Green Linnet lawsuit?

[Jim McGuire]

But that information would be spelled out in the contract. Smart people don't comment on pending litigation, so just maybe that's why there's not a lot of Wendy Newton and Green Linnet out there 'on the record'. They may indeed have the right to do that - relicense tracks, etc. Maybe the artist has to pursue the third party label for royalties.

Artists need to seek out professional assistance when sitting down to sign any contract - home, car, CDs, concert tours, etc. It sounds like they are doing that now, so we should all hang in there until it plays out.

[Bloomfield]

But that information would be spelled out in the contract. Smart people don't comment on pending litigation, so just maybe that's why there's not a lot of Wendy Newton and Green Linnet out there 'on the record'. They may indeed have the right to do that - relicense tracks, etc. Maybe the artist has to pursue the third party label for royalties.

Artists need to seek out professional assistance when sitting down to sign any contract - home, car, CDs, concert tours, etc. It sounds like they are doing that now, so we should all hang in there until it plays out.

Smart people involved in pending litigation don't comment on it. I see no reason for smart people not involved to comment. Hedging against incomplete information is necessary whether a law suit is pending or not.

As to Artist needing to seek professional assistance: true enough. But that does not justify the label pulling taking advantage of them. Otherwise it becomes like blaming the rape victim because she wore a skirt.

[Jim McGuire]

You don't need to see a reason - the reality is that smart people don't comment on pending litigation.

Society invented the legal system for this very reason. Two sides have a dispute - go to a judge and jury for recourse.

[Wanderer]

I don't really think it's much of a matter of "smart people" versus "not smart people"

It's more of a matter of "who has the advantage"...GL has the money that the GL 5 think they're owed. They have the books, they have all of the accounting that shows how much each artist is owed. And the more people are unaware of the situation, the worse it gets (provided that they are underpaying, naturally) because they continue to make money from CD sales that doesn't go to artists.

GL's lawyer, if he's good, will have advised Wendy to say nothing, so that she doesn't do something legally unsound like admitting regret for the situation (which can end up being a lever the opposing side uses) or saying something silly like "Maybe we owe something..I'll look into it" A good opposing lawyer can use public statements like that against you in court. It's been a couple of years since this story originally broke...GL is still making compilations and taking orders, so I assume this pratice is working for them.

On the other hand, the GL 5 has no advantage: They have to prove they're owed monies, and even if they do so, should GL go under, or even should they just decide to drag their feet, the GL 5 may never see any money they feel is owed to them...so it's better for them to generate "community awareness" so that sympathetic consumers might choose not to do business with GL to help convince them that they should instead make their artists happy. This will only work insofar as people believe the artist who made the music on the CDs they're buying, and care enough to support the artists' cause.

[scooter587]

Well, guilty people also don't typically comment on pending court cases against them. Of course, us saying this doesn't mean that Wendy or the folks at Green Linnet are either smart or guilty. So what?

It's naive to think this dispute will be resolved fairly in the courts. That gives way to much credit to our legal system, which often works more along the lines of buying and selling used cars--both sides withholding critical information, lying to protect their interests (Q: How many guilty people routinely plead not guilty? A: Most of them), decisions based on appearances and unsubstantiated verbal assurances, bargains struck leaving both sides with less than they wanted. It's as fallible as any other human system.

Continuing to give GL the benefit of the doubt at this point is as biased a position to take as boycotting GL would be.

[Wanderer]

some of the GL 5 ended up having arbitration clauses in their contracts...those artists will never see a court date.

[Jim McGuire]

Of course, pleading NOT GUILTY is not a personal statement of innocence but asking that the other party to make their case before the judge and/or jury.

[Wanderer]

since this is a civil case, I do not believe that any formal claim to guilt or innocence is stated. In a civil suit, I think the plaintiff draws up a list of enumerated claims, and then the defense gets to respond, where they enumerate the same list and either admit or deny each claim.

something along the lines of:

1. Green linnet knowngly failed to account for royalty payments on track XXX found on compilation CDs yyy and zzz
2. Green Linnet has not made their books available when requested on date yyy
---
1. Defendant denies the claim.
2. Defendent admits the claim.
---

That kind of thing..note, I've pulled those claims and responses out of thin air.

After all of this stuff, there's supposed to be a schedule drawn up, discovery, and stuff...a schedule is supposed to be a guide as to when things will be done, and discovery is when both sides get to ask pointed questions and get documents that they believe will prove their case. In this lawsuit, I would imagine that an accounting audit is a part of discovery, and I would expect a judge to grant that.

In arbitration things aren't so cut and dried, and arbiters have broad leeway as to what kind of evidence they'll accept before making their decisions, and an audit may or may not be part of that process.

In any case, I'm not a lawyer, so take the above for what it's worth

[TomB]

some of the GL 5 ended up having arbitration clauses in their contracts...those artists will never see a court date.

..but those artists should make use of the arbitration contract. Arbitration, in certain situations, can be a excellent alternative to the court system. It's normally less expensive, completed in less time and rules of what you can and cannot do are normally a bit more relaxed.

Note: I'm not siding with GL here, I'm one who at this point in time will not buy from them.

All the Best, Tom

[Wanderer]

I've read both pros and cons for arbitration..but then again there are pros and cons for court as well.

The biggest con for me, as a consumer, is that most arbitration hearings, findings, and settlements are kept secret, and there's no way for me to find out what the "official" facts are.

Courts usually only seal stuff for very good reason, since it's in the public interest to know things like if GL did or did not act badly.

[Caj]

Advertising - exposure - giving away 'old' tracks - that could be the argument for royalties not being due when single tracks are re-issued on to compilation discs.

That argument would not work in a courtroom. If a record company committed copyright infringement (by selling a mucisian's recording on a compilation CD without permission,) any side benefit to the musician is not going to make the action legal.

Caj

[Caj]

If a CD (notes, photos, 14-20 tracks, industry persona) is worth $1.28, what's a 10 year old single track worth on a third-party compilation for track only, no extra hype? A nickel? Or maybe the artist has to chase the third party for commissions/royalties.

I believe you are confusing the cost of producing a CD with the royalites owed the musician.

Here, the $1.28 is the royalty payment for the musician. It is not the cost of the CD, and has nothing to do with the cost of sleeve notes, marketing, promotion, manufacturing/distribution etc. The wholesale cost of a CD is in fact much higher.

What is a 10-year-old track worth, divorced from the CD? Exactly what the musician and record company agree upon, if they do things legally. If they don't do things legally, it can potentially be worth up to $150000 per infringement.

Caj

[Jim McGuire]

Who knows if '$1.28' is spelled out exactly in the contract or the figure that happens to be arrived at after calculation of expenses and fees.

The point is that beyond the normal LP deal the rest of the licensing is unchartered territory and, you are correct, not defined to what it was worth (if anything).

[Caj]

Who knows if '$1.28' is spelled out exactly in the contract or the figure that happens to be arrived at after calculation of expenses and fees.

The point is: if you want to guess how much a track is worth in royalties separate from the CD, you do not take the original royalty payment for the CD and subtract off the cost of the sleeve notes or other manufacturing/promotion costs.

Those factors weren't part of the track's "worth" in the first place, so it makes no sense to subtract them off. Those costs are part of the CD's wholesale value, not the royalty payout.

The point is that beyond the normal LP deal the rest of the licensing is unchartered territory and, you are correct, not defined to what it was worth (if anything).

If it's uncharted territory, then the record company loses.

Basically if there is no existing agreement, then reproducing the track without reimbursing the musician is a slam-dunk case of copyright infringement. By default, you're not permitted to do it. The only chance for the record company is if they have permission to do so within an existing contract.

As for whether the track is worth anything, it clearly is if a record company sells it on a CD. There is no way on Earth a record company can convince a judge that the royalty value is $0.00, unless they have some unusual contract with the musician allowing them to sell it without a royalty payout.

Caj

[Jim McGuire]

Royalty calculation is huge in a contract. Hollywood for years and even today always shows a loss toward revenue recognition. One way to avoid that is to calculate it on simple means - units or gross revenue. Green Linnet is not collecting gross revenue on CD sales if another party is doing that, so maybe the artist is owed money by the third party folks.

That's where the money is. Green Linnet had licensed tracks to a third party operation with a tremendous distribution network of 4,500 outlets. They moved a lot of CDs. If royalties come off CD sales, maybe the artists need to go there.

If the track is deemed promotional and intended to drive sales of CDs in the Green Linnet catalog, the value could be considered a giveaway, and just like a TV appearance or newspaper article or guest spot.