Well, there seems to be a lot of legal news about Mr. Waits these days. Following on the heels of Opel case, comes the following story from Reuters:
Third Story Music, a Los Angeles-based music publishing firm and the successor to the production company that managed singer-songwriter Tom Waits early in his career, has filed a federal suit against Warner Music Group, alleging that Waits has been shortchanged on the sale of digital downloads.
[Via: ABC News: Publisher sues Warner Music over Waits tunes]
At its essence, this story has much more to do with the current state of intellectual property than it does with Mr. Waits himself, but it’s an interesting story. After the long debate about the legality of file-sharing networks, comes an interesting debate about the physical nature of digital music. This case revolves around whether a digital download can be considered as the same as a song on a physical CD.
From what I can gather, artists get different rates depending on how their label distributes their music. In this specific example, Mr. Waits (through Third Story Music) gets either 9% or 13% (I have no idea how this gets triggered) of the revenue for each copy of “Closing Time” that Warner sells. However, if Warner licenses the song “Grapefruit Moon” to appear on the next version of “Now That’s What I Call Music”, then Mr. Waits would receive either 25% or 50% of the revenue. Complicated, yeah, I agree, but what in law isn’t.
Third Story is arguing that selling a copy of “Grapefruit Moon” on iTunes is tantamount to licensing the song to a compilation album. Warner Music on the other hands is arguing that because the sale is no different than selling the whole album in Best Buy, that they shouldn’t have to pay the increased percentage.
In any case, this seems to have caused quite a little stir on a few IP related blogs I read. There has been a thriving little debate on both Madisonian Theory and Corante that I thought I would pass along: