Parental Advisory News Report 11.15.09: 2013 – Judgment Day For The Music Industry?

Posted by Dan Haggerty on 11.15.2009

This week in the PANR: Oasis to reform as new band, Aerosmith on the rocks, $400 billion lawsuit targets Bon Jovi, new Rammstein album banned from public display in Germany, Verizon to send cease and desist orders to illegal downloaders, and the copyright law that is set to wreck havoc on the music labels. Click the link for all the details!

The Future Of Oasis?

Liam Gallagher, guitarist for Oasis and once again estranged brother to Noel, says that the group is writing songs that they will perform as a new group. He said, "We're sort of doing things at the moment… Not Oasis, Oasis is done. Everyone except for Noel."

The current word is the band official considers itself a new entity, instead of wrangling over Oasis and Noel the band is just moving on as a group - They're basically leaving Oasis to Noel. How that sticks we'll see of course. While this isn't the first blowout for the group since its inception on 1991, this one ended with Noel quantifying the subject with "I simply could not go on working with Liam a day longer" after a backstage fight that resulted in a smashed guitar. And that is exactly what he has done since saying that.

During a later interview with the London Times, Liam was more positive about the move, "It's a shame, but that's life. We had a good run at it. The thing about Oasis is, no one ... we ended Oasis. No one ended it for us. Which was pretty, kind of ... cool. I'm thinking of what the next step is musically, which is all my mind's on."

He added: "I'll be doing music to the day I die. People will be able to buy his (Noel's) records. People will be able to buy our records. So everyone's happy."

Rumors float whether or not the band will reconcile again, but at this point all parties seem bound and determined to forge a new direction. This will certainly get more interesting if Noel uses the name Oasis, or vise versa. That could result in legal fireworks which will show just how deep this runs. Noel, however, seems to be sticking with the idea of a solo album while Liam and the band hasn't released any details of what they might be called or what material they are working on, only that they are and will be hitting the studio soon.

Walk This Way

Get your wings
Or get out…

So, is Tyler in or out of Aerosmith? Which day of the week are we asking this question?

The issues started back when the group canceled their North America Tour when Tyler fell off a stage and got laid up. At the time Tyler told Perry that he needed two years off from the band and touring. Perry however seems to be cynical regarding Steve's current lifestyle of partying and the people he runs with. He fears Tyler will turn it into a permanent vacation. That's when the cryptic comments and twitter started to pump out.

Last Tuesday night Steven Tyler joined Joe Perry on stage in New York (during a Perry solo live event) and said "New York, I want you to know I'm not leaving Aerosmith." They then performed "Walk This Way" for the crowd as part of Perry's encore for the evening.

The band is between a rock and a hard place since they are ready to just push play and go at it as Aerosmith. Perry came out and said the band was "positively" seeking a new singer. This indicated that the band was indeed on the rocks.

Steven Tyler showing up is a positive sign, since to date there has been no communication directly between the two (something that seems to be strangely common) although interviews with Perry afterwards shows Perry seems to think the group has run out of nine lives. The beef being started since all dialogs was done with mirrors through the guy's managers. Perry told Rolling Stone that he was just as surprised as the fans when Tyler showed up at the venue, and asked to sing the encore tune. "Being an acquaintance of 40 years, I said, 'Why not?'" Perry said. "So he came up and sang and that was the last I saw of him."

Since then, Tyler seems to indicate there is no problem and Perry is acting like there is a big problem. Aerosmith is too institutionalized between the two, so if they don't get a grip anything less isn't going to work. Aerosmith will just be memories with the rest of the toys in the attic.

You make a sentence with "Honking on Bobo"!

Your Lawsuit Is Like Bad Medicine

A Massachusetts man is pursuing a $400 billion lawsuit against Bon Jovi, Time Warner, and Major League Baseball. Yes, that is $400 billion with a ‘B' and the man seems to be going against everything and everyone. How did this happen and what was the result?

Samuel Bartley Steele has filed a lawsuit against the band for allegedly ripping off his ode to the Boston Red Sox entitled, "(Man I Really) Love this Team." In the lawsuit the claim is that the song was released in October 2004 and performed by the Bart Steele Band. Steele says he handed out copies to Red Sox executives, sent copies of the song to players, performed it live on local television, and sent it to MLB with the idea for a country song that would market baseball. When you think about it that is a good idea. I'm surprised MLB hasn't done that.

Anyway, during the 2007 playoffs Bon Jovi released a song, "I Love This Town," that was used by MLB to promote playoff baseball on TBS cable station (that is where Time Warner enters the picture). Steele is claiming that Bon Jovi either heard the song when he was campaigning for John Kerry in Boston in 2004 or that some executive passed it to him.

That sounds like a bit of a stretch already but it gets better as the man's own witness "musicologist" testified that the songs weren't very similar.

In court.

The district judge ruled that no reasonable jury could conclude there was substantial similarity between the songs and dismissed the claim. Yes, the judge tossed it out of court and didn't even let the jury hear the case – It was that bad.

On Friday, Steele appealed his $400 billion claim to an appeals court. So it's TBS, the Red Sox, and Bon Jovi back to court next year!

You just can't make this shit up.

Du Hast Mich

Rammstein's latest album, Liebe ist Fuer Alle Da (Love is For All), has been banned by the German government from public display in stores. The allegation is that it contains depictions of sado-masochism, not only on the cover but in the art work on the inside as well as a song.

For the morbidly curious, the name of the German Government agency is "Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons". I like to complain about the FCC but at least they haven't splintered into this nonsense. Just think of the PANR as the "Media for Federal Department's Harmful to Healthy Minds".

Officials were offended by the track "Ich tue Dir Weh" ("I Want to Hurt You"), which includes such lines as "Bites, kicks, heavy blows, nails, pincers, blunt saws - Tell me what you want," as well as artwork showing guitarist Richard Kruspe with a masked, naked woman on his knees. The agency also criticized the single "Pussy" stating that it incites listeners to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse despite the risk of AIDS, although the song was not officially part of the ruling.

How in the hell did it take them this long to listen to a Rammstein song?

Anyway, that being said this isn't a surprise to anyone; these laws have been in place for a while and the band knows it. They are racking up a bunch of number one positions on charts in Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Finland and the Netherlands) alone and the controversy is pushing it further. They're also number two in France and Spain. They're going to get tons of free media coverage for this which insurers this effective State sponsored commercial will get more youths to watch it. So good job Germany, way to go an insure it sells more in your country!

Joerg Jaeger of the Pressezentrum retail store in Luebeck said the following when interviewed, "The album will sell even better than before. We are not taking the album out of stock. From Wednesday, we will be selling it under the counter and will require customers to produce proof of their age. All it means is that the 18-year-old will buy it for his younger sister."

Preach it brother.

Can You Hear Me Now?

We are disconnecting you now!

In a disturbing move this week, Verizon's Internet announced that it "could" start to send warnings from the RIAA to customers if it judges they have been illegally sharing music online. These would be "copyright notices" sent of behalf of the RIAA.

Verizon has been notoriously against getting involved in this issue in the past so this move took everyone by surprise. In fact the RIAA had to take Verizon to court once to get the company to release the name of someone it accused of illegal downloading. As part of the announcement a company spokesman said, "We recognize the importance of copyright and the need to enforce those copyrights… Without that enforcement, intellectual property won't be generated at all. At the same time, it's important for our customers to be assured that they won't have their privacy rights trampled."

The RIAA notice is expected to be similar to letters issued in the past by Comcast, AT&T and Cox, notifying customers that they have been accused of illegally sharing songs and to delete such content from their hard drives. It's also assumed but not confirmed that they will be doing this for the film industry as well (like the others).

As it stands the letter is just a "cease and desist" that requests the offending person stop circulating copyright material and delete anything illegal from it's hard drive. As of yet there is no mention of the "graduated response" that the industry wants. There also isn't any threat of cutting the user off from their ISP. It's only a warning letter and the RIAA is calling it a "test".

But how long will it be before that happens? It's not going to take long at all for someone to go "Gee, the warning doesn't work at all. We need to put some action behind it!"

The good news is that these letters are the only thing the major ISPs are agreeing to do and none have taken a stand on the music industries desire to go to a three-strikes and your out program for illegal downloader's. The lack of support from the ISPs is likely why the RIAA spends more time pursuing this in Washington, where technically they should seek action since companies shouldn't be patrolling their customers. That is job of law enforcement. I'm just nervous/curious/cynical of what law the RIAA will purchase.

Will The RIAA Violate Intellectual Property?

Double-Hammer
Award Winner

In a story that has IRONY written all over it, it looks like the music industry is sitting on a literal time bomb that is set to blow up in 2013. It turns out those copyright laws that the industry has been beating over our heads is going to bite them in the ass hard.

And I mean HARD.

The U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 is set to explode new controversy into the music business due to provisions that allow authors (or their heirs) to terminate copyright grants after a specific time period. The idea was to let artists get their property back after the lifespan of the copyright ran its course as an asset, or at least give the musicians (back in the classic days) a chance to renegotiate a new more favorable contract. Anyone familiar with the oldies and classic bands before the 80's knows how many of them got screwed by music labels. This law was part of the push to protect musicians from labels who effective screwed them on their contracts and virtually stole their property.

Where have we heard THAT before?

Here are the details:

The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.

"The termination that's going to be coming up is going to be a big problem for the record companies and publishers," said attorney Greg Eveline of Eveline Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law. "It's written into the statute," said another entertainment lawyer who added "It's just a matter of time."

And time it is. It turns out that a big one has just put the music business on notice. The Eagles announced that they will file termination notices by the end of the year. "It's going to happen," said Eveline. "Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don't need a record company now…. You'll be able to go to Eagles.com and get all their songs. They're going to do it… its coming up."

Turns out the Eagles are building a Website to do just that.

Other artists are also filing notices (there's a five-year window). But in some cases, they're choosing to leave the copyright grant where it is only with much more favorable terms. "There are all different kinds of ways people approach it," said Bernstein. "If they have a publishing company that's making money for them, and collecting it and paying them well, they may just want a higher royalty. Or if they're unhappy, they get it back."

This isn't just about music. The law is regarding copyrights so technically any copyright is subject to this (save for odd cases like derivative works and for-hire contracts).

The music labels have known this is coming obviously and even tried to get the law changed back in 1999 by sneaking an amendment to the Copyright Act (via the House of Reps) that would add sound recordings to the Act's list of copyrights that were considered "works for hire". A few savvy musicians caught them and blew the whistle, Carly Simon being the biggest example.

The new strategy is that labels are looking at re-recording originals that they own so they can copyright that. That would allow them to re-set the 35 year clock with the new (digital) recording while giving the original masters back to the copyright holders.

In other words, they would use a loophole to keep an artist's copyrighted material and sell if for themselves.

In fact labels like Sony have already done this with a re-mastered version of Ben Folds Five's Whatever and Ever Amen. So they are trying this now.

I'm floored here. Let me just say this again.

The industry that is suing people for stealing copyright material and giving it away for free is trying to work a legal loophole to effectively steal copyright material and make money on it.

WHAT THE FUCK?

Either way the industry is in trouble. Major cash cows like the Eagles will only be the beginning. Many people will use modern technology to take control of their music and sell them. The labels might find a way to keep the music but I suspect a lawsuit will come about to put the kibosh on that. If not the artists will still be able to add new content and run around them. The labels are going to be forced to give better deals if they want to keep people which should be a win for everyone. Plus maybe a few obscure acts will get their music back and put the tracks up on a website, which would be cool for us collectors.

So, to the music industry, this week you earn the Double Hammer Award for being a bunch of hypocritical tools that sue unemployed single moms for millions for stealing copyright material while planning to directly steal and sell the same copyright material. You clowns suck worse than a starving hooker. Christ. Put the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger already.

That's a wrap. The news from the front lines where, as always, a mix of fun and funk. Keep your eyes open on the beautiful people and your ears on the music. We'll see you in the bar later and here are a couple to leave you with…