Music Row Lawyer (C. Stephen Weaver)

On holiday -- be back soon!

 

Copyright © 2010 C. Stephen Weaver

Is Taylor Swift an "Indie"?

            Paul Resinikoff notes the excitement of the industry over the fact that 273 of last weeks Grammy nominations were “indies”.  Among that list are Taylor Swift.  Resnikov argues that Swift is not an “indie” because of her label's connections with Universal.  You can read the full article here.  I agree that she is not an Indie artist but not for the same reasons as Resinikoff.

            I would distinguish between an Indie Artist and an Indie Label. The people I deal with in the industry consider the distinguishing characteristic between an Indie Label and a Major Label to be whether the label handles the distribution function itself and and whether it has in-house promotion.  Perhaps there are other factors but those are the two that I primarily look at when the issue comes up in a contract negotiation.  So just because a label is distributed by Uni, Sony Red, etc. does not mean that the label is suddenly a major rather than an indie. On the other hand (and this might not at all be the industry consensus), my perception of an Indie Artist is one who is not signed to a 3rd party label. The artist is her own business, including owning her own label.  That is not to say the artist isn't outsourcing some functions by making distribution deals, hiring independent promotion, etc.

             That's my take on this.  Taylor Swift? She is an artist who is on an Indie Label--Nashville's Big Machine Records.  She is not an Indie Artist in my opinion.

 

Copyright © 2010 C. Stephen Weaver

Google Now Pro Copyright?

            On Thursday (December 2, 2010) Google, historically slow to assist in the war against copyright piracy and infringement, announced steps that it would be taking to increase its role as a defender of the rights of content owners.  In the past Google has taken the position with the RIAA, MPAA and others that it is not Google’s job to aggressively monitor and “take down” copyright infringing activities associated with Google’s sites.

             Among new anti-piracy and anti-infringement actions announced by Google are (1) a promise to “act on reliable copyright takedown requests within 24 hours” and (2) to start removing sites linked to piracy from Google’s Ad Sense program.

             Cnet News speculates that the change in position by Google is prompted by their inability to negotiate successfully with content providers for Google TV and to benefit negotiations with the major record labels for Google’s proposed music site which will compete with iTunes.  Oh you mean the change doesn’t have something to do with enforcing laws on the books or protecting the owners and creators of copyrighted works?!  It’s all about the money – but we knew that from the beginning, didn’t we? 

    As long as they can get away with it or do not fear the consequences, pirates will steal and will create profitable ways to facilitate theft by illegal file sharers.  The tech world will support weakening laws that cause them to have to pay for content.  And at the end of the day, it is also about the money for the kids and others who illegally download music and films.  Otherwise, why not just pay for it?

             My sources for this Post are as follows:  Cnet News, “Has Google Jumped Sides The Copyright War?”; ZeroPaid, “Google to Speed Up Removal of Infringing Content”; and Music Ally, “Google Takes Action Against Online Copyright Infringement”.

 

Copyright © 2010 C. Stephen Weaver