Eminem – born Marshall Mathers III – is once again suing Apple for alleged misdemeanors and ‘multi-million dollar’ transgressions. Apple, Mathers claims, has allowed unauthorized downloads of his tracks to users’ iPods.Eminem has attacked Apple in the past, when he was incensed by its ‘unauthorized use of his music’ on a TV commercial. No stranger to controversy and, arguably, to getting free publicity, Eminem and his advisors are obviously getting comfortable with the inside of the court room.

A reader on the p2pnet website expressed his doubt as to the authenticity of what might be considered a ’stunt’: “My guess is it’s another publicity stunt”. Possibly, though the thought of someone in the music industry suing someone who allows downloads of his tracks is not alien to P2P file sharers; admittedly Apple is not usually the one taking the brunt of the action, though.

A related issue, California entertainment lawyer Owen Sloane states, is “how the 60.9 cents the recording label has left after it pays the music publisher should be divided between the recording label and the artist”.

The problem, Sloane goes on to tells us, is how the labels treat the downloads:

“If downloads are treated as licensing agreements, the 60.9 cents would be split equally… But if a download is treated as a sale, which is typical, the artist only gets a royalty, or a much smaller share of the 60.9 cents.”

It’s interesting to see even big companies ‘playing the game’ with their artists when it comes to music downloads – more two faced amoral dealings on their behalf, perhaps.

It’s possible that, if done correctly, using this to lower prices for customers then it could result in more sales overall, netting the labels more cash in the long run. The labels don’t see it this way, however, since all downloads seem to be instantly packed into the ‘bad and evil’ wagon.

Neither side will likely let this go quietly. Keep your eyes peeled!

 Enjoyed this? Subscribe to the feed.