Slashdot Mirror
EMI Caught Offering Illegal Downloads
Hypocricy, LLC writes "While the RIAA is swift to punish any person caught offering illegal downloads, they're not very swift with outrage when a member company like EMI offers illegal downloads. Not only did the band King Crimson's contract never allow digital distribution to begin with, but band member Robert Fripp claims that EMI offered their music for sale even after their contract ended entirely."
If the MAFIAA actually went after this, they would actually get some respect from me. Not much, but some.
Come on, do it, or we will use it in our defenses!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It's not illegal if a corporation is doing it. Or The President (same thing). Or the CIA. Or if the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Defense say it's OK.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Contrary to common practice, KC owns the copyrights to their work.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan
Commercial piracy?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
this is "official piracy" there is no DMCA, there is no "thousands of dollars lost per song", etc, etc
Record companies do this ALL THE TIME.
Thay will most likely get a slap in the wrist and carry on with their criminal activies as usual.
how long until
One writer I know got seriously pissed when her publisher's parent company gave google permission to include her entire book in google books. No, they didn't have the rights required to do that. Did they care? Not really, no.
some Crow's Tongue in Aspic.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
you are assuming the message of the RIAA is "don't trade digital music because it doesn't abide by good ethical or legal standards or common business sense"
you are giving the RIAA way too much credit if you think that thought ever motivated them
the RIAA's message has really always been "do whatever the hell we tell you to do because we have more lawyers than you"
with such a realization, you can come to understand the RIAA is operating in perfect consistency, without any hypocrisy about its behavior at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The GVU (The German Federation against Copyright Theft) actively used and supported illegal Filesharing by setting up their own servers from which users could download copyrighted stuff. Of course they didn't bother asking the copyright owner if this was ok, they just did it, until Heise.de revealed the story (German Site) and the Office of Public Prosecutor came...
would be happy with the (apparent?) hypocrisy of EMI:
Don't judge a book by the cover
Unless you cover just another
And blind acceptance is a sign
Of stupid fools who stand in line
Like
E.m.i
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
If they can't find a way out of it, they should be liable for the exact same amounts they try to charge regular people, only more, because they profited directly from the sale.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
It appears one of the corporate variety is using his mod points to grind his axe. Don't worry, little troll, others will come along and reverse your abuse of the moderation system.
No, this goes far beyond "exact same penalties".
Maybe someone can summon the Friendly Neighborhood New York Lawyer for his take.
If this can stick, I want to see the sub-companies of the RIAA absolutely crushed by this and the other not-yet-found examples.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The way the music industry is set up right now, the big 4 companies screw the label execs, who screw the label talent managers, who screw the band managers, who screw the musicians. (His career so far has been moving slowly up the chain, so that he's now responsible for more screwing people over than being screwed. Also, he's honest enough that when he was managing a band he wasn't simply taking the money and telling drunk band members they'd spent it all on drugs.)
The fact that EMI assumed that King Crimson had agreed to the one-sided contracts that they have for most everyone else is a clear indication of how screwed up the industry is.
I am officially gone from
I fail to see what this has to do with the RIAA
What does the last A stand for again?
Ok, $9250 times....add the six...carry the four. Wow, that's a lot of money. Well, should be a lot of money they should be fined...I doubt it will happen.
I can't stand those useless fools (EMI)
Hey, I give EMI a little more leeway than the others. EMI is the one that has been speaking about having to change their business model, and is the one offering DRM-free music on iTunes, etc. There were a couple more recent factoids that were slashdotted that showed they were different than the rest of the RIAA.
So try to hate EMI a little less than the rest. Thanks.
You might want to check this link. Unless, of course, you know of another company that goes by the name of "EMI Records."
I don't care why you're posting AC
Will be strictly followed in this case, and EMI will pay at least $10K for each count of offering a song for download, that is a visit to their website when the user had an opportunity to search and buy songs.
If the simple act of making files available for download constitutes sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict against the common man, it should be more than enough to rip EMI a new arsehole.
you might want to do a google on King Crimson
You simply don't understand. Only We can own music. You can create it, and we'll pay you a pittance, but We actually own it. We own the whole Concept of music.
We used to own you as well, but some troublemakers and something about a fracas in 1860 changed too much of that. Oh, for the good old days.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But thanks to Mr Fripp for restating it. Back in his day, people could record the odd bit of music they liked from radio/LP onto tape, and if they *really* liked it, and had a bit of cash, you would go out and buy the LPs - which many of us did, and the record companies & artists made cash. The record companies did not go around with lawyers beating up on Joe Public, because they wanted Joe to keep liking both the labels & the artists, and keep buying the LPs. (I did buy some Fripp LPs).
By the way, whilst not wanting to turn this into Digg, Fripp is an awesome guitarist and musician..
"A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it." - Churchill
...there's a vampiric relationship between record labels and artists.
(RIAA) invented the name to catch the bad PR so the evil things they do wouldn't reflect badly on the record labels themselves.
The above statement is complete and utter fiction.
The RIAA was formed in 1952 as a technical consortium to create standards for compatabililty for phonograph recordings such as the RIAA equalization curve.
What they later became is another matter altogether.
RIAA:
Get thy bearings, practice some discipline, or you're in for one more red nightmare. Learn to eat your own cat food, great deceiver, before your coda is a requiem for a fallen angel. We'll let you know if we lament your passing in an epitaph. You may be walking on air now, but soon you'll have only the sheltering sky to protect your easy money, you dinosaur. One big happy family? It is for you, but not for us. If you think the fracture you get when Neal and Jack and me beat you with no warning will leave us sleepless, well, we'll let you know. You should be happy with what you have to be happy with.
King Crimson is still around??
When asked about the incident, and EMI executive reportedly said "what's the big deal? Everybody does it! I mean, if the bands just charged reasonable prices, we wouldn't have to steal their suff, would we? I mean, come on!"
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So EMI and RIAA bad, but the guy is the composer of Vista's sound so he is bad too. Who should i support?... ahhhhgg!!
** head explodes**
Seriously. the RIAA (or mediadefender) generally has hardly any evidence at all when they push their 'claims', and are only accepted, well, probably because they've got expensive tweed jackets to wear (or isn't this britain? well, some silly fabric anyway)
Assuming the same thing would happen when a single band sues for something that could be (argued to be, anyway) a 'mistake' would be well, a mistake.
EMI *might* be forced to make reparations, but that won't cost them more than a few mil at most, and i doubt it'll be even that much.
assuming malicious intent from something as friendly and emotion-free as a 'corporation' would be a pragmatic CiT, after all
or whatever Ass.'s terrortory this was in. Since the rights to the music obviously did not belong to a member (EMI) why should any Ass. get involved. Those rights were the property of indiviudals which no Ass. cares about.
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
KC owns the copyright BUT I'm sure they don't have the distribution rights. Often when a band or solo artist (even big ones like Metallica or Madonna) are under some label, say Sony, EMI, Music for NAtions (RIP), etc, they are giving the distribution rights to those companies, effectively losing the right to publish, sell or market the albums themselves. Yes, they own the copyright, but that's all. And if some band tries to get out that format, the consequences ARE often very bad. Just ask Prince.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
But they'll have to be happy with what they have to be happy with, instead of walking on air. That's just the facts of life. Remember, they're dealing with 21st century schizoid men who talk to the wind here. Let's hope this entire affair is one more red nightmare for the RIAA.
I say the offended party should should make a HUGE example of them. "Making available doesn't constitute piracy" right? EMI is responsible not only for their direct sales (which is a LOT more obvious piracy than P2P and certainly more accountable) but for every conceivable incarnation of copying that may have occured by the purchasers.
A jury trial should be demanded and I want to be on it!
If I can find Iraq on a map, will you stop lumping all Americans together as morons? If I send video of a protest, will you stop lumping us all together as murderers?
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
Strategy? 1) Imagine that you are the target of something that doesn't involve you. 2) Be angry about the fact that you ran in front of your imagined arrow.
Okay. What's your point?
RIAA is the Recording Industry Association of America, so why should they give a hoot about band copyrights. Their job is to defend the rights and further the goals of the recording industry. This is like expecting the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to defend the rights of cows.
Who wrote this article?! A third grader??
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
KC should sue them in court. They should use the same legal practices as the RIAA (no evidence required etc). The suspected value for one tune should be, well, approximately 4 billion dollars. Now, multiply that by the number of times that song could have been downloaded...
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Hey wow this is cool, they even offer a report piracy servicehttp://www.riaa.com/reportpiracy.php. So if anybody finds any KC on a commercial music website they know who tell. Wonder what would happen if they got a couple hundred reports, can the RIAA actually sue it's own board for infringement?
War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, the lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade.- Shelley
And the Nazis made the trains on time.
WOO-HOO!! Go Go Gadget Godwin!
EMI should offer KC $150,000 for each song downloaded. After all, turnabout is fair play.
There's plenty of anti-Americanism on /. His post looked close enough to piss me off. Apologies to the OP for the misunderstanding.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
Imagine saying to a judge, "No, your honor. I didn't distribute those books. I just left them on a table with a sign that says 'Free. Take one.'" Distribution is distribution. "Making available" something that is subsequently downloaded is uploading and it is distribution. There may be some question as to intent (and really, as to whether the defendant was even aware of the act), but that doesn't change the fact of uploading.
These are horrible analogies that have no relation what-so-ever to what is happening with file sharers. A closer analogy is claiming you are not fencing because you do not actually deliver the property; they come pick it up.
I say, go for the max and sue EMI for $1.65 trillion!
"Eligibility for corporate membership in the Recording Industry Association of America, as described in the association's bylaws, is open to legitimate record companies with main offices in the United States that are engaged in the production and sale, under their own brand label, of recordings of performances for home use. Eligibility is not extended to companies that are currently engaged in, have within five years of application been engaged in, or are controlled by any person, firm or corporation which has within 5 years of application been engaged in the unauthorized creation, duplication, sale, importation, or other use of sound recordings in violation of state or federal law."
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members
Well, if the [bad word here] record
s/[bad word here]/Fucking/g
--AC
Edit: Enable javascript 2 and you now have a fucking edit button in slashsdot. Isn't life great!
It doesn't seem to me that the law makes a distinction between "making a download available" and "making a download available for a fee". In fact, profiting from the theft of a copyrighted work seems much more sinister than giving one away.
If EMI is offering to give the entire revenue from online downloads available as restitution for their theft, should not consumers caught up in the Kazaa lawsuits be able to make the same restitution offer?
From what I've seen of the RIAA lawsuits, the targetted tracks seem to be largely inconsequential music - perhaps because the RIAA doesn't want to drag big names into these lawsuits, perhaps because their bigger name clients have the legal power to push for a portion of the lawsuit proceeds, or perhaps because they choose to prosecute music downloads where the transfer of rights to the RIAA is more clearly documented.
I really don't see how anybody gets caught up in those suits, and frankly I don't see why the attorneys involved don't just blow these cases out of the water.
1) MAYBE the IP Address belonged to the user. Say a 90% chance.
2) MAYBE an unauthorized individual downloaded the music. Say a 90% chance.
3) MAYBE the RIAA owns the rights to the music. Again, say a 90% chance.
4) MAYBE the RIAA was right and there was no router involved. Say a 90% chance.
The list of maybes could go on, but even if you just put up for MAYBE's along the way - even 90% maybe's you can interpret that to mean there was a 65% chance of their allegation being true - without bringing out any contrary evidence at all.
Why focus so much on proving negatives when you can just focus on the fact that their stack of assumptions adds up to a bunch of nothing? Instead focus on the fact that their allegations of damages are incorrect - how much of the music allegedly stolen was legitimately sold the year before, the year during, and the year after the alleged theft? Make them legitimately prove they have the rights to the work and therefore the right to sue. Find out about contractual problems between the original author and the music producer. Find out about the contractual problems between the producer and the label. Find out about the contractual problems between the label and the rights management firm.
Focus on the fact that the RIAA has received revenue to this allegation previously (KAZAA settlement). Focus on the fact that the RIAA's stance on theft echoes their concerns about recordable cassettes which turned out to be a bunch of baloney. Focus on the fact that the RIAA is not a legitimate for-profit corporation, but an organization which has been operating with nearly constantl breaches of the law and ethics.
It's very difficult to disprove something that didn't happen. Instead the lawyers should be focusing on everything they can prove that did happen - all of the unethical behavior associated with the RIAA and the labels themselves, and on the absurdity of their allegations and the giant leap of faith that it takes to consider a defendant guilty considering the probabilities and potential for human mistake involved along the way. The fact that they've sued dead people, children, people who don't even own internet connections, and people with zero interest in music should be a good example that when you string so many if's and maybe's together the odds that your end result is a legitimate one are extremely poor.
This is not the first time that EMI has been associated with such deeds - whether by design or accident. The New York Times, Billboard, Digital Music News and South China Morning Post have all reported Beatles digital tracks being sold by an EMI endorsed vendor before. More details here in the article entitled 'Is EMI profiting from Beatles digital piracy?' at http://www.music2dot0.com/archives/8
Add 'buy' and 'download' to the search terms.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Are Sleepless at night over this one.
Here's an interesting aspect of this:
If one were to follow one's moral principles to a T, what should happen to everyone who bought an illegal copy of these songs?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if you end up with stolen goods, the moral thing to do is to turn it into the police so it can be given back to the original owner. Yes, you end up losing over this --- as if the thief stole from you.
Now in this case, since copying is not the same thing as stealing, what is the right thing to do?
Bring it to the police on a USB key?
Email it back to EMI?
Just delete it?
Or just... shrug.. and keep it... because nobody lost anything here.
(Assuming EMI will eventually pay the band for the downloads..)
I feel this just further points out the distinction between theft and copyright infringement.
Okay ... I'm still not getting what this has to do with EMI being an RIAA member.
I repeat myself when I'm distressed.
lameness filter prevents repetition...damn...this is a dangerous place...
Don't apologize, you're first impression of the moron was correct. It was an anti-American slight. And an ignorance, and childish on at that.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
"TROLL? Yes."
there ya go. all fixed for ya.
As much as I think Crimson King should get every bit of cash for EMI's willful copyright violations, I hope EMI manages to get out of it for pennies on the dollar. Not because they deserve to get off, not because CK doesn't deserve the money, but so the next time the RIAA gets to trial and asks for $150,000 for each download, the defendant can enter EMI's payment scheme into evidence.
"Look, your honor, when the shoe is on the other foot, each download was worth three cents and there was no price for 'continuously making available.' Since this is what they say music is worth, we are offering 78 cents for these 26 songs."
Unfortunately, we don't have the law whereby the winner of a suit has to pay for the court costs for everything after a settlement was offered that equals or exceeds the judgment.
I'm shocked - no Septics asking for a translation yet. We must be learnin' 'em.
It's "couldn't care less", not "could care less". What the fuck does it take to get you stupid cunts to use the correct expression?
Goddamn fucking dildo-brains. Jesus fucking christ.