So you honestly think Apple would knowingly do this? Apple has nothing to lose by not selling his stuff on iTunes, they are out to sell iPods not music. Besides, what money Eminem brings in to iTunes is far less than Apple would be risking, especially since they've dealt with him before. So is Apple supposed to call all the artists they sell music for to ask if it is OK? That is why artist have distribution labels to deal with this. I honestly can't see what his complaint is.

Doesn't he have a new album due out later this year and a movie role next year, can you say publicity stunt?

Quote "California entertainment lawyer Owen Sloane notes that the Apple suit is emblematic of a major issue in the music industry, since while many labels have the rights to sell CDs of an artist's work, this may not automatically extend to downloads. "You're going to see more of these suits," says Sloane.

He'd better release on Vinyl only then, CD is digital music, I seriously doubt there is anything in the contract as to how distribution is handled.

Umm, where does he say anything about "digital music"? The quoted text specifically mentions "rights to sell CDs, this may not automatically extend to downloads". CDs may be digital, but its also a distribution medium.

If he is worried about pirating, it is better to sell on iTunes, since the file is protected better by DRM.

The complaint is that Universal and Apple don't have the rights to sell their music. That, in itself, is "pirating" the music. Just because it has DRM on it doesn't mean its not "pirated" to begin with.

But the problem here isn't about 'piracy', but an artists rights to sell or not sell their product as they see fit. Everyone yells at the RIAA and labels for stealing money from artists and taking away their rights, and here's an artist saying he didn't sign away his rights, and you're bashing him because of that?

I would expect this from an older artist that isn't with technology, but seriously get with it MAN!

Get with what? That every artist must sell their music on itunes? Or that they should give their rights away to the labels? And he's not saying he doesn't want to sell his music on iTunes. He's just saying that Universal doesn't have the rights to license it for him (and taking a cut) and Apple doesn't have the right to sell it without an agreement from him.

I've been concerned about the plight of the artists in the whole iTunes mix for a while now. The record labels are making pure profit from iTunes downloads, whereas the artists only make a few cents. That isn't right and needs to be changed. But bringing a lawsuit against Apple is not the way to do it. Eminem needs to take his beef to Universal, and sue for breach of contract if necessary.

I will say that Apple has been aware of this issue -- it's pretty widely-known, and many artists aren't seeing *any* revenue from iTunes at all. So yes, I do think Apple should have used their bargaining power to "encourage" the labels to set up a fair profit distribution with the artists. But I don't think that makes them liable for damages by the artists. At the end of the day, it is the labels that are stealing their money, no different than all the abuse that went on in the 50s and 60s in the music industry.

sue - wal-mart - target - goody's music - FYE - Amazon.com - the lsit goes on_

bullshit_

This really is not a lawsuit against Apple. This is a lawsuit to determine if musical artists are bound to the same contract with downloadable music as physical media. It's arguable that because their contract doesn't specifically indicate downloadable MP3s the Artist should be geting a larger cut of the 99 cents. I'd just sit back and watch the fireworks. This has a potential to be a HUGE pain in the a** for Universal.

On a side note, I'm impressed with the level of ignorance about Hip-hop music.

Sterotype: noun 1 a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing : the stereotype of the woman as the carer | sexual and racial stereotypes.

I've been concerned about the plight of the artists in the whole iTunes mix for a while now. The record labels are making pure profit from iTunes downloads, whereas the artists only make a few cents. That isn't right and needs to be changed. But bringing a lawsuit against Apple is not the way to do it. Eminem needs to take his beef to Universal, and sue for breach of contract if necessary.

First, its not pure profit. They still have to pay for all their expenses in producing music, not just the production of the physical media.

And I'm sure he'll take his beef to Universal. But he HAS to sue apple, for they are the offending party. Once apple can show that they signed an agreement in good faith with Universal, they'll get cut loose and then Universal gets to deal with it.

I will say that Apple has been aware of this issue -- it's pretty widely-known, and many artists aren't seeing *any* revenue from iTunes at all.

This has NOTHING to do with how much money the artist is seeing. It has everything to do whether the label even has the right in the contract to license the sale of this music on-line.

This really is not a lawsuit against Apple. This is a lawsuit to determine if musical artists are bound to the same contract with downloadable music as physical media.

I believe that's correct, except you must spell out specifically that it depends on the contracts. Current contracts definitely have this language built-in. Its the older contracts that left it up in the air.

It's arguable that because their contract doesn't specifically indicate downloadable MP3s the Artist should be geting a larger cut of the 99 cents.

No, because even if it did mention downloadable MP3s, they'd get nothing because they aren't MP3s, they're AAC files. But that's not the point. They shouldn't be getting a larger cut of the 99 cents from each sale since the song shouldn't be for sale in the first place, since the label supposedly doesn't have the rights to license the sale.

In order to sell it, it would have to be through contracts with M&M, or after a renegiate with Universal and M&M. For the former, he'd want the entire cut, not a percentage, while the latter would get him a bigger share of that cut.

On a side note, I'm impressed with the level of ignorance about Hip-hop music.

I'm not. Its MacNN after all. I'm sure the posters would be praising the rapper here if there was an article about how he uses macs for all his recording and concerts, and he was doing iPod specific content.

This has NOTHING to do with how much money the artist is seeing. It has everything to do whether the label even has the right in the contract to license the sale of this music on-line.

Well that's completely fracking stupid. He should be thankful that the label found another venue to sell his music.

I still don't see what this has to do with Apple. It is his contract with Universal which states whether or not they can act as his representative in contract negotiations for record sales. The only issue I could see that's pertinent is letting consumers purchase his songs individually through iTunes instead of the whole album, and if that wasn't defined then Eminem should have approached his label long ago to renogotiate that part of the contract.

But as far as the format itself, whether the song is distributed via mp3 versus vinyl, CD or cassette doesn't matter. There is only the issue of per-unit profit distribution.

What a load of c RAP. I wonder how many "songs" of his Apple has sold to date... about 5?

Well that's completely fracking stupid. He should be thankful that the label found another venue to sell his music.

I can tell from this comment that you're not an artist or someone who sells copyrighted material. I guess because Apple is involved, whatever is done to the artist is fine?

I still don't see what this has to do with Apple. Apple is doing the selling. They have to sue apple to get them to stop selling. You can't sue universal until you know they're the ones perpetuating the issue.

It is his contract with Universal which states whether or not they can act as his representative in contract negotiations for record sales. The only issue I could see that's pertinent is letting consumers purchase his songs individually through iTunes instead of the whole album, and if that wasn't defined then Eminem should have approached his label long ago to renogotiate that part of the contract.

If the contract doesn't state anything about downloadable music, or anything else besides physical media, there's no reason they should have to renegotiate it. They never signed a contract to allow it. It would be universal who's in violation in terms of selling product outside of its scope.

In comparison, these same issues have been raised in many other medium. Freelance writers have sued magazine and newspaper publishers for using their content beyond the original magazine, be it posting it on the web to including it with compilation CDs. Authors have sued book publishers over selling digital versions of their books.

It is amazing how many people are spewing c*** towards Eminem because he's fighting for his rights, while also complaining about how the labels have stolen rights and money from artists for years. Man, you'd think people here would be rooting for Eminem and many other artists to start suing, to help bring down the label system as soon as possible.