congress. But that’s not on the judge.
The legal matter is not a personal “fuck you” to artists, no. It’s just the rule of law saying that you can’t have lawsuits over someone else’s property. Since the artists no longer had any legal rights or possession over their recordings, it was absurd – from a legal standpoint – that they filed lawsuits. Think about how crazy-litigious the legal world would become if anyone (especially rich people with long legal fund wallets to burn) could file lawsuits against each other on behalf of someone who didn’t want to be involved. There would be a million Hulk v. Gawker type lawsuits. Meanwhile, it actually happened a long time ago where rich aristocrats used to sue each other on someones behalf in order to settle gripes… which was the reason they made it against the law.The legal professionals in this case are not (necessarily) the assholes that caused this. The deals that took away the artistic work from the artist without arguably justifiable compensation happened a long time ago by different people. However some of the people involved in that deal were the artists themselves. Understand?You can consider it an injustice the degree to which artists can lose control of their work and miss out on profit points, and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, but you have to remember that those artists were still responsible for their own past decisions, including signing those contracts and taking the compensation and career assistance. Additionally, the amount of money that goes into Recording and A&R and Sales and Distribution and Manufacturing and all that other shit is not cheap. It’s always a gamble on the part of the company and most of them don’t pay off. When it does pay off, the artists often have the perspective they would have been equally as successful today without the label’s work and money, but would they have been? I strongly doubt it.If you want to be an independent musician and make it on your own by marketing and recording yourself, you always have the choice to do that. You can pin your own flyers and foster your own fanbase, and you can burn your own cd’s or throw your music up on the web for free. Some people have figured out how to do this to varying degrees. Each choice has its own consequences, good and bad. It’s impossible to tell which musicians would still be selling out venues across the world if they never got with a record label, but I can tell you with nearly 100% certainty that not all of them would.
I guess good will never triumph over evil because good is indeed dumb.
I think the Trump presidency shows that dumb and evil can still beat smart and good.
Shouldn’t they just put the fire itself behind bars?
“…the recordings and master tapes were UMG’s possessions and it could destroy them however it wanted to.”
THIS is why the music industry NEEDED to die THIS is what Napster was FOR to DESTROY the motherfuckers like Geffen and Clive and Wenner and Ahmet and UMG and Warner’s who simultaneously BUILT and DESTROYED american music american music was ALWAYS a scam, worth to the musicians only what you could pry out of an executives handwhen they had done too much coke to really assess how well something might SELL to the PUBLIC fuck the grammys, fuck them all “LIVE MUSIC IS BETTER BUMPER STICKERS SHOULD BE ISSUED” —Neil Young, 1977
I believe Prince said, “If you don’t own the masters, the Masters own you.” This whole debacle was why he changed his name, went on strike and wrote “Slave” on his face.
I managed a couple of large record stores in a university town during the nineties. I met a lot of musicians both established and new. It was the heyday of the CD shark fest. Record companies were unbelievably greedy. Far worse than you can imagine. Musicians were unbelievably naive or worse, pathetically fixated on the pipedream of stardom. No one though, no one, was as bad as the consumer, the “fans,” after file sharing came along. It was as if everyone became a kleptomaniac overnight.
Hey Bernie Bro, why is Bernie’s campaign so shitty? Is it because he has dementia?
kill yourself