Music news headlines are everywhere these days. While musicians, service providers, and industry giants battle over Napster, there is another industry-changing war being waged. The battle lines have been drawn, and Courtney Love has declared a call to arms for musicians signed to major labels, and hopes to bring information to the public to dispel the myth of the "rock star rolling in money" concept. Much more than this, however, Love's countersuit against Vivendi Universal is an aggressive and compelling David vs. Goliath battle. At first glance, the suit may seem like a disgruntled and spoiled rock star is greedily going after money. But looking at the facts, the very serious approach Love has taken, and her fearless nature to take this case "all the way to the Supreme Court" if necessary, the outcome of this trial could very well shake the shifty foundation that the Big Five music companies have relied upon for decades. Courtney Love is not the first artist to attempt to take on a label in this manner. What is different about this particular battle, is that this case WILL go to trial. Oftentimes, labels will do their damndest to soothe a disgruntled artist. They will renegotiate contracts, offer up enormous advances, and settle out of court if they can. Time will tell whether or not the industry will go after Love in this manner. Just as time will tell whether or not Courtney Love can withstand the backlash. What is truly remarkable about Love, however, is her dedication to the integrity of artists' rights. And unlike other artists who have attempted to take on the giants, Love has the financial wherewithal to back up her convictions. If the public has learned anything about Love, it must be that her stubborn, focused, and fearless nature could just be the remedy to fighting for artistic freedom. So, what is the countersuit about? Courtney Love was originally slapped with a lawsuit in early 2000 by Universal citing breach of contract. In December 1999, Love, along with her band members in Hole, had released only two of a five-album deal when Love announced that she would leave the label. And, at that time, Love rejected a settlement offer after notifying Interscope (an arm of the Universal conglomerate) of her intention to cease recording for their company. In response to this lawsuit, filed in 2000 by Vivendi Universal, Love has countersued to test the court system and break this contract. The countersuit filed by Love and her attorney, A. Barry Cappello, contains fifteen causes of action in total. But at its core, the suit seeks to expose what Love deems as "unconscionable and unlawful" business practices, including corrupt accounting tactics dealing with issuing royalties, the exclusion of record club sales, and the long-standing tradition that the recording industry employs with regard to contract length. Where this suit gets even stickier is an attack on the validity of contracts bought and sold during the mega-mergers that have occurred in the recording industry within the last decade.

Love's Manifesto - Courtney sounds off on the state of today's sordid and malicious recording industry in an uncensored quasi-essay that provided the basis for her speech at this year's Digital Hollywood in New York. Love does the math, delves into the industry's darkest fissures, exposes the miscreants, and welcomes the future's "radical democratization" through the course of her writing in an effort to dispel the corporate-engineered myths that have long plagued artists. Within, Courtney ponders the Recording Association of America, piracy, new options and equity for artists, tipping/music as a service, and new models for musicians sponsorship

When Courtney Love originally signed into a recording contract, she opted to sign with Geffen Records. Geffen Records has long been considered an "artists label", due to the common knowledge that Geffen artists typically received more development and a more creative climate for artistry. The success the label had fostered with bands such as Sonic Youth and Nirvana were a large factor in Love's agreement to sign with Geffen. Shortly after entering into this contract, however, Geffen was subsequently sold to MCA which then became part of the Tokyo-based Matsushita Electric Industrial Inc. family. After the release of Hole's first album, MCA was sold to Seagram Co., a noted Canadian liquor company. After Seagram's massive purchase of PolyGram, what had been Geffen was then released to the Interscope division of Universal (It should be noted at this point that Love had previously rejected an offer from Interscope back in 1992 upon signing with Geffen). Last year, Seagram was usurped into Vivendi, a French utilities and waste corporation, which brings us current. Geffen, as it was once known, no longer exists. This is one point of the lawsuit that questions the validity of the contract. So certainly, the judgment based on this "Assignment Clause", which allows the company who owns the contract to sell it without an artists consent, will be of particular interest due to the enormous changes made in the business climate and mega-mergers of the industry.

Another cornerstone of the countersuit questions the validity and tests the parameters of California Labor Code 2855, otherwise known as the "De Havilland Law". This law was passed in 1945 in response to a legal battle waged by film star Olivia de Havilland, who fought to free actors from long-term studio contracts. The statute in question retains and protects the right of an entertainer to terminate a contract with an entertainment company after seven years without suffering repercussions or prosecution for future profit losses. In 1987, however, the California Legislature passed an amendment to this statute, at the urging of a major label collective, to grant the labels the right to recover damages from any artist who attempts to breach the contract. (Both the law and amendment can be searched at California's Legislative Info site). This matter of contention has not been previously tested within the context of the music business. Love is challenging the amendment, citing that record companies, along with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), falsely testified regarding development and marketing costs in the original hearing. Additionally, Universal has taken the position that Code 2855 does not apply to recording artists. Which is a curious statement to make, considering that the amendment to this very law, which explicitly applies to the recording industry and was lobbied for by executives of the music business, is the very amendment that makes it possible for them to file a suit to seek damages from Love.

Love's attorney, Cappello, had this previous statement to make regarding Code 2855: ". . . The Section clearly states that artists have the legal right to terminate a contract with a recording company after seven years without repercussions," says Cappello. "Despite this, the recording industry continues to intimidate artists who try to terminate their contracts after seven years by suing them for future damages in the form of lost profits. We're out to prove that this is patently inconsistent with the provisions allowed by state law. When we do, it will shake the very core of the way business is conducted in the music industry, and it will give countless musicians the financial and artistic freedom they do not currently enjoy."

The Big Five, a.k.a. major labels, have standardized industry contracts and operate in a manner that is consistent, legally and financially. With the mergers and increase in business over the past decade, the major labels are able to essentially work as a collective force to control the means by which artists' music is recorded, manufactured, publicized, and distributed to various radio, television, venue and retail outlets. This very sentiment is expressed in the Love suit, citing that the major labels work together to restrain trade and competition from outsiders. This lawsuit also questions the ability of a label to boot artists off of their roster without repercussions or remorse, while maintaining that it is unlawful for artists to leave long-term contracts that could potentially tie them up for the majority of, if not in its entirety, their careers. Hypocrisy? Judge for yourself.

This will be a groundbreaking case for the music community, one which, if successful for Love, means monumental changes in the manner in which artists are treated, not only with respect to their freedom to explore different means of distribution, promotion, and the act of recording their material, but financially.

Cappello told Indie-Music.com "The lawsuit will affect all artists that have signed a standard industry contract as well as any artist seeking to terminate their contract after seven years. It will also affect all artists receiving royalties where their record company is not paying royalties on record club sales."

So what about the royalties? Well, it seems that while most musicians dream of securing a major label deal for financial stability and marketing power, the reality of costs, royalties, and the means an artist has to collect on their catalog can be harsh, frustrating, and often incomplete. Executives at Universal could not be reached for comment, while Interscope refused comment. To clear up the issue, allow me to indulge in a short math lesson.

Example: Love, with her band, Hole, have currently sold somewhere around 4 million albums in the United States market since 1994, which comes out to about $50 million in sales at various retail outlets. Universal collects on about 80% of this (somewhere around $40 million) through the practice of wholesale billing. The royalties collected off of this amount would, as Love has stated, be somewhere around $2 million. In addition, the artist is responsible for paying studio costs, radio promotion, video costs, retail placement, tour support, lawyer and management fees, and then splitting what's left among past and current members. With this in mind, it's evident that the label is collecting a grossly disproportionate amount of money to what their artists are receiving. In other words, it's difficult to fathom that a label is effectively, as they maintain, spending the bulk of that on development of their artists rather than pocketing the money for their own inflated salaries.

But the art of making a deal doesn't stop here. Love's suit also alleges that record club sales are not reported in the total sales, which artist royalties are based from. "Record club sales amount to more than $1 billion annually for record companies," Cappello stated in an earlier interview. "The record clubs pay hundreds of millions of dollars in up-front fees to record companies in order to sell their artists' CDs, but the record companies do not disclose these fees to their artists when calculating royalties. The end result is that artists receive little or no royalties for record club sales while the record companies pocket hundreds of millions of dollars from these relationships."

These are issues that musicians must face as they determine the path of their careers. Just as this case is a benchmark for artists' rights, this suit also serves as a forum for career musicians, independent labels, entertainment lawyers, and music fans to discuss the issues that shape the modern music business. Additionally, this is the opportunity that many music journalists and publicists have been waiting for - or at least allow me to speak for myself - to dispel the glitzy myth that music business executives continue to propel. Sometimes it takes the heart and muscle of the brave to fight for the American dreamers. Courtney Love might just become the martyr for artistic expression, the repair of the music business climate, and the antidote to the poison that has infected this industry for decades. The point is this - artists, like any other professionals, should receive just and fair treatment as protected by the law. Greed is an ugly, ugly monster that has reared its head in the boardrooms for far too long.

We will continue to update this case as it develops. For more news regarding this case, and to find out more about Courtney Love's plans to organize musicians into a collective, or union, log on to www.hole.com and watch the internet news boards. If you believe in the merit of this lawsuit, show your support and be heard.