Field Dispatch
Lit vs. Sony | Matt Connarton Unleashed
Speaker 1: I did not know that this was going on. But
Speaker 1: you know, artists suing record labels is not a terribly
Speaker 1: unusual thing, it would seem. And usually when we talk
Speaker 1: about one of these stories, it's usually Universal music group
Speaker 1: that is being sued. But this time it was not.
Speaker 1: This time it was Sony Sony Music. You know. It's
Speaker 1: funny because when Al was on the show, we were
Speaker 1: talking about talking a lot about the nineties. Well, there's
Speaker 1: a nineties band called Lit who had a song, you
Speaker 1: might remember, a pop punk song called My Own Worst Enemy,
Speaker 1: and they have just settled a streaming royalty lawsuit with
Speaker 1: Sony Music. You know, again, artists suing labels over royalties
Speaker 1: is not a new thing. And that predates the Internet,
Speaker 1: that predates streaming. It is not unusual for an artist
Speaker 1: or an accountant who works for an artist, and so
Speaker 1: on and so forth. The business manager who might work
Speaker 1: for an artist to at some point in time say, hey,
Speaker 1: I think we're missing some money. I don't think you
Speaker 1: know this. My client here has been has been selling
Speaker 1: millions of records and they're only getting a small pittance.
Speaker 1: And uh, the legal department looked at the contract and
Speaker 1: apparently there should be a lot more money than what
Speaker 1: is currently going to my client, et cetera. So maybe
Speaker 1: we need to sue the label over that. It's not
Speaker 1: a news story now. The taking that and applying it
Speaker 1: to the era of streaming, which we're in, that part
Speaker 1: is somewhat new, although not really that new in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six. Streaming has been around for a couple decades now.
Speaker 1: But but these stories continue. But I didn't know that
Speaker 1: this one was going on. I didn't know that Litt
Speaker 1: was suing Sony Music. It says here, and again, this
Speaker 1: is from Music Businessworldwide dot com, which, if you're a
Speaker 1: regular listener, you know, one of my absolute favorite sites
Speaker 1: for music industry news. It says, LIT, the band behind
Speaker 1: pop punk hit My Own Worst Enemy, settles Sony Music
Speaker 1: stream royalty lawsuit. Litt, the rock band behind the nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety nine single My Own Worst Enemy, has settled its
Speaker 1: lawsuit against Sony Music Entertainment over streaming royalties. Never liked
Speaker 1: that song, by the way, not that I don't like Litt,
Speaker 1: They're fine. I just don't like that song. The band
Speaker 1: and the major label reached a settlement in principle, according
Speaker 1: to a July seven court filing reviewed by Music Business Worldwide.
Speaker 1: Neither Litt nor Sony has disclosed the terms, and a
Speaker 1: written agreement is still being finalized. US District Court John P.
Speaker 1: Cronin closed the case on Tuesday after being notified of
Speaker 1: the deal, which was first reported by Billboard. The members
Speaker 1: of Lit sued Sony in the US District Court for
Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York in March over their
Speaker 1: streaming royalties. The complaint was brought by frontman aj Popoff,
Speaker 1: guitarist Jeremy Popoff. I assume they're brothers, bassist Kevin unless
Speaker 1: pop up Off is a common name, which it's not,
Speaker 1: bassist Jeremy Baldez, and the estate of late drummer Alan Schellenberger.
Speaker 1: As Music Business Worldwide reported at the time, Sony, which
Speaker 1: acquired RCA Records years after the label signed the band
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety eight, had been paying the musicians a
Speaker 1: fourteen percent US royalty rate on streams. Quick note here
Speaker 1: before we go any further, that's another thing that happens
Speaker 1: a lot consolidation. Right, one record label buys another record label. Now,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, some of the artists who were
Speaker 1: on the record label that got bought, they're not getting
Speaker 1: their money. Or you know, there's a term that I
Speaker 1: learned a couple of years ago that is common in
Speaker 1: the well. It describes a practice common in the music business,
Speaker 1: spaghetti accounting, which is where the accounting is done in
Speaker 1: such a way that it makes it it makes it
Speaker 1: very more convoluted than it necessarily needs to be, which
Speaker 1: makes it hard to do forensic accounting, which is and
Speaker 1: you try to figure out where the money is going,
Speaker 1: and why some of the money isn't going where it
Speaker 1: should be, and or why not enough of the money
Speaker 1: is going where it should be going, et cetera. But
Speaker 1: this is a thing when when one record label buys another,
Speaker 1: if you're on the record label, it's being purchased again.
Speaker 1: This is something where if you're that artist, you want
Speaker 1: your legal team, you want your management whomever is keeping
Speaker 1: an eye on this, you want them in there making
Speaker 1: sure that you're getting everything that you have coming to it.
Speaker 1: Says here. The band argued the nineteen to ninety eight
Speaker 1: RCA contract entitled it to fifty percent of net receipts
Speaker 1: whenever a master is licensed, treating an on demand stream
Speaker 1: as a master use license rather than a sale so
Speaker 1: master being the master recording of the song, which is
Speaker 1: obviously what gets distributed to these streaming platforms because the
Speaker 1: streaming platforms obviously you want, but the platform to have
Speaker 1: the highest possible quality file of your music if you're
Speaker 1: an artist on a platform. Right, But according to the
Speaker 1: band argues or their legal team argues, according to their
Speaker 1: RCA contract, they're titled to fifty percent of net receipts
Speaker 1: when the master is licensed. So in this case, the
Speaker 1: master is licensed to a streaming platform, so fifty percent
Speaker 1: of that revenue that's generated by that track on that platform.
Speaker 1: So continuing on again this article for Music Business Worldwide.
Speaker 1: In a in a parenthetical, the band's nineteen to ninety
Speaker 1: eight contract gave an example of such a license. Quote
Speaker 1: RCA's license to another person of the right to embody
Speaker 1: a master recording on a website in a so called
Speaker 1: streaming format, which is not subject to the digital download
Speaker 1: of that master recording by a viewer. Unquote. When the
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety eight deal was signed, Napster had not yet
Speaker 1: we Will lunched, and streaming services such as Rhapsody did
Speaker 1: not arrive until the early two thousands. Litt claimed the
Speaker 1: language entitled it to more than eight hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: in unpaid streaming royalties. The band's attorney, Chris Vaeos, in
Speaker 1: the complaint said, quote Sony's failure and or refusal to
Speaker 1: account properly to plaintiffs for streaming royalties received from licenses
Speaker 1: from third party DSP's digital service providers under the nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety eight agreement as damaged plaintiffs in excess of eight
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars in unpaid royalties, as reflected on royalty
Speaker 1: statements rendered from January one, twenty twenty one, through December
Speaker 1: thirty one, twenty twenty six, unquote. The complaint also alleged
Speaker 1: that Sony used the wrong formula for video streaming royalties
Speaker 1: and that it never applied the escalated rate it's deal
Speaker 1: called for one. A Place in the Sun, which is
Speaker 1: the album that that song was on, reached gold and
Speaker 1: platinum status. That's you know, the song Mound Worst Enemy
Speaker 1: that's from the album A Place in the Sun. Reduced
Speaker 1: royalty reporting had also lowered the band's pension contributions and
Speaker 1: affected its health insurance eligibility through SAG after, the complaint said.
Speaker 1: According to the complaint, the band had tried to renegotiate
Speaker 1: since twenty twenty three, but Sony offered a half hearted
Speaker 1: defense of the rate before it stopped responding. Vius said
Speaker 1: in March, quote, this is something that we were helped.
Speaker 1: We were hoping we could resolve before having to file
Speaker 1: a lawsuit unquote. A lawyer for Sony later said in
Speaker 1: a May court filing that the band had begun settlement
Speaker 1: talks after suing. According to Billboard, MBW Music Business Worldwide
Speaker 1: has reached out to Sony Andlitz management team at Shelter
Speaker 1: Music Group for comment. The case landed as Sony faces
Speaker 1: other royalty claims in the same New York court. Again,
Speaker 1: as I said, this is a common story, and they
Speaker 1: use these labels, use spaghetti accounting to make it very
Speaker 1: difficult to figure out exactly what's going on, what is
Speaker 1: not happening that should be happening, and so forth. They
Speaker 1: make it very complicated for a reason, for the same
Speaker 1: reason anybody who makes their accounting very complicated does so
Speaker 1: to you know, it's and it's not even necessarily I
Speaker 1: don't know that they're trying to hide stuff, but they're
Speaker 1: certainly trying to make it so it's not easy to find.
Speaker 1: I guess that is an effect hiding something, but but
Speaker 1: they don't. They don't want you to figure out how.
Speaker 1: You know, Universal Music Group we talked about this on
Speaker 1: the show. Universal Music Group and again not to conflate
Speaker 1: them with Sony, but they've been sued a bunch. They
Speaker 1: were I don't know whatever happened to it, but we
Speaker 1: talked about it on the show. Limp Biscuit was suing
Speaker 1: Universal Music Group because apparently you and if you're an
Speaker 1: artist on UMG, you are provided with a portal. So
Speaker 1: it almost sounds like, you know, like if you're if
Speaker 1: you have a bank, a bank account, and you know,
Speaker 1: use your portal to check your banking information, your your
Speaker 1: balance and whatever. You log into the portal. Right, UMG
Speaker 1: actually has a portal for their artists, their signed artists,
Speaker 1: where they can log in and check what's going on
Speaker 1: with their royalties, how much they're owed, or how much
Speaker 1: they might owe in recruitment, which is another subject. We
Speaker 1: won't take that side three right now, but you can
Speaker 1: check all that through this portal. But apparently the portals
Speaker 1: don't always work, you know. Olympus gits accountant was trying
Speaker 1: to or accounting firm was trying to sign into the
Speaker 1: portal at one point, and they didn't have the right password,
Speaker 1: and they tried to create a new password, but the
Speaker 1: portal wouldn't let them, so they had to come. I mean, really,
Speaker 1: this is wild, right that this goes on. And then
Speaker 1: so they try to contact somebody at Universal Music Group
Speaker 1: to up so they could update their passwords so they
Speaker 1: could get into the portal, but no one was getting
Speaker 1: back to them. This is how these labels treat their artists.
Speaker 1: It's just a fact. This is how these artists are treated.
Speaker 1: And you can say, well, I don't really care how
Speaker 1: somebody who's rich and famous is treated by their record label.
Speaker 1: What's the matter. They're rich and famous, so what talk
Speaker 1: about your first world problems? I get that, but but
Speaker 1: it doesn't just happen to artists who are already rich
Speaker 1: and famous. You know, the guys from LIT they had
Speaker 1: that one huge hit. I don't remember if they had
Speaker 1: any others. If they did, I'm not remembering them, which
Speaker 1: makes me think, and I have a pretty good memory
Speaker 1: for that, but I don't always remember everything, so maybe
Speaker 1: they did. I don't remember, Like I remember them being
Speaker 1: really big off of that song for a sh short
Speaker 1: period of time. But I can tell you this, Being
Speaker 1: really big off of one song for a short period
Speaker 1: of time does not make you rich. It helps, it
Speaker 1: doesn't make you rich. Being really big over a prolonged
Speaker 1: period of time might make you rich. But if you
Speaker 1: have one hit song and one platinum album, you're not,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, unless you take really good care
Speaker 1: of your money and you invest in all that. But
Speaker 1: but just based on that alone, that income alone, you're
Speaker 1: not wealthy for the rest of your life based on that.
Speaker 1: So you know, no one should be treated this way
Speaker 1: by a record label. This is why there's so much
Speaker 1: antipathy toward the major labels, the major label system. When
Speaker 1: you ever hear anyone say something nice about Universal Music
Speaker 1: Group or Sony or Warner Brothers or any of these
Speaker 1: label When do you ever hear anybody say, you know,
Speaker 1: they really you know, if you're signed to that label,
Speaker 1: they really treat you right, they really take care of
Speaker 1: the artists. That's gone. I mean, now, even if they
Speaker 1: do sign you, they want you to already be a
Speaker 1: ready made package, which that part I understand. They want
Speaker 1: you to already be at the very least Internet famous
Speaker 1: before they're going to make you really famous, right or
Speaker 1: try to. But it's a terrible system. I mean, they
Speaker 1: really abuse, they really abuse their artists. Okay, So getting
Speaker 1: back to the article, because there's an example here of
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about. And again this is from Music
Speaker 1: Business Worldwide dot com. It says here Jermaine dupri and
Speaker 1: is so so deaf Companies sued Sony for more than
Speaker 1: eighteen million dollars on Monday, July sixth, alleging unpaid and
Speaker 1: underreported royalties on records by Criss Cross, Escape Usher and
Speaker 1: Mariah Carey eighteen million dollars. And now I understand just
Speaker 1: because they're suing for that, that doesn't mean that that
Speaker 1: is accurate and that they are actually owed that much money.
Speaker 1: But it wouldn't shock me especially Well, let's look at
Speaker 1: that phrase, alleging unpaid and underreported royalties. That's part of
Speaker 1: how and again that plays into the spaghetti accounting underreported.
Speaker 1: In other words, some royalties are reported, but some are not.
Speaker 1: Why would you do that? Well, if you report enough
Speaker 1: royalties and you pay out enough in royalties, maybe no
Speaker 1: one gets suspicious, Maybe no one starts asking questions. Maybe
Speaker 1: no one says let's look at the books and figure
Speaker 1: out if we're actually getting all that we're supposed to,
Speaker 1: because we probably are because we're getting money. But what
Speaker 1: if you're actually owed more money? So you know, they're
Speaker 1: not just gonna forget to pay you. They're gonna pay
Speaker 1: you something. They might just not pay you everything that
Speaker 1: you're owed, because as long as they pay you something,
Speaker 1: maybe you won't start snooping around. Because if you hire
Speaker 1: a forensic accounting firm and you start snooping around, you're
Speaker 1: gonna find out that you're owed a lot more than
Speaker 1: what they are telling you that you're owed. So that
Speaker 1: suit is for eighteen million dollars. It says here that
Speaker 1: suit is active, and Sonya has said the parties were
Speaker 1: attempting to resolve the accounting dispute before Dupree went to court.
Speaker 1: Sonya settled similar claims before the company reached a settlement
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen with Nineteen Recordings, the record label behind
Speaker 1: American Idol alumni including Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, which
Speaker 1: had accused Sony of underpaid streaming royalties by accounting for
Speaker 1: streams as sales rather than licenses. In twenty twenty Sony
Speaker 1: agreed to pay twelve point seven million to settle a
Speaker 1: class action brought by the estate of nineteen fifty singer
Speaker 1: Rick Nelson over royalties on foreign streaming revenue. Such disputes
Speaker 1: have become more common as legacy artists challenge how labels
Speaker 1: calculate streaming royalties under contracts signed before Spotify. Litt continues
Speaker 1: to tour, with dates booked across twenty twenty six. My
Speaker 1: Own Worst Enemy has drawn more than five hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty million streams on Spotify. According to the band's complaint,
Speaker 1: it spent eleven really eleven weeks at number one on
Speaker 1: Billboard's Alternative Airplay chart. The band's nineteen to ninety nine
Speaker 1: album A Place in the Sun was certified platinum in
Speaker 1: the US. It released its most recent album, Tastes Like Gold,
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two. The dismissal gives the party's forty
Speaker 1: five days to restore the case if the written settlement
Speaker 1: is not completed. Yeah, and again, they probably need that money.
Speaker 1: The band probably needs that money. One platinum album, one
Speaker 1: big hit song that does not make you rich. You're
Speaker 1: not set for life based on that. I promise you
Speaker 1: You're not it's like, you know, we were we kind
Speaker 1: of were talking about that a little bit with Al
Speaker 1: from the band I when we were talking during our
Speaker 1: conversation about you know, people have misconceptions and misperceptions about
Speaker 1: how this all worked. They think you get signed and
Speaker 1: now you're famous and you're rich, and you know, you
Speaker 1: can be very famous and be broke. It happened to
Speaker 1: TLC when they released their album Crazy Sexy Cool in
Speaker 1: the late nineties. They were triple platinum and they were
Speaker 1: broke because of the way their record deal was structured.
Speaker 1: They had no money and they'd sold three million copies
Speaker 1: of that album on the strength of singles like Creep
Speaker 1: and Waterfalls and all that. I mean, it's the map.
Speaker 1: The system is all. Look, this is true in life
Speaker 1: in general, right, The system is always against you. You
Speaker 1: got to fight for every little crumb because the system
Speaker 1: is always trying to screw you in some way. In
Speaker 1: this case, it happens to be the major label system
Speaker 1: of these record companies, but they're always trying to screw
Speaker 1: somebody over and they'll do whatever whatever they they can
Speaker 1: get away with.
Podbean