As long as Camara is willing to continue to push for this cause, it may pan out very well for him, and be the start of a political career (who knows, maybe there can be such a thing as a good lawyer and a good politician — we’ll see about that one .

I’d personally love to see either outcome based on your “work for hire” analysis. Too long have we seen abusive practices by the recording industry that have lead to a trail of poor, starving people who have facilitated the best times of our lives – while the stiffs in suits get rich off of others’ labor. As a former webcaster, I see the artists owning their works being the ideal, but I’m sure many would be happy with just getting a fair shake at the profits they helped create (and frankly, web radio can fight its own fights, if the second outcome is what happens). We’ll see; it may be too ambitious to fall within the scope of this trial, but the fact that it’s being addressed at all is substantial progress.

This model is fundamental to the entire industry, and is the main reason why virtual no musicians are able to generate sufficient revenue from sales royalties and are therefore forced to depend upon income from live performances and touring. While widely regarded as abusive, this business model has survived both because most musicians are legally unsophisticated when offered their dream of signing with a label, and also because the supply of musicians willing to indenture themselves in this way far exceeds the demand.

What is being called into question here under the guise of the copyright statute is whether the registration in the name of the label as a “work for hire” contradicts the basic legal fiction that recording artists are independent contractors, and it is, in turn, this legal fiction that underlies the whole business model of the industry. Essentially, the argument is being made that the labels cannot have it both ways: if the artists are employees for purposes of copyright, then they are also employees for purposes of compensation; if they are independent contractors for purposes of compensation, then they are also independent contractors for purposes of copyright and therefore are not creating “work for hire.”

This is a major bind for the industry, and I don’t think the courts will let them out of it so easily. It’s a brilliant legal strategy.