Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Protecting Record Producer's Interest In Music-Royalty Audit Scenarios
An unfortunate fact in the recording industry is that successful records result in audits by royalty participants. This is partly due to the entrenched distrust that artists have for record companies and partly to simple prudent business practices. If an artist sells hundreds of thousands or millions of units around the world, it would be the rare company that could move that many pieces of product without making a mistake. Sometimes the mistakes are just mistakes, and sometimes an audit holds up a mirror that reveals what happens under the record company hood – warts and all. And the “all” category can be very interesting.
An audit is usually conducted by an accountant to verify the books and records of the record company that back up accounting statements. From the record company's point of view, audits are a necessary evil. At major labels, the administrative cost associated with an audit is usually much more burdensome than dealing with any subsequent payments generated by the audit itself. In fact, fiscally sound record companies will reserve funds on the contingent-liability side of their financials to deal with audits that they know are in progress or are likely to occur. This reserve includes an unsegregated amount to cover artist, producer, mixer and remixer royalty payments.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.