RSS
Cher Lawsuit Highlights How Record Labels Screw Over Artists
from the protecting-the-artists? dept
It's certainly nothing new to find out that record labels rarely have the best interests of the musicians at heart (despite their proclivity to claim so -- especially to Congress and the press). However, a new lawsuit (sent in by a bunch of you) that pits Cher and the heirs of Sonny Bono, highlights some of the many ways that labels screw over musicians. In this case, Cher is alleging that Universal Music funneled revenue through international subsidiaries in order to completely hide how much revenue was made on Sonny & Cher music, in order to avoid paying the contractually agreed upon royalties. Again, such charges of creative accounting are legion in the industry, but it's nice to see a lawsuit detail exactly how some of the funny accounting is done. Whenever major record label folks insist that the labels have the artists' best interests in mind, it seems worthwhile to point out these sorts of stories.
I have an app...
How My First Game Made $28,623
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
I have a business...
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Software Patents
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Weren't these the guys who lobbied for Sonny Bono Copyright Extension?
Secondly, It's nice that Cher is due such a high number-- 50% of net in the form of royalties. Perhaps this was so high because of her support of the Sonny Bono Copyright Act. It would be nice if all artists received such high royalty rates.
Thirdly, if anything has been learned from the recent Madoff Scam, overseas entities or subsidiaries are often used to obfuscate income statements. Usually for Tax evasion, people who don't see value in proper accounting, or similar devious reasons.
Fourthly, I would like to read the amicus brief. Anyone have a case number?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Here we go
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here we go
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You go, Cher!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You go, Cher!
"DO YOU BELIEVE IN LOVE AFTER LOOOOVE!"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Funny...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What the hell do Cher and U2 have to do w/one another?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Matters such as this are legion in the record and movie business. Of course, these matters are by no means limited to just these businesses.
Perhaps a more accurate way to state things is that "Whenever large business folks insist that they have the employees' interests in mind, it is worthwhile to point out these sorts of stories."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If someome wants to pass a useful law, pass a damm law that holds Hollywood and lables to GAPP just like everyone else.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Seems like a pretty odd situation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Even more accurately...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ha
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ha
But something happened. I'd venture a guess that the label held back writing talent, and perhaps that's when things changed.
Point is, if she was growing up today and made it to American Idol, Australian Idol, Canadian Idol, Deutschland sucht den Superstar, Indian Idol, Nouvelle Star, New Zealand Idol or World Idol, and had access to any and all musical works, she quite possibly would have been labeled as the next rising superstar.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
pits?
Universal Music is mentioned later; if that who she's suing? Or is it the music industry in general, the RIAA, or someone else entirely?
Considering the history of Sonny & Cher, I doubt that they had much in the way of leverage to insist on audits at the time they signed; I wonder if there is any legislation that provides for the insisting on an audit -- but that require auditing the entire business and not just the items associated with just one act, and I could understand the label's reluctance to agree to that...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You know,
I'd stop the Bonos from getting copyright extended in the first place. Granted, it will be great if Cher gives Universal music a good anal raping on this one, but the Sonny and Cher catalog should have been off copyright by now anyway, and so, in my imaginary world, this point is moot. Well it's moot because of that, and because I don't care for Cher anyway.
Gotta go get me some Mystic Pizza, you kids have fun.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sure, but are notorious for using (and in some cases, possibly abusing) the LLC and LLP corporate entity. Sometimes this is done under the auspice of a public shell corporation.
But at this point, you enter into a discussion of talking about a whole new set of corporate reformation laws that would need to be passed on the scale of Sarbanes Oxley that would pertain specifically to the LLC and LLP entities.
Problem is, we would then get into the Imaginary Property (or IP) argument. Because no one lost their life, was hurt, injured or had Real Property stolen, a Judge may find it difficult to award similar monetary damages or reform IP law. Problem is if enough artists stand up like Cher did.
Perhaps theproblem may be if artists adamantly sought to do business with a publicly traded company that has a flat organizational structure which allows for copious third party review. Today, the closest is Terry McBride, so it's safe to assume relatively safe.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Possably giving a judge the power to order an audit in the case of suspected wrong doing when contracts call for payment based on profit of a work of art when one side says no such profit happend.
The audit could then be held to GAPP with out making Hollywood or an RIAA member or whoever actully have to use it internaly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You're absolutely right
And if they see that they could lose, they just quietly settle so no one else will find out, with helpful clauses that don't allow the plaintiff to speak about the case. A starving artist will take this deal, no matter how bad, just to get anything at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ha
Yeah, I hear she rimmed Chewbacca too. (Which, let me assure you, is no easy feat - with the combing and all...)
CBMHB
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Cher Lawsuit
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Cher Lawsuit Highlights How Little Artists Know about What is Going on with their Careers
9 years? Hello? Bueller?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
All about Profit.
If the past 100 years have taught us anything, it is that a company exists primarily to make a profit for it's executives, and in pursuit of that profit - these companies will do anything and everything they can get away with. And then a little bit more.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://gonzoxinjustice.livejournal.com/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment