Rolling Stones Take on the Beatles-Fuego Suit

Here.

Of note is the following: "The lawsuit states that Fuego does not have permission to sell the fifteen-song performance because at the time of the recording the Beatles had already entered into an exclusive contract with EMI prohibiting the third party recordings of their concerts." (Emphasis added.)

Query - is Rolling Stone's analysis flawed? Or do they merely need to clarify?

The EMI-Beatles contract would likely have said something like "we (EMI) have the exclusive right to exploit your sound-recordings, which are really OUR sound recordings because any recording you make -- live, or in the studio -- you assign the copyright to us and/or is a work made for hire".

So, Fuego didn't have permission to sell the performance because EMI had the right to record and exploit Beatles' live performances. That the agreement prohibited third party recordings merely goes to the fact that Fuego did not get permission to record and/or exploit the concerts from EMI. Even if the Beatles had not already entered into a recording agreement with EMI, there would still need to be authorization from someone (e.g., the Beatles). Thus, notwithstanding the contracts relevance, isn't its existence at the time of the recording dispositive as to standing -- who is the proper plaintiff -- rather than to the issue of copyright liability?

CBS wants Last.fm to be First on Your Dial

CBS is adding on-demand, full-track streaming to its music social-networking site Last.fm. Free on-demands streams will be limited to three times per track, and cannot be downloaded to a portable player (e.g., an iPod).

Forbes notes that this is a "sign of the recording industry's growing interest in free, advertising-supported access to music". Yet, Last.fm plans to ultimately offer users a chance to purchase a monthly subscription allowing them to listen to songs as many times as they want.

Rolling Stone notes that the Last.fm deal with major record labels is heating up "the arms race" between Amazon and Apple iTunes.

One Way Or Another

Blondie, and her label EMI Music NA (Chrysalis) sued in New York Supreme court for alleged breach of contract and tortious interference arising from a 1979 agreement between plaintiff and defendnats. Allegedly, Blondie misinterpreted the agreement and are not seeking to renegotiate and "extort concessions" from plaintiff.

OTCS' question is: WHO IS PLAINTIFF PETER LEEDS?

According to a 1979 article in Rolling Stone, Leeds was Blondie's manager...but things must have soured. The article continues: "They are now engaged in the legal process of dissolving their relationship..." So what went wrong? Leeds' own claim to fame - Under his tutelage with Blondie, "When in the history of rock & roll music did somebody lay down $500,000 to buy the recording rights to a group that had sold fourteen records?"

And what is going on today, in 2007?

[Peter Leeds v. Deborah Harry; Christopher Stein; James Mollica; Clement Bozewski; EMI Music North America. Filed 12/4/2007 07-603978 ]