It’s a.) good to hear from you — been a long time, and b.) great to hear your take on things. As you know, none of us are lawyers (except for Matt, but he’s more the Michael Richards in the Jeff Daniels/Michael Richards vehicle “Trial & Error” type).

Thanks for the layman’s terms — as we’re all laymen here. I hope you’ll chime in whenever we talk celebs and legality, as most all we know is what we’ve learned from the Law & Order series. And you can be our Sam Waterston.

C.

While the labels have made boobs of themselves for chasing after individual file sharers, what’s happening with Ellen is perhaps the most legitimate of their legal battles. Consider this: Over the last 8-10 years, pundits have been screaming that charging for recorded music is a thing of the past. While I wholly disagree (I like records), the argument is that labels should rely more on alternative forms of revenue for their masters.

“Sync” or master use licenses in film/TV are by no means big money makers, but they are a channel of income nonetheless. Moreover, these licenses are issued almost automatically, using simple, 0ne-page forms. In-house licensing departments crank these out all day and I’ve never heard of a legitimate television show systematically skirting the licenses, especially when the relative cost to the show is so low.

Think of it another way: How much is Ellen’s show making in advertising revenue? Butt-tons. Why? (1) Because she’s funny; (2) Because her humor-and a lot of the allure of her show- revolves around the boogie. If you took the music away from her show and she were forced to boogie to silence, how significantly would it impact its profitability?

I’d also caution people against running to the defense of the Ellen show – it’s owned by a major corporation, which also happens to have a recorded music division. While we all can have sympathy for the poor schmuck who’s sharing his Vanilla Ice on Pirate Bay, TV show producers know better. For them to so blatantly shun the law ain’t a good thing.