Here’s a story today about a California company that was re-recording Beatles and Radiohead songs while inserting “psycho-acoustic simulation” in the background. Apparently the defendants thought that their additions rose to the level of original authorship. The District Court found the defense to be “obscure and undefined pseudo-scientific language (that) appears to be a long-winded way of describing ‘sampling.'”
Read the full story here: Web site to pay $950,000 for Beatles piracy – South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com.
From BBC News.
Kurt Cobain’s widow Courtney Love has settled a dispute with a management company over the proceeds from a sale of rights to her late husband’s songs.London and Co sued Love for $1m (£645,000) two years ago, claiming she owed them money after selling publishing rights to Nirvana’s music.The firm claimed the singer did not share earnings from the sale, which raised almost $20m (£12.9m).
Read more via BBC News – Courtney Love settles over Nirvana songs.
From the Telegraph UK
The band was apparently successful over a challenge on the level of royalties paid by the record company but this part of the judgment was held in secret.
Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt accepted arguments by the group that EMI was bound by a contract forbidding it to sell its records other than as complete albums without written consent.
READ THE Pink Floyd win High Court battle to bar EMI selling single downloads from albums – Telegraph.
From OUT-LAW News, 11/03/2010
A deal was governed by a contract despite the two companies involved not actually signing and exchanging copies of it, the Supreme Court has ruled. The contract is in effect because the firms behaved as if it was, it said. Molkerei Alois Müller Müller hired RTS Flexible Systems to provide and install a series of packaging machines in a deal worth about £1.7 million.
The two companies negotiated a complex contract whose schedules covered issues such as limits of liability, testing, prices and payment structures and other details of the deal.The companies agreed that work should begin based only on an outline deal covered by a letter of intent. When that ran out negotiations on the full contract proceeded, concluding on 5th July 2005 with some further amendments to the delivery timetable on 25th August.
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE: Contract was in place because companies behaved as if it was, says Supreme Court | Pinsent Masons LLP.