Ironically enough on the 10 year anniversary of the now infamous Napster, Metallica, P2P file sharing lawsuit debacle comes another potentially industry shifting lawsuit. However, this time its not aimed at the fans, but rather at the labels who have allegedly stolen music from their artists.

“The issue stems from a change to the law in the 1980s that eventually produced something known as the “pending list.” Essentially, record companies no longer had to get a compulsory license every time they wanted to use a song for, say, a compilation album. Instead, they went ahead and used the song without waiting for authorization or making payment, adding the song to a list of music that is pending authorization and payment. If you’re questioning whether you read that right, that basically means the record industries could use songs as long as they pinky swore they would get authorization and pay the artist for it eventually.

As you can imagine, the business didn’t quite work that way. Instead of keeping up with its tab on the pending list, the recording industry just kept adding songs—without obtaining any rights. The pending list among the lawsuit’s defendants has topped 300,000 songs from both large and small artists alike—300,000 songs that the labels are openly admitting that they have not secured the rights for. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the record companies have been unjustly enriched by the use of their unauthorized music (they have, after all, been selling the music without permission and not paying out).”

In response to the lawsuit the defendants (who include Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada) have acknowledged that they do owe a tone of cash, the big issue is (and this is the best part) that artists are seeking the same amount that the major labels were seeking in the Napster case, ($20,000 for each infraction)…which all up would amount to a grand total of 6 billion dollars.

This case has huge implications, the verdict will either deliver a debilitating blow to an already ailing industry (with a precedent that they themselves have set). Or let them off with a slap on the wrist essentially giving a big metaphorical finger to the tones of people who still wish you could get free Dr. D.R.E. tracks of Napster, and the many artists whose songs have been used without their consent. They’ve made their bed, now it might be time to lie in it.

While this case was filed in 2008, it’s gained notoriety recently with the addition of Chet Atkins.

For more information check out ars technica
Michael Geist’s website also has some interesting insight on this issue as well as a link to the original 2008 court documents.

Technorati Tags: Bryan Boake, CRIA, Lawsuit, Micheal Geist, Napster, P2P

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm and is filed under Copyright, Music Business. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.