interesting tidbit involving Interscope
Music news headlines are everywhere these days. While musicians, service providers, and industry giants battle over Napster, there is another industry-changing war being waged. The battle lines have been drawn, and Courtney Love has declared a call to arms for musicians signed to major labels, and hopes to bring information to the public to dispel the myth of the "rock star rolling in money" concept. Much more than this, however, Love's countersuit against Vivendi Universal is an aggressive and compelling David vs. Goliath battle. At first glance, the suit may seem like a disgruntled and spoiled rock star is greedily going after money. But looking at the facts, the very serious approach Love has taken, and her fearless nature to take this case "all the way to the Supreme Court" if necessary, the outcome of this trial could very well shake the shifty foundation that the Big Five music companies have relied upon for decades.
Courtney Love is not the first artist to attempt to take on a label in this manner. What is different about this particular battle, is that this case WILL go to trial. Oftentimes, labels will do their damndest to soothe a disgruntled artist. They will renegotiate contracts, offer up enormous advances, and settle out of court if they can. Time will tell whether or not the industry will go after Love in this manner. Just as time will tell whether or not Courtney Love can withstand the backlash. What is truly remarkable about Love, however, is her dedication to the integrity of artists' rights. And unlike other artists who have attempted to take on the giants, Love has the financial wherewithal to back up her convictions. If the public has learned anything about Love, it must be that her stubborn, focused, and fearless nature could just be the remedy to fighting for artistic freedom.
So, what is the countersuit about? Courtney Love was originally slapped with a lawsuit in early 2000 by Universal citing breach of contract. In December 1999, Love, along with her band members in Hole, had released only two of a five-album deal when Love announced that she would leave the label. And, at that time, Love rejected a settlement offer after notifying Interscope (an arm of the Universal conglomerate) of her intention to cease recording for their company. In response to this lawsuit, filed in 2000 by Vivendi Universal, Love has countersued to test the court system and break this contract.
The countersuit filed by Love and her attorney, A. Barry Cappello, contains fifteen causes of action in total. But at its core, the suit seeks to expose what Love deems as "unconscionable and unlawful" business practices, including corrupt accounting tactics dealing with issuing royalties, the exclusion of record club sales, and the long-standing tradition that the recording industry employs with regard to contract length. Where this suit gets even stickier is an attack on the validity of contracts bought and sold during the mega-mergers that have occurred in the recording industry within the last decade.
Love's Manifesto -
Courtney sounds off on the state of today's sordid and malicious recording industry in an uncensored quasi-essay that provided the basis for her speech at this year's Digital Hollywood in New York.
Love does the math, delves into the industry's darkest fissures, exposes the miscreants, and welcomes the future's "radical democratization" through the course of her writing in an effort to dispel the corporate-engineered myths that have long plagued artists.
Within, Courtney ponders the Recording Association of America, piracy, new options and equity for artists, tipping/music as a service, and new models for musicians sponsorship
When Courtney Love originally signed into a recording contract, she opted to sign with Geffen Records. Geffen Records has long been considered an "artists label", due to the common knowledge that Geffen artists typically received more development and a more creative climate for artistry. The success the label had fostered with bands such as Sonic Youth and Nirvana were a large factor in Love's agreement to sign with Geffen. Shortly after entering into this contract, however, Geffen was subsequently sold to MCA which then became part of the Tokyo-based Matsu****a Electric Industrial Inc. family. After the release of Hole's first album, MCA was sold to Seagram Co., a noted Canadian liquor company. After Seagram's massive purchase of PolyGram, what had been Geffen was then released to the Interscope division of Universal (It should be noted at this point that Love had previously rejected an offer from Interscope back in 1992 upon signing with Geffen). Last year, Seagram was usurped into Vivendi, a French utilities and waste corporation, which brings us current. Geffen, as it was once known, no longer exists. This is one point of the lawsuit that questions the validity of the contract. So certainly, the judgment based on this "Assignment Clause", which allows the company who owns the contract to sell it without an artists consent, will be of particular interest due to the enormous changes made in the business climate and mega-mergers of the industry.
__________________
CHRIS M.
|