Hole's outspoken, unflinching lead singer is now ready for the ultimate Celebrity Deathmatch: Love has filed a blistering cross-complaint against Universal Music Group, seeking to break her contract with the megalabel and expose what she claims is a corrupt system that enslaves artists and cheats them out of royalties.

To be exact, Love tells the Los Angeles Times that the major labels' business tactics are "unconscionable and unlawful." And she's embarking on a potentially landmark legal fight to give her music-making colleagues more freedom.

In a hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court Wednesday, Love won the right to file her countersuit against Universal, which sued her and bandmate Eric Erlandson last January seeking damages for five undelivered albums (which she refuses to record for the company).

Vivendi Universal executives are not commenting on Love's suit. But in court papers, the company described the complaint as a "meritless, inflammatory diatribe" designed to "attract media attention."

And knowing Love, there oughta be plenty of attention.

"I could end up being the music industry's worst nightmare: a smart gal with a fat bank account who is unafraid to go down in flames fighting for a principle," Love, never one to get trapped in boring legalese, tells the Times. "Look, you show a music industry contract to any attorney in any other business, and their jaw just hits the floor. Somebody has to put a stop to this crap.

"I've been evangelized," she says. "I'm ready to take this thing all the way to the Supreme Court."

According to some music lawyers, the singer-actress, and widow of grunge hero Kurt Cobain, may just have a case.

"It's an issue frequently discussed in the music business," says Howard King, an attorney who represents artists like Metallica and Dr. Dre. "The lawsuit has been filed many times...We brought one on behalf of [rock group] 311 three months ago. Metallica brought one six or seven years ago. But up until now, they've always been resolved, either by modifying the band's agreement or letting the band go."

Love's complaint contends Universal Music Group hid profits, defrauded the band out of royalties and held the band to an unrealistic contract that would require seven albums over seven years. Love, however, claims record labels make that requirement impossible--what with artists pressured into doing long-term tours, constant promotional work and music videos.

The 36-year-old singer also claims the band's relationship with its label, Geffen Records, changed dramatically when Geffen was folded into Universal Music Group in 1995. Hole is currently under Universal's Interscope label (which, incidentally, Love says her band initially turned down for a deal back in the early '90s).

In her legal crusade, Love is hoping to invoke the so-called "De Havilland Law," a 1945 state statute created after actress Olivia de Havilland won a legal battle helping to free actors from long-term movie studio contracts. But the law--which prevents artists from being tied to any company for seven years--specifically excluded musicians, after record labels argued that musicians required a longer-term investment.

"The end result could rock the socks off the music industry," says A. Barry Cappello, a Santa Barbara-based trial lawyer representing Love. "Movie performers don't have the same hammer being held over their heads. They can get out of their contracts under the seven-year rule. I think Courtney wants to do something good for recording artists, and this is her way of doing it."

Love's suit also condemns the Recording Industry Association of America for "quashing" musicians' attempts to form unions and protect their rights. The RIAA has refused to comment on Love's lawsuit. (But for Love and those artists who support her, it has seemed especially ironic to watch the RIAA speak out for artists' rights in its legal battles against song-swapping service Napster.)

If Love truly is willing to take her case all the way to the Supreme Court, the industry will be watching closely.

"These [lawsuits] always involve a successful group wanting freedom from their label," says King. "And on the other side, they always involve the label wanting to hold onto the group saying, 'We made this huge investment.'