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."
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.
I don't think that you understand. The RIAA isn't a seperate organization from companies like EMI and Sony Music. The RIAA is the big record labels. They invented the name to catch the bad PR so the evil things they do wouldn't reflect badly on the record labels themselves.
Technoli
The RIAA is the big record labels. They invented the name to catch the bad PR so the evil things they do wouldn't reflect badly on the record labels themselves.
Evil things like certifying gold and platinum record sales, and standardizing pre- and post-emphasis equalization formulas so that an LP pressed by any label will sound correct when played back on any turntable manufacturer's device?
You need to brush up on your RIAA history, man.
The RIAA has never gone after anybody, they just like it when people think they do, especially when news companies do. News companies usually aren't stupid and don't get it wrong like that. Slashdot does though. Even when the linked articles mention which specific corporation is ACTUALLY SUING, the /. summary and title all magically replace EMI, Universal, Sony, or whichever other company with "RIAA SUES", which is a complete lie. So the real reason the RIAA won't go after EMI is because the RIAA doesn't go after anybody, ever. Plus, beyond that, King Crimson isn't a member of the RIAA, and they haven't signed an agreement with the RIAA allowing the RIAA to sue in their stead. You'll note that the BSA and the MPAA won't go after EMI for this, either, because they have no legal standing to do so, being as how it is not their copyright.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
(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.
Allow me to briefly explain to you how the laws regarding awarding of damages for willful copyright infringement work.
Infringement by an individual: $150,000 per infringement
Infringement by a corporation: $750 per infringement
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
Sorry, the GP is correct.
He was correcting an earlier post claiming that the RIAA named themselves thusly to avoid bad press, presumably from lawsuits. The GP was explaining that for most of the RIAA's existence, it's been responsible for rather mundane things like certifying gold and platinum record sales and publishing the equalization standards. Ever seen one of those gold records framed in a black shadow box? It has a big "RIAA" label on it. Remember the "RIAA equalization curve" term from your analog hi-fi days? The very same RIAA.
You appear to be very concerned with accounting chicanery on behalf of the record companies -- as well you should be, particularly if you are a signed artist. But I am not sure how it is germaine. And your "puhleez" and your hostile tone seem misguided here.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
"Contrary to common practice, KC owns the copyrights to their work."
It's more common than you might think. Plenty of musicians own the publishing and performance rights to their work. If they don't, the rights are often owned by a management company that's not connected to a label.
The interesting thing is that this difference between distribution rights and publishing rights was a major hitch in online music sales getting off of the ground. Record companies couldn't simply put legacy stuff up for sale without breaking the law (as we apparently see in this EMI case); they had to get permission from the singer and/or songwriter or their agent or heirs. As recently as a couple of years ago it was common to find eight of ten tracks of a CD available for download; the other two were held up because, say, the lyricist for that song wouldn't give permission.
A common reaction among P2P users at the time was "Well, if the [bad word here] record company won't make the music available for legal download, they deserve what they get and I'll exercise my God-given right to have the entire Turtles catalog for free." But ironically enough, it was often the [bad word here] artist who was holding things up.
Nowadays, virtually all new recording contracts include digital distribution clauses. But as EMI has found out the hard way, there are still a few holdouts.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Lest somebody take you at face value, you're just being cynical -- the statute does not differentiate. A corporation can also be found liable for $150,000 per infringement and an individual can be found liable for $750.
Yeah. It was a joke (though sometimes it sure seems like the truth), although it hitting "5 informative" so fast ended up being a joke on me. :P If I understand correctly (IANAL), $750 is the minimum and $150,000 is the maximum for willful infringement.
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
This is beyond P2P sharing. This is commercial copyright infringement, which is a criminal offence. For those too lazy to click, in the "Criminal offences" section it says (emphasis added by me):
According to the article, EMI was informed that they were distributing the music without authorization, yet they continued. At that point they were knowingly disributing unauthorized copies on the internet for a profit. Let's not waste time in civil court, this should be tried as the criminal offence that it is.