Merlin threatens to do to MySpace what Merlin did to Morgana

Merlin, the group which negotiates rights deals on behalf of thousands of small and medium-sized labels, is accusing MySpace of using songs to which it has no right.

Merlin's deal with MySpace expired about a year ago, and yet, oddly, over 100 of its labels have still got their music being used by the site. The New York Times reports that MySpace is blaming its members:

Neda Azarfar, a spokeswoman for Myspace, said the company had decided not to renew its contract with Merlin, and that if songs from its member labels were still on the site, “they were likely uploaded by users” and would be removed if requested by the label.

Really? MySpace "users" did it? Why not blame something more likely to actually exist, like "a unicorn did it"?

But if we accept that Azarfar is guessing correctly - and wouldn't you have checked, rather than guessing, if it had been you? - isn't this a pretty terrible line for MySpace to be putting out to the music industry partners it desperately needs to court?

MySpace: a place where people are sticking any old copyright-breeching material online, and we don't really keep an eye on what they're doing.

Now, remind me what the RIAA usually says about such business plans.

Last FM pays out - but not everyone's happy

Last.FM has started to pay artists directly for music listened to through its website.

Good news, huh?

Perhaps. But not everyone is thrilled. Merlin, one of the independent label umbrella groups, has issued a grumpy statement:

“The Program announced today does not appear to offer any compensation for any past illegal use of repertoire. It is unclear to us whether or not the terms and conditions of the Program are intended to prevent master owners pursuing such compensation.

· “As you will be aware, we have for the last few months been negotiating with Last.fm regarding a non exclusive blanket licence and a settlement agreement on behalf of Merlin members. Unfortunately, these negotiations have stalled
- in particular due to Last.fm’s unwillingness to properly address its illegal infringing activity.

· “Several provisions of the licence terms and conditions of the Program appear ambiguous and open to legal interpretation. We note that this would tend to lead to uncertainty as to the “true” meaning of the licence. The licence points
out that if you are unsure about any of it “YOU ARE ADVISED TO OBTAIN INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE” - we would endorse that view.”

So, erm, Merlin is suggesting that if you're a label, you should, um, do exactly as Last.FM suggests you do. We'd love to see Merlin point to a legal document that isn't "open to legal interpretation", by the way.

Merlin attempts to bring major-style cartel power to the indie sector; by suggesting that you spurn jam today in the hope of jam yesterday, it's certainly showing an RIAA-like attitude to the digital market.