Copyright Troubles For Sony

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by kdawson on Monday September 7, 2009 @09:19PM from the billion-here-billion-there dept.

ljaszcza writes "Daily Tech brings us a story about Sony's run-in with the Mexican police. (Billboard picked up the story as well.) It seems that they raided Sony's offices and seized 6,397 music CDs after a protest from the artist, Alejandro Fernandez. Fernandez had signed a seven-album deal with Sony Music; he completed that commitment and then left for Universal. During the time with Sony, he recorded other songs that did not make it into the agreed-upon seven albums. Sony Music took it upon themselves to collect that material and release it as an eighth album. Fernandez claims that he fulfilled his contract with Sony, and residual material belongs to him. Hmm. Precedent from the Jammie Thomas infringement and distribution case gives us $80K per song. Sony vs. Joel Tenenbaum gives $22.5K per song. So 6,397 CDs at an average of 8 songs/CD is 51,176 infringing songs, with (IMHO) intent to distribute. The damages to Fernandez should be $1,151,460,000 using the Tenenbaum precedent or $4,094,080,000 using the Thomas precedent. Seems very straightforward to me."

276 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

If only... by meerling · 2009-09-07 21:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

You just know they'll find some way to weasel out of it...
1. Re:If only... by sopssa · 2009-09-07 21:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Why does the summary talk about "Precedent from the Jammie Thomas" when this case is in Mexico, while Jammie Thomas was in USA? Precedent's in USA aren't precedents everywhere (how many times this shit has to be told to americans?) and most of other countries actually have sane amount of compensations in copyright infringement cases, unlike USA.
2. Re:If only... by Jurily · 2009-09-07 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Like "US law doesn't apply in Mexico"? Yeah, those sneaky bastards always think of something.
3. Re:If only... by Hurricane78 · 2009-09-07 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well guess who's using their way then, the next time? ^^
  They can only lose. The only winning move, is to declare bankruptcy. (Winning for *us*, but *shhhh*! O:-)
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
4. Re:If only... by rolfwind · 2009-09-07 22:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why does the summary talk about "Precedent from the Jammie Thomas" when this case is in Mexico, while Jammie Thomas was in USA? Precedent's in USA aren't precedents everywhere (how many times this shit has to be told to americans?) and most of other countries actually have sane amount of compensations in copyright infringement cases, unlike USA.
  RIAA sister organizations around the world actually point to USA and screams "Be more like them!" when trying to roughshod legislation through... so it only seems fair.
5. Re:If only... by stiggle · 2009-09-07 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  But Americans think that US law applies everywhere in the world.....
6. Re:If only... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-09-07 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Fair?
  
  You must be naive, here.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
7. Re:If only... by Another,+completely · 2009-09-07 22:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think the point was that Sony corp. made an official public statement by about what they feel a stolen song is worth, and filed it in court. Even if the case verdict isn't a legal precedent, surely the researched market analysis filed in a foreign court can still be cited as a fair assessment that is endorsed by Sony. (Ok, IANAL, and the case in the U.S.A. was probably some legally-independent entity, completely separate from the Sony-owned company in this case, but it still has to count for something.)
8. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 22:49 · Score: 0
  
  Holy fuck! This feels so good I just came in my pants! Now if only a plane had crashed into the building the circle would have been completed. Sony Music my ass, try Sony Mafia. Serves you right you two cent whores.
9. Re:If only... by siloko · 2009-09-07 22:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  RIAA sister organizations around the world actually point to USA and screams "Be more like them!"
  They can scream all they like they are still only a lobby group and as yet don't have the power to pass legislation in there home countries so the GP is right in pointing out the difference between US law and that in other countries. Suffice to say this may change in due course when Corporatism becomes so embedded globally that industry pressure groups are the dudes signing off on legislation . . . ho hum . . .
10. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  They don't know there is a place outside of the USA, called rest of the world.
11. Re:If only... by jcr · 2009-09-07 23:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'd like to see US law applied in the USA.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
12. Re:If only... by jcr · 2009-09-07 23:26 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Hey, get off the fence, will you? How do you really feel?
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
13. Re:If only... by digitalunity · 2009-09-07 23:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I would really like to see what Sony would tell the Mexican court they feel copyright infringement should be worth. I doubt it will ever get that far though.
  I'm sure Sony's view on infringement damages is wildy different when they are the defendants.
  
  --
  You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
14. Re:If only... by ImOnlySleeping · 2009-09-07 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Courts to look to other countries courts for guidance from time to time.
  
  --
  Everybody seems to think I'm lazy I don't mind, I think they're crazy
15. Re:If only... by pdabbadabba · 2009-09-07 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, only the stupid ones.
  
  --
  caritj.org
16. Re:If only... by commodore64_love · 2009-09-07 23:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Whatever.
  We all know that Sony will wiggle out of it. Just the same as when the U.S. sued the record-companies for "forming an illegal cartel" and price-fixing CDs from 1990 onward. Although the U.S. could have won that case, the record companies negotiated a deal where they simply returned ~$20 to everyone who asked for a refund. I bet Sony will also weasel a way such that it costs them virtually nothing.
  Corporations have power to make the government decide in their favor. I'm about to drive to JCPenney and demand to know "why did I never receive the 50 dollar mail-in rebate promised when I bought this appliance?" I already know the answer I will receive is "too bad, there's nothing we can do about it," and I'll never see that 50 dollars. Technically that's called illegal advertising of the price (they advertise 150 in the newspaper but I paid 200) and a criminal offense.
  In reality a call to the California AG won't get me anywhere because the AG is bought-and-paid-for by the corporate dollars who put him in office. JCPenney, Sony, et cetera get away with this stuff because THEY own the governments of New York, United States, Mexico, et cetera.
  Sony will weasel its way out just like it always does.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
17. Re:If only... by leuk_he · 2009-09-08 00:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "Sony corp. made an official public statement by about what they feel a stolen song is worth"
  No, they never did that. They weasel out of such a statement. They just point out how much the legislation allows them. If they made such a statement the damange could be substantiated and would be more realistic ( like 6 dollar per number instead of a value thousends times higher)
18. Re:If only... by dimeglio · 2009-09-08 00:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The fact that the police raided Sony is enough to convince me that this will not be like the USA. At least Mexico gives a shit about their artists as individuals. The suit wasn't be a Mexican RIAA but by the artist himself.
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
19. Re:If only... by cthulu_mt · 2009-09-08 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you've never dealt with Mexican police then.
  
  This will all be sorted out once Sony gives the right bribe to the right jeffe.
  
  --
  Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
20. Re:If only... by Skrynesaver · 2009-09-08 00:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  There is, we even have our own flag, it's just like yours, but on fire (Apologies to Rob Newman)
  
  --
  "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
21. Re:If only... by 0100010001010011 · 2009-09-08 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you didn't get your rebate, you're doing it wrong. I have NEVER not gotten a rebate. There have been a few that didn't come through right so I had to call or resend copies.
  Keep copies of everything.
  Set an alarm on Google calendar for when the rebate should be back.
  Call the number or now days check the website to see where yours is.
  If you feel like that's too much work for $50, that's your decision.
22. Re:If only... by Khenke · 2009-09-08 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  If Sony weasel out of this in court they will loose big time in the eyes of artists.
  Hopefully now artists will see who the real pirates are, the big nasty corporation instead of fans that download a song to see if it is worth the money to buy the album.
  (Yeah, I know not all pirate-fans buy their music but several studies have shown that they buy more music than people who don't pirate music)
  I think that in the future this will prove to be a turnstone in the RIAA vs pirates/fans story.
23. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Been there, done that, did it - how does it feel to be the dumbest person in the room?
24. Re:If only... by 10bellies · 2009-09-08 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  And do you know where Sony, Universal, Sony Music are located? .
  Sony is based in Japan (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo), so what's your point?
25. Re:If only... by nomadic · 2009-09-08 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  You just know they'll find some way to weasel out of it...
  
  Right, because a company as small and underfunded as Sony could never afford to spend a few million dollars for a problem to go away.
26. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  (how many times this shit has to be told to Americans?)
  There, fixed that for you stupidass foreigners.
27. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  small claims court dude... And you can sue for your time and cost of the court case.
28. Re:If only... by Sponge+Bath · 2009-09-08 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you've never dealt with Mexican police then.
  I'll bet Sony has, that's probably who the music execs buy their blow from. I doubt either party would want to end that business arrangement.
29. Re:If only... by Prefader · 2009-09-08 01:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The artists already know that the record labels are scum. They just think the huge piles of money that get waved around in front of them are more important.
30. Re:If only... by The+Cisco+Kid · 2009-09-08 01:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Fsck that. I *never* consider the 'price after rebate' to be the price. I consider the 'amount of cash I have to hand to the clerk to carry it out of the store' to be the price of an item. Why should I loan some retailer $50 of my money, at 0% interest, and then have to jump through hoops to get it back (including sending original copies of documents (receipt) that if *they* lose or claim they never got, then I no longer have the original to prove I have a valid claim)? If the goddamn price is $150, then you accept my $150, and *you* (retailer) fark around getting the other $50 from the manufacturer. If I have to give you $200 to get it out of the store, then as far as I'm concerned, the price is $200. So "$175" (out the door, no hoop-jumping) is a better price than"$150 ('after $50 rebate')"
31. Re:If only... by nomadic · 2009-09-08 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Why does the summary talk about "Precedent from the Jammie Thomas" when this case is in Mexico, while Jammie Thomas was in USA?
  
  Because most slashdotters aren't very knowledgeable about the law.
32. Re:If only... by MistrX · 2009-09-08 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Now where does this 'anti-American' attitude come from?
  
  Anonymous Coward writes: "I'll assume you don't and you just like spouting your anti-american bullshit because you are a jealous piece of euro trash."
  
  Ah! There it is.
33. Re:If only... by mcgrew · 2009-09-08 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  It is -- if it's YOU ripping off a corporation rather than the other way around. Oh, and if you smoke dope or have the wrong pictures in your PC.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
34. Re:If only... by Twanfox · 2009-09-08 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Also, to note, if you fail to receive your rebate and have copies of all documents you sent in, you can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.
  I accidentally overpaid Comcast once. They got the payment in 2 days, cashed, and I couldn't stop payment realizing it within half a day of it being sent. I had called and called Comcast saying "Refund me, when will it arrive back?" 2 months pass and, while I'm sure the timing is 'coincidental', a day or two after I filed a complaint with the BBB, I both received my refund in the mail and received an email from a Comcast rep asking me how they could be of assistance.
  I've heard other stories of this working as well, so while this is anecdotal evidence, it does seem to be replicated.
35. Re:If only... by MistrX · 2009-09-08 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  "United States Citizens" would actually be more appropriate since Americans refer to inhabitants of the Americas as in the 'continent of America' if I play it by the book.
36. Re:If only... by MikeBabcock · 2009-09-08 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Again, pricing is different in various countries. Unless CDs sell for the same price in Mexico, their precedents in the USA aren't even vaguely related.
  Now that said, I don't know what the law is in Mexico and they should be prosecuted for Copyright violation for statutory damages, value per song notwithstanding.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
37. Re:If only... by smd75 · 2009-09-08 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Because usually if there is no other cases like this for a country, the judges will look at precedent of a case from another country to help them decide the outcome. At least thats how it works in the US and should work for Mexico
  
  --
  Im a troll because I disagree with you.
38. Re:If only... by 644bd346996 · 2009-09-08 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  A precedent is still a precedent even if it's not legally binding.
39. Re:If only... by Opportunist · 2009-09-08 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I bet they again get to "pay" by giving away a few hundred copies of something, or some other "let's print money out of thin air" deal.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
40. Re:If only... by Opportunist · 2009-09-08 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Fair? We're talking copyright here, and you waltz in with some fairy-tale concept...
  Trying to explain the concept of "fair" to a copyright lawyer is like explaining "deadlines" to a programmer. They may understand the theory, but they usually cringe at the idea and think "hell, that may be nice for someone else but it sure can't apply to me!"
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
41. Re:If only... by Opportunist · 2009-09-08 02:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You need a system like ours. Here, we pay for political ads with tax money. While this may seem a bit idiotic (hey, pay to get pestered with ads?), the alternative is politicians selling out to corporations for ad money.
  That, in turn, is tightly regulated here and mostly outright illegal with steep fines and a certain ejection from whatever seat you got elected into.
  Personally, I prefer to buy my politicians myself instead of privatizing that.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
42. Re:If only... by russotto · 2009-09-08 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Trying to explain the concept of "fair" to a copyright lawyer is like explaining "deadlines" to a programmer. They may understand the theory, but they usually cringe at the idea and think "hell, that may be nice for someone else but it sure can't apply to me!"
  Programmers will understand "deadlines" when customers/clients/bosses understand "requirements freeze". And copyright lawyers _understand_ "fair" just fine, but they don't see what's in it for them.
43. Re:If only... by Quothz · 2009-09-08 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Precedent's in USA aren't precedents everywhere
  Well, sometimes they are. Just as American judges can look to foreign rulings when there's little local precedent, foreign judges will often look to see what's been done in America. Foreign precedents aren't generally binding, except in the case of certain treaties, but they may be used. I agree that the summary overstates the case - it's fun to do the math based off American awards but it shouldn't imply that Mexican courts are bound to it - but use of foreign precedents is not, uh, unprecedented. I doubt that applies here, tho', since I'm sure there's been plenty of infringement suits in Mexico over the years.
  Regardless of the issue of precedent, I could totally see a foreign court using Sony's own per-song valuation when awarding damages, regardless of where that valuation was made. It'd be a foolish lawyer who doesn't point to Sony's own litigation when calculating damages, since Sony values its IP so highly. On the flip side, if Sony argues that the songs are nearly worthless, that could likewise be used effectively in American courts against them.
44. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  I'll do this slow for you.
  There are only 2 ways to become and American citizen. 1 is by natural birth, the other by being sworn in and naturalized.
  There is no history of being naturalized.
  It is a requirement to be a US citizen to hold a seat in both the US senate and the Illinois State Senate.
  So two senates failed to vet their members properly for over 10 years and verify citizenship of their members?
45. Re:If only... by mauriceh · 2009-09-08 02:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The answer to your question is very simple:
  The USA is insisting that other nations, to continue to trade with the USA, must comply with US copyright and IP laws.
  As a Canadian, we see this tactic engaged regularly.
  By logical extension, if other nations ( especially ones in the North American Free Trade Association, AKA "NAFTA")
  are to be compliant, then the penalties for breach and theft need to be similar.
  Hence the comparisons to the cases where specific fees per song were calculated.
  I believe the historic term is "Live by the sword, die by the sword"
  See Matthew 26:52
  
  --
  Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
46. Re:If only... by ZygnuX · 2009-09-08 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Redneck detected
47. Re:If only... by GameboyRMH · 2009-09-08 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  I think another part of it is that programming doesn't look like hard work. People typing, sometimes not that quickly, and leaning back in their chairs just thinking looks like being a lazy ass. So PHB sees that and thinks "Well if they'd stop doing that and start typing furiously, ideally while sweating and holding a phone with their shoulder, they could probably get it done twice as fast! Yeah I'm going to use that assumption in setting these deadlines."
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
48. Re:If only... by pete6677 · 2009-09-08 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  This is Mexico. Sony won't have to weasel out of anything. All they'll do is drop a modest bribe on Mexican officials and the case will disappear. No worries at all for Sony.
49. Re:If only... by tixxit · 2009-09-08 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that that $50 rebate is only costing the retailer $30 (for a 60% claim rate). The rebate companies & retailers bank on the fact that some people won't follow through and get them, along with the interest free loan. To them, a $200 price tag looks better then a $220, and if it costs them the same, then all the better.
50. Re:If only... by petermgreen · 2009-09-08 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Suppose you enjoy music so you form/join a band. Noone knows who you are so the only venues you can get to play at are pubs and similar. You may put some samples of your music online and offer copies for sale but few people know you exist so there isn't much income from there either.
  Then suddenly someone comes along offering you a huge advance and enough promotion to let you play big venues. Sure you may not make much (if any) money off the record sales but the package is still very tempting when the alternative is most likely to stay obscure forever.
  I don't see this changing anytime soon.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
51. Re:If only... by Titan1080 · 2009-09-08 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhh... The beauty of fascism; and America does it SO WELL!
52. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the only gave ~$5 IIRC, and in any case it was only to the "first X respondants" -- it was a capped pay out.
53. Re:If only... by dfxm · 2009-09-08 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why does the summary talk about "Precedent from the Jammie Thomas" when this case is in Mexico, while Jammie Thomas was in USA?
  Because the author of the summary is making a joke.
54. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  "Americans" has referred to the colonists and then the citizens of The united States of America for a couple of centuries now. Eurotrash liberals constantly stating otherwise will not change this.
55. Re:If only... by Bigjeff5 · 2009-09-08 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  You don't know what the hell you are talking about.
  The reason copyright is honored internationally is because of the Berne Convention, the UCC Geneva, the UCC Paris, TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. These conventions and treaties dictate how copyright is handled internationally.
  For example, the Berne convention states that a copyright owner in Kazakhstan who's work is infringed in France recieves all the same protection against copyright infringement that a natural born Frenchman would recieve. Legally, in France for the purposes of that particular copyright case he is treated as though he were a Frenchman.
  These agreements were not forced upon the rest of teh world by the US, and in fact not a single one of them originated in the US. The British were signatories of the Berne convention a full 102 years before the US was, the US was falling in line when it finally signed the agreement.
  The US and Mexico are both signatories to all five conventions, Canada only four. But it doesn't mean shit because this is Sony Mexico vs a Mexican, there is nothing international about it. Why the hell would anybody in the US care? The executives at Sony who will be giving a shit are all in Japan. Or did you forget that it is a Japanese company?
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
56. Re:If only... by Bigjeff5 · 2009-09-08 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the US is the only country that matters in America, so we still get to call ourselves "America" and "Americans". Besides, nobody else is doing it, you snooze you lose.
  *WINK*
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
57. Re:If only... by Bigjeff5 · 2009-09-08 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  How would Sony Mexico going bankrupt help anybody but Mexicans? Sure, it would be a sizeable chunk of cash missing from corporate HQ in Japan, but do you really think it will help anybody else?
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
58. Re:If only... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2009-09-08 04:07 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I think the point was that Sony corp. made an official public statement by about what they feel a stolen song is worth, and filed it in court. Even if the case verdict isn't a legal precedent, surely the researched market analysis filed in a foreign court can still be cited as a fair assessment that is endorsed by Sony. (Ok, IANAL, and the case in the U.S.A. was probably some legally-independent entity, completely separate from the Sony-owned company in this case, but it still has to count for something.)
  On a side note, I think it's totally awesome that Sony has given us such a great example of what the difference is between infringement and theft. :D
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
59. Re:If only... by davester666 · 2009-09-08 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, but if you have any kind of sales tax, you wind up paying sales tax on the rebate money...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
60. Re:If only... by HiThere · 2009-09-08 04:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That, of course, makes it quite easy for the parties in power to keep out any new comers.
  Not that the US system makes starting a new party feasible. They just use different techniques.
  It *might* be a trade-off worth making. But lots of parties and Condorcet or Instant-Runoff voting would seem to be a better solution. Also make lying in a campaign speech a criminal offense. (That one's tricky, though. It could so easily be misused. Maybe it isn't worth the danger.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
61. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  in 8 years and you still haven't kicked the talibans ass yet. so shut the fuck off, asshole. the "dumb american" label fits your person just fine.
62. Re:If only... by Attila+Dimedici · 2009-09-08 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that the police raided Sony is enough to convince me that this will not be like the USA. At least Mexico gives a shit about their artists as individuals. The suit wasn't be a Mexican RIAA but by the artist himself.
  All that means is that the police raided Sony rather than contacting them first. I'm sure that Sony could have offered a bigger bribe than the artist (unless of course the artist is backed by one of the drug cartels, in which case, the bribe was only a small part of the incentive).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
63. Re:If only... by Fallen+Kell · 2009-09-08 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad you don't live in New York. At least the AG there would LOVE to get his hands on something like this.
  
  --
  We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
64. Re:If only... by jcr · 2009-09-08 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like requiring the holder of the highest office in the land to prove that he is in fact constitutionally eligible for the job?
  He is a natural-born citizen; his mother was a US citizen when he was born, and that makes him one, too. He was born in Hawaii, but he could have been born on Mars, and he would still be a natural-born citizen of the USA just like John McCain, or myself, or any of the thousands of kids born to American parents overseas every year.
  What I was referring to is our government's routine practice of ignoring the constitution and fighting undeclared wars, promulgating a bogus currency, and funding failed businesses. The birthers are wasting their time on a red herring; there are real issues to contest.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
65. Re:If only... by mschuyler · 2009-09-08 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's not true. His mother was under-age when he was born. IF he actually was born in Kenya, he is NOT a natural born citizen according to the laws in effect at the time. The birth certificate he has released isn't an actual certificate, but is a computer-produced certification that a certificate exists, which in most cases is completely valid. There are some other certificates floating around the purport to prove he was born in Kenya. Some of them have been proven forgeries. Perhaps they all are. I don't know one way or another.
  I am not arguing that Obama is or is not 'natural born' at all. I'm simply stating that your contention that his mother's citizenship is enough to make him so automatically is not true.
  
  --
  How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
66. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  Insecure much?
67. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, it would. And if ALL big media went bankrupt, it'd be awesome news.
68. Re:If only... by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2009-09-08 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  And the rest of the world foolishly believe that all Americans think that US law applies everywhere in the world... so what's your point?
69. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Nigger.
70. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Double nigger.
71. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  The Taliban isn't a country, you fucking retard. If your post is any indicator, you have no business calling anyone dumb.
72. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Jew.
73. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Fsck that. I *never* consider the 'price after rebate' to be the price. I consider the 'amount of cash I have to hand to the clerk to carry it out of the store' to be the price of an item.
  
  Aha, I've spotted an inverse-Turing human being: someone who might get be mistaken for a teletype.
74. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm, maybe because those two particular precedents were some of the largest in history regarding this matter?
  Or maybe, just maybe, it's a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" sort of thing, as in pointing out that since Sony sues people for ridiculous amounts of money for musical "copyright infringement" it would be just desserts to see them get hit with the same penalties they enforce on others?
  Maybe, just maybe, that comment in the summary isn't supposed to mean "legal precedents set in America are precedents around the world" and it's more of a "haha look at Sony getting shot by the same bullets that they love so much."
  But continue ranting about how "stupid Americans think they are the center of the world." I'm sure this post will get modded down while your blame America bullshit will remain "Informative." Throw in some stuff about "corporations" and you are well on your way to a tide of Karma.
75. Re:If only... by Xtifr · 2009-09-08 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  There is no "continent of America". There are two continents, North America and South America, which are collectively referred to as "The Americas". "Americans" can refer to inhabitants of The Americas, but it is most commonly used to refer to citizens of the United States of America, which is, itself, pretty much the only entity ever referred to as "America" with no qualifiers.
76. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  You know it's rather pathetic the Sony hate here, you lot don't know the specifics of the case, yet automatically assume Sony is in the wrong..
77. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  jew-nigger.
78. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  This is now a candlejack thre
79. Re:If only... by JAlexoi · 2009-09-08 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Unless the artist promised a huge cut off the settlement deal or court fine :)
  Corruption works both ways. See Chodorkovsky for example.
80. Re:If only... by cob666 · 2009-09-08 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  I've known several people that were in bands that got signed by major labels. The ALL had pretty big followings before they got signed, I don't really see record companies taking a huge leap of faith signing bands that aren't already popular in their local area.
  
  A couple of bands actually did much worse after they were signed and were eventually dropped after one or two albums.
  
  --
  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
81. Re:If only... by minor_deity · 2009-09-08 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Promises made in exchange on the campain trail should be considered contractual ("Vote for me and I'll do X" seems pretty strait forward).
  
  Say you'll lower taxes and then vote to raise them? See you in court!
82. Re:If only... by snuf23 · 2009-09-08 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  What we do have is copies of his birth recorded in the Honolulu newspaper at the time. If he wasn't born in Hawaii why were those printed? Was it a secret conspiracy started right at his birth to provide proof just in case he grew up to be president?
  
  --
  Sometimes my arms bend back.
83. Re:If only... by FrankieBaby1986 · 2009-09-08 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  Irrelevant, it involves a company who operates in America who was demanded a specific standard of huge amount of damages as if it was based in morals and some kind of inalienable right. It is only fair that they should be held to the same standard.
  
  --
  ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
84. Re:If only... by Lord+Flipper · 2009-09-08 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you, because if having an army of lawyers isn't enough, there's an even money bet that the guy/artist involved has a clause in his contract that gives Sony some discretionary breathing room. Maybe the artist concerned had Sony over a barrel and didn't sign one of the variations of the typical recording contract out there. I seriously doubt it.
  Big record labels are mostly lawyers and accountants. They can "prove" they "lost money" on almost anything, and if even one of this guy's records didn't turn profitable according to Sony ... he's almost certainly left himself open (via advances under terms of the contract) for them to use stuff that was recorded, but not used (at the time, AND, at Sony's discretion), to recoup their "losses."
85. Re:If only... by commodore64_love · 2009-09-09 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  >>>If you didn't get your rebate, you're doing it wrong. I have NEVER not gotten a rebate.
  Me too.
  Until now.
  I don't think the issue is that I didn't do it right, but that rebate companies get paid to find excuses to reject rebates (like you didn't include your phone number, or you use a alternative card like Discove not a Visa or Mastercard). I don't have any idea what I could have done wrong since I filled-in every line on the fucking form, but I do know this - JCPenney still owes me a 50 dollar rebate, and I will get it back even if I have to file a credit card dispute to reverse that $50 charge.
  You can read more about mail-in rebate scams here: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/ftc_compusa.html http://www.consumeraffairs.com/consumerism/rebate_madness01.html http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/rebate_maze.html
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
86. Re:If only... by Opportunist · 2009-09-09 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  You qualify for a refund if you can get about 2% of the votes, afaik (never ran for a public office, so I don't know the details and pitfalls). Of course that means you won't run for president just for kicks (maybe someone stinkin' rich could do it and gamble that he might get to the 2% needed to recover expenses, or to actually be able to make those expenses altogether), but it is certainly no problem to run in a local campaign and climb the ladder from there, as it's often shown in local elections. It's not been done on large scale, I give you that, but it works on a small scale level and the most recent election in my country shows that it does even work on EU levels (where the same 2% turnout to be reimbused was used).
  The US system of "winner takes all" makes new parties unfeasible for other reasons. It's deadlocked in a two party system with no room for fringe parties or special interest parties. And before you dismiss "special interest parties", that's basically what started the Green parties of Europe and they are an important part of the political landscape here today, and by no means any longer a "ecology only" party.
  Personally I prefer our "style". You don't need a lot of dough these days to start a party and get it known. Our national (public as well as private) TV channels run discussion tables almost round the clock before elections and they invite everyone, simply to fill air time. Besides, the (rather heated) discussions between fringe party leaders are a lot more interesting than the same stale phrases regurated by big parties carefully selected not to piss off any possible voters.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
87. Re:If only... by Opportunist · 2009-09-09 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Hard to do. Imagine someone promised 2 years ago based on economy figures that he'll increase jobs by 5%. 2 years ago, this would have been quite feasible. In hindsight, we'll probably lose a two digit figures of jobs. Should he be held accountable for that? Should you be able to sue for such a promise that can't be kept in an economic downturn?
  If you require politicians to be held accountable for their promises, you simply won't hear any. As if you hear any now... But the smear campaigns and the already quite popular spin of "$other_party will do $really_bad_thing, so it's better you vote for us" that doesn't promise anything other than the others are EVEN WORSE (counter question: Why should I choose bad over worse? But I ramble...) will increase and soon be the only thing you'll get to hear.
  When was the last time you really heard a "promise" by a politician? All ours do is slander the opposition and tell you that voting for THEM is voting for doom, so they're the only option. They don't even promise you that anything gets better with them. Or that it doesn't get worse with them. They only promise you that it will be EVEN WORSE if you vote for the others.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
88. Re:If only... by SeePage87 · 2009-09-09 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  With any luck at least it might be able to be used as precedent against them. If they can weasel, othe
89. Re:If only... by Missing_dc · 2009-09-09 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  Did you bother to double check the address on that birth announcement?
  It belongs to a prominent doctor who had a birth at that time, oddly, there is no mention of that birth, instead some nobody immigrant's son gets an honorable mention? Sound like it was planted in the "official records" on microfisch after the fact, in fact, the librarian said those specific record were in high demand...
  look deeper, this goes way beyond simple explanations.
  As to this being a red herring, in a way it is, as the things his regime are doing will not stop the collapse of the US, but consolidate the power they need to fundamentally change our country and to be in the right place to pick up the pieces they have worked to bring down. Fundamental change to a constitutional scholar will involve the foundation of our country, the Constitution. If we can decapitate the beast in power through the very document they are trying to change, Irony and Justice are served. If we allow it to be defiled and further twisted (INTERPRETED AWAY) then we no longer deserve to call ourselves Citizens, but rather servants. The CFR and the puppets they put in power are treasonous and deserve no less than a traitors fate- Public Hanging.
  Don't mod it down if you don't agree with my opinion, instead, make an intelligent comment.
  
  --
  How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
90. Re:If only... by mschuyler · 2009-09-09 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  Of course not. That's silly, but I could believe a birth announcement was put in in case questions arose as to his citizenship later on, put in by his maternal grandmother. I don't know that that is true, but it's plausible. I also recall an 'original' birth certificate on his web site during the campaign that was analyzed by three different document experts and found to be an alteration of his sister's birth certificate. This has been removed in favor of the 'certificate that a certificate exists.'
  I also wonder why we have no records of any school grades at Occidental, Columbia, or Harvard, no idea of how he paid for Harvard, what passport he used to travel to Pakistan, etc. We know of Bush's DUI and HIS college grades (C+, IIRC), but somehow the record of this man's life has been deemed 'off-limits.' Why?
  The thing is, this issue could be solved so easily if he would just show the damned original certificate. End of story. Case over. Move along. Nothing to see here. I could EASILY accept that, but he won't do it. Why not?
  
  --
  How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
91. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  There is no "continent of America".
  That depends on who you ask. Lots of people are taught that America is a single continent.
92. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  Foreign precedents aren't generally binding, except in the case of certain treaties, but they may be used. I agree that the summary overstates the case - it's fun to do the math based off American awards but it shouldn't imply that Mexican courts are bound to it - but use of foreign precedents is not, uh, unprecedented. I doubt that applies here, tho', since I'm sure there's been plenty of infringement suits in Mexico over the years.
  On the other hand, if the plaintiff asks for an obscenely large amount of money, he can use these cases as "evidence" to support his claim. After all, Sony should not be arguing too strenuously against an argument they put out themselves. Any judge would see right through that.
93. Re:If only... by metacell · 2009-09-18 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  There's an outside ??
Some counterpoints by Hitman_Frost · 2009-09-07 21:25 · Score: 5, Informative

One point regarding Jammie Thomas. She actually had 2500 illegally obtained tracks on her PC, but was only prosecuted for a handful of them so the $K22.5 I often see bandied around isn't strictly accurate.
Sony are clearly in the wrong here however. Unless the contracts says music created during those recording sessions, not the songs that reached the final albums. As we haven't seen the contracts I wouldn't like to speculate.
(Just being the Devil's Advocate, guys.)
1. Re:Some counterpoints by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 21:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Another point on the same topic. What the fuck does American precedent have to do with Mexico?
2. Re:Some counterpoints by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-09-07 21:56 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  It's a standard clause in an employment contract that anything produced whilst under that contract is owned by the employer.
  Unless Sony's lawyers are utterly stupid there will be a similar clause in the recording contract and this won't go anywhere.
3. Re:Some counterpoints by pipatron · 2009-09-07 22:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yeah, except musicians and artist are normally not employed by the record companies. The article clearly says a seven-album deal.
  
  --
  c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
4. Re:Some counterpoints by deathy_epl+ccs · 2009-09-07 22:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Except for record contracts are NOT employment contracts. The bands are not employed by the record companies, the contracts are usually for the set number of albums. By standard recording contracts, the artist in this instance is the one who's most likely right.
5. Re:Some counterpoints by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 22:07 · Score: 0
  
  If something happened in Northern Mexico, it doesn't mean Southern Mexico has nothing to do with it
6. Re:Some counterpoints by rdnetto · 2009-09-07 22:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Hush you! Quit raining on our parade!
  
  --
  Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
7. Re:Some counterpoints by jimshatt · 2009-09-07 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  Did Sony provide facilities for recording the disputed songs? Still, what's in the contract is binding...
8. Re:Some counterpoints by stms · 2009-09-07 22:36 · Score: 0
  
  One point regarding Jammie Thomas. She actually had 2500 illegally obtained tracks on her PC, but was only prosecuted for a handful of them so the $K22.5 I often see bandied around isn't strictly accurate.
  Ok that's still about $750 per song. Sony still owes him $38,382,000. In addition those 2476 could only be allegedly illegally obtained.
9. Re:Some counterpoints by KlaasVaak · 2009-09-07 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  One point regarding Jammie Thomas. She actually had 2500 illegally obtained tracks on her PC, but was only prosecuted for a handful of them so the $K22.5 I often see bandied around isn't strictly accurate.
  Yes it is! Nobody gets punished for things they aren't charged for. If she also happens to have killed an old man that she wasn't charged for that doesn't mean this fine is more just because it's also punishment for killing an old man.
  
  --
  Dyslexics are teople poo
10. Re:Some counterpoints by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2009-09-07 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  Did Sony provide facilities for recording the disputed songs?
  Irrelevant. Either it is explicitly a work for hire, or by default ownership rests with the creator.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
11. Re:Some counterpoints by daveime · 2009-09-07 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  Except if she'd killed an old man, she probably would have got anger management counselling and community service.
  When are you going to learn, USA means corporations first, citizens last ?
12. Re:Some counterpoints by Jellybob · 2009-09-07 23:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Most record contracts include a clause that you're studio time is paid for out of the money made from the albums, so Sony didn't provide facilities, they hired the facilities to the artist.
13. Re:Some counterpoints by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 23:16 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Sony are clearly in the wrong here however. Unless the contracts says music created during those recording sessions, not the songs that reached the final albums. As we haven't seen the contracts I wouldn't like to speculate.
  How can you clearly state the company is in the wrong when you have no information about the contract, as you admit yourself? Not only do you speculate, you state your made up opinion as matter of fact. Get off your Sony hating horse, just face up to it, their contracts are written by very highly paid experts. There is very likely to be a clause that allows them to do this.
14. Re:Some counterpoints by gclef · 2009-09-07 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's never that simple. Often (not every time...depends on how aggressive you were in negotiation, and how good your lawyer was), the contract will include clauses that say that the label owns everything you record until "x" number of albums are released, and some even say that the label gets to decide which songs are good enough for an album (meaning, if you want to leave, they can keep you tied up by saying none of your stuff is "good enough").
15. Re:Some counterpoints by digitalunity · 2009-09-07 23:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If any Cd's were to be sold in the US, they are culpable here in the US.
  
  --
  You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
16. Re:Some counterpoints by thisnamestoolong · 2009-09-07 23:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Did Sony provide facilities for recording the disputed songs? Still, what's in the contract is binding...
  No. Sony simply provides the artist a loan -- Sony pays all the cost of producing the album up front, but all of the costs must be recouped through album sales before the artist sees any income. Even after that, Sony will still take the vast majority of the profits (usually around 80% if you are lucky), which is why I have an aneurysm every time I hear the RIAA say they are doing something "for the artists".
  
  As ownership of the tracks -- it is all about what is in the contract. I have a sneaking suspicion that Sony lawyers have some sort of loophole written into the contract to protect them from liability in this matter, being the bottom-feeding vermin that they are.
  
  --
  To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
17. Re:Some counterpoints by digitalunity · 2009-09-07 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. At best, Sony loaned money to the artist to cover studio time until the albums were produced. That is one of the ways in which the labels screw the artists.
  They say "We'll help you get your music going by providing everything! All you have to do is record it."
  They neglect to mention that the contracts usually state that the artist will not see a penny until all investments in the artists venture are met, such as studio recording costs, advertising, promotional materials, etc.
  
  --
  You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
18. Re:Some counterpoints by Ogive17 · 2009-09-07 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'd hope the artist and his lawyers would make sure no claus like that existed in the contract before proceding with the lawsuit... IANAL and didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night yet know enough to check for that first.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
19. Re:Some counterpoints by pdabbadabba · 2009-09-07 23:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well, it doesn't actually matter that they're employees. Under US law (which we're apparently pretending applies in Mexico), any Work For Hire is generally considered the property of the party that did the hiring. The definition of a Work for Hire from the Copyright Act:
  
  Works Made for Hire. -- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C. sec 101)
  Of course it's an open question whether their contract said that their work was a work for hire, but it seems likely to me. This is generally how labels work. (That's why the label sues you for infringement, not the artist.)
  
  --
  caritj.org
20. Re:Some counterpoints by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 00:02 · Score: 0
  
  [CITATION PLEASE]
21. Re:Some counterpoints by fastest+fascist · 2009-09-08 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  One point regarding Jammie Thomas. She actually had 2500 illegally obtained tracks on her PC, but was only prosecuted for a handful of them so the $K22.5 I often see bandied around isn't strictly accurate.
  It doesn't matter what she had on her PC - if she wasn't prosecuted for it, it didn't, or at the very least shouldn't have counted towards the reparations she has to pay. Otherwise an accuser could go to court on a single charge they can prove and tack on any number of charges they haven't even tried to prove, and have a person sentenced for all the charges.
22. Re:Some counterpoints by RIAAShill · 2009-09-08 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  One point regarding Jammie Thomas. She actually had 2500 illegally obtained tracks on her PC, but was only prosecuted for a handful of them so the $K22.5 I often see bandied around isn't strictly accurate.
  Perhaps the lists of works in these cases should be redacted so that only the works at issue are shown. The list of 2,400+ works that are not part of the suit seems like rather prejudicial material; material that could stoke the jury to inflate the awards to inappropriate levels for the materials that actually are part of the suit. Such inflation may be especially inappropriate given that, theoretically, the owners of these other works could also sue for damages.
  I haven't seen any filings trying to redact exhibits listing thousands of works not at issue, but maybe someone else might be aware of such an effort.
  Of course, the quickest way to keep the list of works down to only 20 or so might be to stipulate that those 20 songs were on the person's computer (based on an agreement not to introduce evidence showing other materials into evidence). Then again, based on current judicial thinking, such a stipulation is going to lead to an automatic finding of infringement (and if the recording companies are offering a settlement of $750 or less...at that point it is probably best to just take it).
  Ignoring the whole Mexico v. USA issue, the story suggests that statutory damages for copyright infringement are not really well understood. These statutory damages are per work , not per instance of infringement. Thus, lets say that this artist created 100 songs. Sony mixes, re-mixes, samples, etc. the 100 songs into 1,000 different track releases and sells them to 10,000 times each to make 10,000,000 commercial copies. Well, that's still only 100 works. He could opt to argue economic damages instead; but if he opts for statutory damages, then the number of infringements doesn't matter, only the number of works.
  It is a bit of an oddity in the statute. But yes, an individual file sharer who shares all 100 of his songs faces the same level of statutory damages as Sony does, even if the individual file sharer infringed only once and Sony infringed 10,000,000 times.
23. Re:Some counterpoints by TheLink · 2009-09-08 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  And sometimes you can't even use your own name for a while...
  
  Go ask the artist formerly known as "the artist formerly known as Prince".
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
24. Re:Some counterpoints by Rob+the+Bold · 2009-09-08 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  Another point on the same topic. What the fuck does American precedent have to do with Mexico?
  I think that courts within and without the US would be aware of Sony's argument in a well publicized case. Perhaps you think "precedent" necessarily implies "legally binding", but it does not.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
25. Re:Some counterpoints by mikechant · 2009-09-08 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Another point on the same topic. What the fuck does American precedent have to do with Mexico?
  This comment was modded 'insightful' by idiots. Courts frequently look at precedents from other countries where they are relevant. The amount of weight they give to them will typically be less than domestic precedents and that weight will depend a lot on the precise area of law in question and how closely that law matches the corresponding domestic law. But implying that foreign precedents are irrelevant is just ignorant.
26. Re:Some counterpoints by RobBebop · 2009-09-08 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  The article clearly says a seven-album deal.
  According to what I've read, one of the nasty parts of multi-album recording contracts is that the contract gives the record company final approval about what can get put on an album. The idea that they still hold any rights beyond the contract for songs they didn't select for album publication seems to do a disservice to this particular agreement.
  I hope the Mexican court sees this for the evil it is.
  
  --
  Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
27. Re:Some counterpoints by mdwh2 · 2009-09-08 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Unless we're charging people for things they weren't, er, charged with, of course it's an accurate statement.
28. Re:Some counterpoints by m.ducharme · 2009-09-08 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Foreign judgments aren't irrelevant, but they're not precedent either. A precedent (despite what a poster above thinks) is a ruling by a higher court in the same jurisdiction. A foreign judgment might be followed, but it would followed as a persuasive judgment, not as a precedent. The difference is that a judge has to follow precedent, but may follow a persuasive decision.
  Generally speaking, only high courts feel comfortable adopting the decisions of other countries, especially if those decisions conflict with local precedents.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
29. Re:Some counterpoints by m.ducharme · 2009-09-08 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  I had a friend who took a college course on record label contracts. His prof said that there was no way on earth a sane lawyer would recommend that a band sign the standard record deal. Of course, bands don't hire lawyers to vet them, and the record companies all use the same basic contract, so the bands often don't even realize they have a choice. Up until this proud new digital era, the bands didn't have a choice, if they wanted to make it big.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
30. Re:Some counterpoints by mcgrew · 2009-09-08 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  I was about to post the same thing. Someone please mod parent "informative"; there are several comments visible that inaccurately say records aren't works for hire.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
31. Re:Some counterpoints by Sobrique · 2009-09-08 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  If Mexico were a continent, you might have a point.
32. Re:Some counterpoints by MikeBabcock · 2009-09-08 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously you've never seen how complex a recording contract can be :-)
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
33. Re:Some counterpoints by jedidiah · 2009-09-08 01:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Once again this persistent MYTH that the labels actually provide
  the artists with anything more than what amounts to a big bank
  loan rears it's ugly head. Artists pay for EVERYTHING. What puny
  royalties they do get when the work sells has to be used to pay
  back any production costs.
  This is how a multi-platinum recording can leave the band in debt to the label.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
34. Re:Some counterpoints by mcgrew · 2009-09-08 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know anything about Mexican copyright law, but it appears that Sony itself is trying to apply US copyright law to a Mexican citizen in Mexico, which is weird because Sony is a Japanese company.
  In the US, phonorecords are "works for hire". If it's the same in Mexico, Sony has a point.
  Holy shit, I just defended Sony*. Satan asked for a sweater.
  * I was a victim of XCP. If I did to them what they did to me, I'd be in prison.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
35. Re:Some counterpoints by russotto · 2009-09-08 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  One point regarding Jammie Thomas. She actually had 2500 illegally obtained tracks on her PC
  Two objections:
  1) The "illegally obtained" part for those 2500 tracks was not established
  2) Mere possession of unauthorized copyrighted material is not actionable
36. Re:Some counterpoints by Quothz · 2009-09-08 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  A precedent (despite what a poster above thinks) is a ruling by a higher court in the same jurisdiction.
  
  Black's Law Dictionary disagrees with you, as does SCOTUS. I'm'a go out on a limb here and say that you're full of it.
37. Re:Some counterpoints by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  sony operates in the US, it is possible to move court cases to US jurisdictions if one of the parties also operates in the US, even if the plaintiff has never set foot in the US.
38. Re:Some counterpoints by m.ducharme · 2009-09-08 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  I would point out that 1) Black's Law Dictionary, though useful, isn't a binding authority (at least, not in my jurisdiction). 2) I wasn't offering a precise definition, but a rule of thumb meant to illustrate the difference between precedent and persuasion.
  Whether and to what extent a court is bound by the decisions in other jurisdictions varies from country to country, but generally, the common law countries do distinguish between precedent (past decisions of higher -- and to some extent equal -- courts) and persuasive material.
  Since I (a Canadian law student) was discussing a Mexican incident, between an American individual and a Japanese record company, please forgive me if I spoke in general terms, instead of getting down to the brass tacks of what exactly constitutes precedent to the SCOTUS.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
39. Re:Some counterpoints by m.ducharme · 2009-09-08 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Incidentally I just checked, and as I suspected, Mexico is a civil law country, not a common-law country, so I doubt very much that case-law from anywhere else applies. So much for precedent.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
40. Re:Some counterpoints by Creepy · 2009-09-08 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  The record company still owes the artist residuals for songwriting and any song stipends, so this isn't technically copyright infringement in the same respect as Jammie unless they aren't paying those (basically everyone is getting paid - songwriter, recording engineer, producer, and even artist [once expenses and advances are paid]). The point in question is whether they legally have the rights to release an album with songs that were cut or if the artist retained the rights because the studio chose not to use the material, which is interesting in the respect that the precedent has always been that they record company has the rights, going back to B-sides on singles in the early days of records and radio.
  A seven album deal has never meant the record company is restricted to seven albums - it has always meant to bind the artist to that record company for at least seven albums of new material. It is not uncommon for the record company to then re-release albums with bonus material or make greatest hits albums with additional songs after that artist has left (or even, though rare, compile entire albums, usually post-posthumously in a band respect).
  When I recorded I remember it being made pretty clear to us that all recorded songs were exclusively owned by the studio, not just the ones that made the album, but that was a lawyer explaining the terms to us in layman's terms, not us reading the contract.
41. Re:Some counterpoints by Zordak · 2009-09-08 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Another point you might want to consider is that statutory damages are calculated per infringed work. So even if U.S. law somehow applied in Mexico, you couldn't multiply by the number of albums sold. Off the top of my head, the maximum statutory damages are $150k per infringed work (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). So assuming a nice, round 10 songs on the album, the maximum statutory damages would be $1.5M. That's not exactly chump change, but it's at least three orders of magnitude less than the silly numbers being tossed around in the summary.
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
42. Re:Some counterpoints by Brad+Eleven · 2009-09-08 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and the expenses for operation of these facilities were almost certainly paid by the artist.
  Unlike employment agreements in the US, recording artists and record companies use a legally binding contract. Apparently this is different in the UK and elsewhere, e.g., there is an explicit and free-standing contract between each employee and the employer.
  I think this argument and the other I've seen as yet regarding the RIAA suits are both irrelevant. There isn't any suit as of yet in this case, just a police raid. I don't think it'll stand, even though I would dearly love to see a sovereign government file suit against a multinational corporation. Or heck, Mexico could probably revoke whatever agreement it has for Sony Music to operate/distribute/etc in Mexico.
  
  --
  "Press to test."
  (click)
  "Release to detonate."
43. Re:Some counterpoints by ArtemaOne · 2009-09-08 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  American precedent, not familiar with it, but both the US and Mexico are in America.
44. Re:Some counterpoints by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2009-09-08 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Another point on the same topic. What the fuck does American precedent have to do with Mexico?
  This is not a case of legal precedent which, does not have any real influence across legal systems. Rather, this is about findings of fact and filed legal statements, which can and often are cited across legal systems. If you go to court in the US and file a statement claiming you are a legal citizen, other countries can and have considered this evidence in their own courts that you are a US citizen and therefor not eligible for citizenship in their own country (when they don't allow dual citizenships).
  When Sony has presented sworn testimony in US courts as to what they feel the damage are from a copyrighted song being shared without the permission of a the copyright holder, that can absolutely be used in Mexican courts. That's not to say Sony can't argue these song are not as valuable or the Mexican market is not as valuable and that translates to the damages or even that Mexican law is different and does not allow for such outrageous damages for for minor infractions. So the court cases in the US are not a legal precedent but neither are they useless as evidence in the Mexican case.
45. Re:Some counterpoints by Bigjeff5 · 2009-09-08 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  If any Cd's were sold in the US, they would be guilty of criminal copyright infringement here in the US.
  There, fixed that for you.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
46. Re:Some counterpoints by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  Unless the contracts says music created during those recording sessions, not the songs that reached the final albums.
  I'd say that's besides the point. We don't know which it said in respect to that, but we DO know they ONLY had a seven CD contract. Making an 8th with "Extra material lying around" was outside of their rights by that contract.
47. Re:Some counterpoints by Bigjeff5 · 2009-09-08 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Cases of criminal copyright are pretty well nailed down in any given country. They are what copyright laws were created to protect against.
  This is not a civil case, like most of the cases of copyright infringement in the US. This is a criminal case, with whatever the Mexican equivalent of a district attourney is spearheading the case.
  I'm not sure about Mexico, but in the US criminal copyright infringement carries heavy fines and often jailtime. This is definitely no laughing matter for Sony Mexico, but at the same time to think it will do anything but cause a small ripple outside Mexico is foolish. Mexican law will apply here, and they probably would not need to look further than the original copyright law as it was laid down, as this is exactly what it was intended to stop.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
48. Re:Some counterpoints by Quothz · 2009-09-08 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Incidentally I just checked, and as I suspected, Mexico is a civil law country, not a common-law country, so I doubt very much that case-law from anywhere else applies. So much for precedent.
  Defining Mexico as a "civil law" country is oversimplifying. Like most legal systems, it's hard to pigeonhole. I'm sure in your studies of Mexican law you've run across the concept of jurisprudencia definida, binding case law issued via writ. As with virtually every modern court system, it is not unheard of for Mexican courts to look to what other countries have done when forced to work outside of strict statutes.
  As Mexico has handled plenty of IP cases, I can't imagine their courts would look elsewhere, tho'. (Not a matter of law, but if it comes to damage calculations, Sony's own valuation of music will almost certainly be relevant, regardless of where they were figured.)
49. Re:Some counterpoints by dbet · 2009-09-08 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Do you think it entirely impossible that one country may look to what another country has done and imitate it?
50. Re:Some counterpoints by yuna49 · 2009-09-08 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Unless the contracts says music created during those recording sessions, not the songs that reached the final albums. As we haven't seen the contracts I wouldn't like to speculate.
  Indeed, that question crossed my mind immediately as well. The contract required him to release seven albums with Sony, which he did, but we don't know what else the contract might have said about ownership to music produced during that period. These tracks appear to be outtakes from sessions that fell under the Sony contract. It's not all that hard to imagine that the contract assigned ownership of the rights to these performances to Sony.
51. Re:Some counterpoints by Bigjeff5 · 2009-09-08 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Why the hell would they for a case of criminal copyright infringement? My god man, that's what copyright law, in every country in the world that has a copyright law, was INVENTED for! (bold and caps for extra emphasis!;)
  This isn't downloading songs off Napster, people, this is physically copying an artist's works in mass quantities with the intent to sell. I would be absolutely shocked if Mexico looked outside of Mexico for this case. Hell I'd be surprised if they needed to look at other cases WITHIN Mexico for this case. This is about as textbook as it gets.
  The only question here, is did Sony Mexico's 7 album deal give them the rights to the songs produce while the artist had that 7 album deal, and does that give Sony the right to produce an 8th album of the artist's work. That depends, if the artist only came in for recordings and did everything else outside Sony's offices/studio/whatever, it would seem to be a tough sell to me. But if the artist was given accomodation at Sony Mexico and performed a large portion of the work while there, I think Sony would have a good case.
  In any case, international case law wouldn't do shit to help the Mexican courts in this case, so why the hell would they look to it? Mexican courts aren't like Slashdotters, and aren't looking to screw Sony as big as they can. The only part of this where you could say international precedence would be usefull is probably the one place they are not likely to bother, as they'll have their own guidlines for penalties within the law.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
52. Re:Some counterpoints by Bigjeff5 · 2009-09-08 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  You basically just re-stated what the GP said in a less eloquent way, and called that exact statement a Myth?
  The GP stated that what the studios give artists is a loan, under which they get to use the studio's facilities. After the loan is paid off, the studio still keeps upwards of 80% of the royalty fees.
  So what the hell are you trying to say? I'm confused.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
53. Re:Some counterpoints by Bigjeff5 · 2009-09-08 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  The Bush/Obama bailouts are proof positive of that.
  AIG can be too big to fail, but go try to get a business loan or a government grant and you'll find out that you're just too small to succeed.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
54. Re:Some counterpoints by jcr · 2009-09-08 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  The Bush/Obama bailouts are proof positive of that.
  Thank you for not playing the game of blaming only half of the Ruling Party for this unconstitutional policy.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
55. Re:Some counterpoints by Threni · 2009-09-08 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  > Sony are clearly in the wrong here however.
  You're forgetting that Sony is a big company and therefore above the law, as can be seen from the freedom they have to distribute rootkits, lie about them etc. If you or I had done that, we'd be in jail now.
56. Re:Some counterpoints by jedidiah · 2009-09-08 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  English must be your second language.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
57. Re:Some counterpoints by Tolkien · 2009-09-08 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  "Sony's Advocate" would also have been acceptable.
  
  --
  how is babby formed?
58. Re:Some counterpoints by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  It wasn't legal precedent - and the point made is more along the lines of "I'd like to see Sony have to pay like they insist others have to pay".
59. Re:Some counterpoints by Drgnkght · 2009-09-08 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  English might be BigJeff5's second language (His post doesn't seem like it.), but a least he understood what the previous poster "thisnamestoolong" wrote. Which is apparently more than you can claim. "thisnamestoolong" said the same thing you did, yet somehow he is perpetuating a "MYTH" and you are not?
  Perhaps you should stop insulting other people's reading comprehension and work on improving your own first? Just a thought.
Yo no fui by jgardia · 2009-09-07 21:26 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I think the most known song From Alejandro Fernandez, fits perfectly here. (It means "Wasn't me")
1. Re:Yo no fui by jgardia · 2009-09-07 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, sorry, that's Pedro Fernández...
So how many cd's do we need to sell by zlel · 2009-09-07 21:28 · Score: 4, Funny

to feed our musicians again?
1. Re:So how many cd's do we need to sell by gnupun · 2009-09-07 21:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  As much as they fairly deserve. Or do we need some socialist gestapo rationing revenue of artists?
2. Re:So how many cd's do we need to sell by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 22:24 · Score: 0
  
  According to the Thomas precedent, around 1 cd every other year.
3. Re:So how many cd's do we need to sell by imakemusic · 2009-09-08 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  The answer, my friend, is...
  
  ...about $.99/track, apparently.
  
  --
  Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
4. Re:So how many cd's do we need to sell by blackraven14250 · 2009-09-08 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  That fits their diet of ramen perfectly!
5. Re:So how many cd's do we need to sell by PPNSteve · 2009-09-08 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  the exact number is, as always, 42
  
  --
  PPN
Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by beerbear · 2009-09-07 21:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mexico. United States. Not the same thing.

--
Hold my beer and watch this!
1. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by Instantlemming · 2009-09-07 21:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, the US seems to think that their rules are to be applied globally, especially when it's about audio/video material...
2. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by yariv · 2009-09-07 22:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It happened in Mexico, but does it mean they can't be sued in the US? Although not directly related, I immediately remembered this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths.
3. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by aiht · 2009-09-07 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  Even aside from that...
  Individual. Corporation. Not the same thing.
4. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by Cheesetrap · 2009-09-07 22:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Individual. Corporation. Not the same thing.
  True. Multiply the figures by a factor of between 2 and 10 to match the usual ratio of "individual fine" and "company fine" for violations of civil laws. Oh look, they're still buggered. Happy days! :)
  As another commenter pointed out, whatever precedent they set by weaselling out of this charge will just make it easier for the next person defending themselves against copyright infringement charges in Mexico or wherever this gets fought out. Ah, they'll probably just settle though, which would be the safest option for them, damn.
  It's also worth pointing out that they have an obvious intent to distribute for commercial gain... CD prices have been a crime for the better part of a decade, it's about time it made it to court! :P
5. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  They'll just bribe the judges... it is Mexico afterall
6. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yet ;-)
7. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by hairyfeet · 2009-09-08 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Which brings up something I have always though was stupid: Why didn't we just roll the tanks and take the damned thing? here me out, as it makes sense. Guarding the border is damned near impossible, as the thing is fricking huge, but now look at the border between Mexico and South America, see how tiny that thing is? It would be trivial to guard that. To me it would make a hell of a lot more sense to take that than wasting our time in rough ass countries in the Middle East.
  Hell we got Mexicans pouring through the border, most of the Southern US is filled with Mexicans anyway, so why not just take the damned thing? Split it up into several states, or just use the states that Mexico already has, and make it a part of the US already. It would fix that border problem REAL damned quick, and make protecting our southern border go from an impossible mission to something so easy your average National Guard unit could pull it off without assistance. It has just never made sense to me why we are willing to charge into countries a half a world away, when we have a serious border problem that could be better solved by those troops. Or hell just start negotiations and buy the damned thing. Either way it makes more sense than spending billions trying to seal that leaky sieve of a border that will never ever work.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
8. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by jedidiah · 2009-09-08 01:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  We already did that sort of thing once.
  That's where the bulk of the Western United States comes from.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
9. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by TBoon · 2009-09-08 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  The "United Mexican States" is of course one of multiple countries that fulfill the description as "united states of America"... Mexico (and Brazil), consists of "states" that are (fairly) "united" and is located in "America"... ;-) But I'm rambling...
10. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the US government, US **AA and affiliated media corporations..
  Fixed that for you.
11. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by beerbear · 2009-09-08 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Except for Texas. No one wants Texas.
  
  --
  Hold my beer and watch this!
12. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by sjames · 2009-09-08 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  In law, no, it's not the same thing. That doesn't mean an act carried out in one country magically becomes a different act in another country, just that the particular laws there may react differently.
  That doesn't mean that the ethics cannot translate. If Sony thought the awards in U.S. court were at all ethical, then they should cough up those amazing sums of money in Mexico. If not, they shouldn't have pursued such sums in the first place.
  More likely what this shows is that Sony has no ethics whatsoever, they want what they want and they wish to return nothing. At one time such a frame of mind was called evil and those who weren't evil felt compelled to do what they could (however much or little that might be) to neutralize it.
13. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by beerbear · 2009-09-08 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  I agree in principle, and applaud you for sticking to your values.
  But when you start to talk about the morality of it instead of the legality, then it is not really newsworthy anymore. We've known for a quite a while that Sony is evil.
  
  --
  Hold my beer and watch this!
14. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by hairyfeet · 2009-09-08 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and that worked out pretty damned well too, didn't it? There is simply no way in hell to guard a border of that damned size. It is just impossible, short of a Berlin wall style thing across the whole damned border, which would be crazy expensive. Compare that to how much it would cost to guard the border between Mexico and South America? Peanuts.
  I still say it is cheaper in the long run just to take the damned thing and make the Mexicans American citizens than it is to try to fix out leaking sieve of a border. If we don't fix it somehow some crazy terrorist is gonna waltz across that thing and do something nasty and we'll end up with laws so bad we'll look upon PATRIOT fondly. I for one would like not to live in a police state, thanks ever so much. Hell the national guard could protect the tiny border between Mexico and South America!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Corruption is good when it works in our favor by DNS-and-BIND · 2009-09-07 21:32 · Score: 0, Troll

If the situation were reversed and Sony was bribing a corrupt police force to do their bidding, there would be widespread denounciations. However, since it's the "good" guy bribing the cops to do a raid, then it's A-OK. (Anyone saying that it is the grave responsibility of the Mexican Police to uphold the law as it's written gets tossed out of the nearest window.)

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
1. Re:Corruption is good when it works in our favor by Lonewolf666 · 2009-09-07 21:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Where did you get the idea that the Mexican Police was bribed?
  There is nothing about that in TFA.
  Besides, raids on suspected copyright infringers are nothing new. There have been similar raids on The Pirate Bay, and Sony certainly operates on a comparable scale. That is not some school kid who shares a few albums on his computer.
  If the allegations are true, this is a case of commercial copyright infringement. A rather big fish, certainly bigger than Tenenbaum or Thomas.
  
  --
  C - the footgun of programming languages
2. Re:Corruption is good when it works in our favor by Jurily · 2009-09-07 22:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Besides, raids on suspected copyright infringers are nothing new. There have been similar raids on The Pirate Bay, and Sony certainly operates on a comparable scale. That is not some school kid who shares a few albums on his computer.
  Things like that happen everywhere. Unfortunately Google Translate fails horribly (for example, the Hungarian word "lett" means both Latvian and was/became).
3. Re:Corruption is good when it works in our favor by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  "There is nothing about that in TFA."
  Right, because you can belive the a police force corrupted by drug lords is really worried about copyright infringment when government officials are getting executed left and tright. If the article doesn't say anything about it then it must not exist. But good news, 'cause I read that this year is the year of the Linux Desktop so it must be true. That what TFA said!
"You woldn't steal a CD" by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 21:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Would you, Sony?
Screw the lottery by cfriedt · 2009-09-07 21:42 · Score: 4, Funny

The chances of being able to sue somebody over copyright infringement in the recording industry are a heck of a lot better than playing the lottery.
It's like winning 1000 lotteries at the same time! Screw the lottery!
Time for a career change? I can't sing or dance particularly well, but people can take lessons for that kind of thing.
1. Re:Screw the lottery by MadKeithV · 2009-09-07 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not being able to sing and dance well hasn't stopped most of the current crop of music stars! It helps if you can be postprocessed into a hot teenage girl in the video though.
2. Re:Screw the lottery by lordandmaker · 2009-09-07 22:33 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  postprocessed into a hot teenage girl
  
  Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
51576? by Wildclaw · 2009-09-07 21:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

at an average of 8 songs/CD is 51,176 infringing songs,
Sorry, but you fail. The big companies may be evil, but they aren't stupid. You may only count the 8 songs once. Scratch that. As those song were distributed as one unit, so you can make a good argument for a total count of 1 infringement.
The reason for the $150,000 number in the law was exactly because it was aimed against large scale infringement like the one we are talking about here, but that has just made it even more effective (cruel and unjust) against small scale distributed infringment.
1. Re:51576? by 91degrees · 2009-09-07 21:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So that would work out to about $3 per copy of an infringed song, which is roughly triple damages, which, I understand, is typically for wilful infringement.
  
  The law is reasonable. Applying it to non-commercial infringement isn't.
2. Re:51576? by Lonewolf666 · 2009-09-07 22:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Counting the 8 songs as 8 units seems appropriate, since that is the precedent from other file sharing cases. Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum did not get to argue that their shared songs should be counted as a smaller number of albums.
  Which leaves us with $80K per song (Thomas) times 8 or $22.5K per song (Tenenbaum) times 8. That is $640K or $180K. Looks like appropriate damages because this is large scale infringement as you wrote. In the Thomas and Tenenbaum cases I consider it excessive.
  This said, Mexican law counts here and the sums may be much lower. Unless Sony also distributed that CD in the US as well, then Fernandez might want to sue in the US too ;-)
  
  --
  C - the footgun of programming languages
3. Re:51576? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-09-07 22:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You're forgetting that each copy of a song is potentially a lost sale for the artist.
  
  Why do you think MediaSentry wanted the connection history from ISPs so they could figure out how many potential copies were made.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
4. Re:51576? by Spy+der+Mann · 2009-09-07 22:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  There's a more important matter in here. This isn't about unauthorized material reproduction, but unauthorized material reproduction with the INTENT of making a profit.
  Sony's screwed.
5. Re:51576? by Mushdot · 2009-09-07 23:15 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  But, Sony haven't actually distributed the music. They have merely burnt 6,000 backup copies. That's probably how they will get away with it.
6. Re:51576? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  The "precedent" is per song, not per copy, so the values quoted are out by a factor of 6,397 anyway. And the only song that was actually distributed was the sample song "Diferente" available online, unless some other CDs were sold that weren't in the 6,397 seized.
7. Re:51576? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  6,000 copies is prima facie evidence of intent to distribute, and the intent is all that matters here. There is no meaningful case where 6,000 copies of anything could be considered a 'backup'.
  How they will get out of this is by settling out of court.
8. Re:51576? by blackraven14250 · 2009-09-08 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  They printed a given number of CD's, with the intent to sell every last one of them. They have time to wait for them to be sold, too.
9. Re:51576? by mdwh2 · 2009-09-08 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Scratch that. As those song were distributed as one unit, so you can make a good argument for a total count of 1 infringement.
  Oh please - when we hear about how many thousands of files people have on a single computer, yet when it's Sony, they get to count them all as just 1 infringement?
  The idea that Sony might face $150,000 max, for distributing albums for profit, already copied onto 6,397 CDs - yet someone who has 24 mp3s on their computer, with no evidence of how many would be copied, and no evidence of intent to profit, gets $1.92 million - is madness.
  The sad thing is, I can't help thinking they won't even be paying $150,000.
10. Re:51576? by quatin · 2009-09-08 01:52 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You forgot the $1,000,000 fine for each word of BS spewed out of Sony's corporate lawyers in issuing an official reply. Which leads to a grand total of ONE BAJILLION PESOS!!! or one hundred dollars.
11. Re:51576? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-09-08 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. I was pointing out the fallacy that each individual song should be counted as an infringement, not each copy of the song.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
12. Re:51576? by hacker · 2009-09-08 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  1 billion Mexican pesos = 75.22400 million U.S. dollars
13. Re:51576? by CopaceticOpus · 2009-09-08 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well in that case, I don't have any pirated music. I simply provide a free, anonymous backup service for other people's mp3s.
14. Re:51576? by ae1294 · 2009-09-08 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  6,000 copies is prima facie evidence of intent to distribute, and the intent is all that matters here. There is no meaningful case where 6,000 copies of anything could be considered a 'backup'.
  HEY NOW! my warez server runs a 9,000 drive raid1 array using 120MB IDEs.. That gives me an incredible amount of safety and only uses 1.21 jigawatts of power.... So I find your statement insulting! Having over 6,000 copies is NOT illegal...
  [WARNING] Raid is not a backup [/WARNING]
  I'd also like to start a bribe fund for the judge in this case. Would anyone like to subscribe to my newsletter?
15. Re:51576? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget the potential profits from the subsequent lawsuits that those songs would likely have generated after the RIAA lawsuits were filed. After all, it's not just about the sales they would have made from the physical discs, but also the ripped copies of those discs that would have, statistically, found their way onto P2P sites, then to people's PCs, where they could have been a basis for countless lawsuits against file sharers. And what of the legally distributed MP3 sales? Who knows- every one of us may have been destined to buy all the songs via iTunes...or Amazon.....
  It's nice to see some irrationality hurled in any direction other than the 'little guy' for a change.
Where is the corruption? by argent · 2009-09-07 21:44 · Score: 1

If the situation were reversed and Sony was bribing a corrupt police force to do their bidding, there would be widespread denounciations.
I don't see any insinuation in either story that corruption was involved. Can you provide a reference for the source of your information?
1. Re:Where is the corruption? by Gadget_Guy · 2009-09-07 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  Can you provide a reference for the source of your information?
  Please don't. We don't need to see any links to sites like goatse.cx
Sweden. United States. Not the same thi... by meist3r · 2009-09-07 21:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oh whoops
1. Re:Sweden. United States. Not the same thi... by beerbear · 2009-09-07 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Hm, yeah, you got a point there.
  
  --
  Hold my beer and watch this!
His contract may still include these works by Pitr · 2009-09-07 22:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you have a contract to produce a certain number of albums, but you also sign over ownership of your works during the contract, then the songs you produce during your contract even if they don't make it to an album belong to Sony (or whoever).
IANAL and it depends on the fine print, but there's a good chance this guy is boned.

--

--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
1. Re:His contract may still include these works by obliv!on · 2009-09-08 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL either, but I've read parts and wholes of a number of label contracts over the years. You're right it is likely in the details (and outcomes are heavily dependent on them), but in general the details go something like this.
  
  That eighth album Sony intended on releasing is likely in this artist's contract. He may have only been responsible for being involved with the seven, but in his contract Sony probably retained rights to all material recorded by the artist during the duration of his contract (you general release all such copyrights permanently to your label) so all of those songs are Sony's not his (which is an error to his assumption that since his contractual obligations to Sony are met all other copyrights are retained by him extremely unlikely, but hard to say definitively without seeing his contract), further most major labels reserve the right to release a "Greatest Hits" compilation that may contain previously unreleased content. Generally this last album is purely for the labels profit (has a different scheme of royalty mechanisms) and can be released whether you've resigned with the label or not AND whether you consent to the release or not. Its a standard operating procedure for the big four and mimicked by the majority of the industry that will likely be upheld if his contract is scrutinized by a court.
  
  Even if he can get his way in this case all that's going to do is provide disincentive to the major labels in dealing with artists in Mexico. Maybe that's a good though since a vacuum could inspire upstarts and real competition at least in Mexico which is a growing media consumer. I hope this guy can make a bit of a score off of the labels its nice to hear when its even possible that an artist can get his despite the will of the evil empire. Unfortunately all of these trade groups like RIAA ever protect are the label's bottom lines which generally entails anything, but the artists' best interests. Even the music unions in the US are epic fail. I remember not long ago there was a bill that sought to oversee US record label contracts to ensure fairness. I'm sure it probably got blocked by someone deep in MAFIAA's pockets, but could you imagine the possibilities if these contractual provisions had all been brought to light and forced to change. That'd almost be as fair as if radio stations had to pay royalties or if internet radio stations didn't!
  
  The industry has long been broken these titans need to be brought down, economies of scale are no longer an inhibition to entrance in the market only having to have to compete with monoliths is the problem. The sooner the labels go away or get dismantled the sooner the things get better for musicians and for consumers. Why isn't the government investigating consolidation not just of the four labels themselves (and the fledgling indie labels), but their increasing scope into other areas of the musicians income like tour gross and merchandise sales we feared banks too big to fail because they consolidated we should intercede now before something along those lines happens with the labels and we're permanently stuck with them? Has anyone noticed the distinct lack of medium size bands in the industry for the last decade or so? You're either great success or too little to be known (and therefore cared about in the industry's eyes) that isn't the way the market has been and it doesn't have to remain that way.
2. Re:His contract may still include these works by rgviza · 2009-09-08 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but have studied how record companies and recording contracts generally work. Yes, the only thing Sony would have to pay him is royalties on the copies they sold. When you sign a recording contract, you are signing over the publishing rights to anything you record while under contract, whether or not it gets published. The record company owns the recorded work as well as the right to publish the song as long as Sony filed the copyright, which they probably did, even on the stuff they didn't release.
  They'd still have to pay him, but he couldn't release that material himself, unless it was a live album. Even then the artist would have to pay Sony a percentage.
  Of course in Mexico, it might work differently. It works however the Federales say it does ;-)
  
  --
  Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
3. Re:His contract may still include these works by penguinbrat · 2009-09-08 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  While this was my original line of thinking, I'd have to also assume that the artist has his copy of the contract and it was gone over with a fine tooth comb before organizing the raid for this - especially against a corporate entity the size of Sony.
  
  Even though it's all agreed here that Sony is going to find some way out out of this, it may still turn out to be a boon for the lowly citizen (world wide) as this as well may be able to be used as a precedent (not a legal one though) just in our favor - even though the laws are different, it comes down to the 'magic' math, and what Sony (RIAA) considers intent and potential profit.
  
  IANAL, although from what I do understand is that the US legal system has little to do with the actual laws, and a heck of lot more on how well the given side argues (civil cases of course) - I wouldn't think it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to point out that the arguments used in their defense of this (Sony), would counter all the arguments used in their prosecution attempts. In other words, even though it's a different country, different laws, different way of doing things - they are still held to their word, and considered truthful - because of that, I would think it could be used as a good argument that they are making everything up, if it counters whats been said to be truthful else where.. There any lawyers on, that could verify one way or the other if this could be possible - not the outcome of the foreign case, but what is said under oath in the foreign case...
Icorrect advocacy by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 22:12 · Score: 3, Informative

She wasn't CHARGED with those other files.
If they were to be included in a further lawsuit (which requires the COPYRIGHT HOLDER to start a case, hence not included in this lawsuit), then 80k per track could be put forward as equitable under case law.
So your spouting is farcical.
Listed as "Humor?" by andrewagill · 2009-09-07 22:24 · Score: 1

I get that this is sort of funny, but this actually is a very serious question. It's pretty clear that there will be a different standard applied to Sony here. Why is there one standard when the little guy wins against the big guy and another when the big guy wins against the little guy?
1. Re:Listed as "Humor?" by silanea · 2009-09-08 00:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The Big Corp in media always tell us how they fight non-profit copyright infringement to help the artists, and here Sony may have been caught infringing an artist's copyright with intent to profit from it. This makes Sony's action more wrong than that of Jammie Thomas et al. on two levels: legally (because it is for profit) and morally (they screwed over the person they claimed to protect and support).
  
  --
  Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
No problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 22:34 · Score: 0

It's Mexico, just pay 10% under the table and you can go home.
Who paid the studio costs? by EdgeyEdgey · 2009-09-07 22:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Usually whoever pays the costs of the studio owns the mechanical copyright.
Although what annoys me about that line of reasoning is that record companies reclaim the recording costs from the artists share of the profit, and so should forfeit any ownership.

--
[Intentionally left blank]
1. Re:Who paid the studio costs? by Rob+the+Bold · 2009-09-08 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Usually whoever pays the costs of the studio owns the mechanical copyright. Although what annoys me about that line of reasoning is that record companies reclaim the recording costs from the artists share of the profit, and so should forfeit any ownership.
  No recording company gives away its recording studio time. They would have billed him for it when it came time to calculate his proceeds from the record sales. Part of the "screw the artist" business model.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
Where's the Torrent? by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · 2009-09-07 23:11 · Score: 1

Great! All we need now is the location of the torrent seed.
Stop The Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-07 23:14 · Score: 0

I think this was meant to be a suggested course of action, not a US policy.
All you haters out there need to relax a little.
Didn't Obama go around and apologize enough for you?
Give it a rest people, and get back to the subject.
Punishment by whisper_jeff · 2009-09-07 23:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I think ljaszcza's claim of precedent is flimsy, at best, I do hope that Sony is absolutely smashed in court over this. This is _commercial_ piracy. This is piracy-for-profit. If non-commercial piracy between individuals carries penalties of tens-of-thousands of dollars per song then commercial piracy damn well carry a significantly heftier fine. After all, _THIS_ is the sort of thing that copyright law is intended to protect against - someone making money off of someone else's work without their permission. _THIS_ is what the law is supposed to protect against. With a hint of luck, the law will actually do something about it rather than look the other way.

Wouldn't it be nice if the group involved in drafting ACTA were made aware of this. After all, I'm sure Sony has been involved in "suggesting" elements of the ACTA proposal so I'm sure any punishments they've suggested they would be comfortable with paying...
1. Re:Punishment by blackraven14250 · 2009-09-08 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  It would be great if there wasn't a high likelihood of Sony having it written in the contract that all songs recorded during that time are their property.
2. Re:Punishment by ljaszcza · 2009-09-08 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it is flimsy. I was being tongue in cheek rather than making a legal case. I don't know what is in the contract, the wording there (or lack thereof) will determine whether there is a case or not. My purpose for submitting this story is to bring attention to Sony's handling of a artist who chose to go with a different studio. And the fact that a individual caught printing 6000 unauthorized CDs is treated differently than a mutinational corp. that does the same. Will the Sony Mexico CEO or local manager face a suit for personal liability and face jail time and a huge verdict? Will RIAA go after Sony on behalf of the recording artist? Will the exRIAA riddled Justice department come out in support a $1,000,000,000 judgment against Sony? Would the same Minnesota jury award the same damages against Sony as it did J. Thomas. Now I understand this will be tried in Mexico, not the USA, but... We'll see how the Mexican legal system will handle a big multinational in comparison the the Land of the Free's legal system handling of individuals... Whatever that proves...
selling pirated music = higher damages by Lazy+Jones · 2009-09-07 23:40 · Score: 1

I doubt that the precedents set in the mentioned cases can be applied to this case. After all, Sony did not only copy the songs for personal use, they strived to sell them for a profit. In all "copyright piracy" cases I've read about, professional copyright violators were punished in a harshlier way (which seems appropriate).
Also, let's not forget how bad commercial piracy is:

Criminal IPR Infringement Commercial scale infringement is the crime of choice for many criminal syndicates, gangs, and organizations, including those in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Philippines, South Korea and the USA. Commercial copyright piracy/trademark counterfeiting is a funding source for terrorist groups, like the IRA, Hezbollah, GIA Islamic Network, and Al Qaeda. (from: http://www.aseansec.org/21385-9.pdf)

--
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
you can't compare by SuperDre · 2009-09-07 23:47 · Score: 1

You really can't compare the thomas case with this, as you really don't know what was in the contract... Maybe his contract actually was for 7 albums and during that time he was under contract of Sony, which means (at least if you are a worker for a boss) that all numbers created under that contract belong to Sony even if they weren't put on the albums (sony paid for the recordingsessions for example).. So only Sony and him are actually aware of what the contract entails.. and let's not forget he sees the contract ofcourse differently than Sony does...
Hmm, good loophole through the 7-album contract by beebware · 2009-09-07 23:50 · Score: 1

Get in artist, get them to record 70 songs (allowing 10 songs per album: how many are on an album nowadays) - then say, "sorry, 20 tracks were rubbish - re-record them". Sony then release 7 albums and pay artist for 7 albums. Several weeks later release 2 new albums and don't pay the artist... Cunning (but in a bad way!).
No, wrong-o by Mathinker · 2009-09-08 00:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Musical recordings, at least up to now, haven't been accepted as belonging to the enumerated list of types of works which are automatically works for hire if produced for compensation.
In most cases the artist(s) assign their copyrights to the labels, and this means that soon, starting around 2013, there will be an interesting battle in the Federal courts whether or not the artists can terminate these assignments as stipulated in the 1976 Copyright Act.
1. Re:No, wrong-o by pdabbadabba · 2009-09-08 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I think we're both half right. Recording contracts supposedly often include language to this effect: "artists works will be considered works for hire, unless the courts don't think the works meet the criteria. In that case, the artist assigns his rights to the label."
  Sometimes the labels have made the argument that recordings are collective works (and thus, for hire) depending on who hired the studio, producers, engineers, backup singers, extra band members, etc. But it's also true that these days its more common for the artists to handle all of this themselves, which pretty well dodges that sort of argument.
  The fact remains that this all hinges on what is actually written in the contract. But it sounds like we agree that its likely that the label has gotten the rights one way or the other.
  Of course, I also only half know what I'm talking about. I am a law student, but not one with any interest in entertainment law. This also, of course, means IANAL (yet).
  
  --
  caritj.org
2. Re:No, wrong-o by Bigjeff5 · 2009-09-08 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Recording contracts contain nothing beyond the bit: "artists works will be considered works for hire". Putting in the rest of it would be foolish, and would not change anything for them positively, it would only tell the artist that they do have rights beyond what is in the contract.
  They say it's all "works for hire", but the neat trick is in the US (and a lot of countries, though I'm not totally sure about Mexico, but I would think so), contracts can be unenforceable. Now, it's not smart to sign stuff willy nilly, because MOST contracts are completely enforceable, but that "works for hire" clause is a catchall that actually only applies in certain circumstances.
  It's like those contracts that state "we may change this agreement at any time". Sure, they can change it, but it isn't binding unless I agree to it also. In those cases, the old agreement is still binding, and if they attempt to drop whatever goods or services were coming from their end you've got a breach of contract on your hands. Most people don't know this, and think that because it is in the contract their rights go out the window. That is never the case.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
3. Re:No, wrong-o by pdabbadabba · 2009-09-08 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Well, did you read the GP? It rightly points out that, because musical recordings are not one of the types of work enumerated in the Copyright Act as being the types of work that can be a WFH, courts haven't always accepted claims to this effect from labels. So, the point of the more elaborate stipulation (involving explicit assignment of rights) that I suggested is that it provides a backstop for the label in case the courts in the relevant jurisdiction don't buy the WFH move.
  Also, you seem to be assuming that I'm merely speculating as to whether this sort of clause is included in recording contracts. but I'm not. I do know for a fact that it is included in at least some, and I have it on good authority that it is included routinely. Make of that what you will.
  
  --
  caritj.org
4. Re:No, wrong-o by Mathinker · 2009-09-08 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  > Recording contracts supposedly often include language to this effect: ...
  That clause reads as if it was inserted around 1999 when the content industry managed to slip through an amendment which made musical recordings "works for hire" (said amendment being retracted retroactively in 2000 by later legislation after the extent of outrage over the change started to be expressed to a greater degree --- as documented in the paper to which I linked).
  Seems pretty logical to me. Somehow I think Bigjeff5 is just pulling stuff directly from, well, you know where...
Anyone want to bet this guy goes indie? by Mathinker · 2009-09-08 00:10 · Score: 1

I have a feeling that after his contract with Universal is finished, this artist will become independent. And I'm not thinking that it'll be because he prefers it. My guess is that he'll be treated as persona non grata by all the major labels.
Anyone know if his music is any good?
1. Re:Anyone want to bet this guy goes indie? by stupid_is · 2009-09-08 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone know if his music is any good?
  Apparently so. Some of the items in his album list have AllMusic ratings, and they're up in the 4* area
  
  --
  -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
Seems pretty logical to me... by fudgefactor7 · 2009-09-08 00:18 · Score: 1

He completed the contract, and assuming there were no statements indicating any unused material reverted in ownership to Sony, then they (Sony) are in some serious trouble. Having used their weight to press for massive charges with the RIAA over infringement, they now must pay the piper for their own actions--you simply cannot have it both ways; or if I can be allowed to channel Johnnie Cochran for a moment, "If they stole his shit, you cannot acquit!" Loos to me Sony will be forced to pony up. Don't you love it when a draconian law come to bite the creators in the ass? (I do.)
two words by martas · 2009-09-08 00:20 · Score: 1

fuck. yeah.

--
weinersmith
Contractual vs. Piracy by realsilly · 2009-09-08 00:23 · Score: 1

There are sevearl things to consider.
1. There was a contract in place and we are not privy to such details at this time
2. Contractual lawsuits are different than those that are out-right theft
3. While USA has a lot of influence in the world and court systems, it is likely that no precedents set here will have much affect in Mexico.
4. Individuals pirating music or movies who clearly don't own a CD or DVD should be treated differently in court.
5. Another key thing to consider is that Sony's lawyers aren't stupid, they set up shop in Mexico, and they would clearly know what was within their rights banking on the Profit vs Loss if they did infact infringe on the "Contractual agreement". They will force an arguement that it was not piracy but a contractual loophole.
6. And if Sony is clearly in the wrong, then they get what they deserve, but if not, that artist is in for one hell of a counter-suit.

--
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
1. Re:Contractual vs. Piracy by node808 · 2009-09-08 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  There are sevearl things to consider. 1. There was a contract in place and we are not privy to such details at this time
  We all know how major record companies have a history of mistreating artists. I would bet that Sony basically OWNED Fernandez, they probably still own every cough and sneeze recorded in the studio. I would bet Sony is well within its rights, and just b/c Fernandez fulfilled his part of the contract, that does not mean Sony cant continue selling what they rightfully own. May seem unfair, but its probably all in the contract he signed.
2. Re:Contractual vs. Piracy by kneemoe · 2009-09-08 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  "4. Individuals pirating music or movies who clearly don't own a CD or DVD should be treated differently in court." differently than a multinational company that, if the plaintiff is correct, has stolen his copyrighted materials? How is this different? What's the thinking here?
  that Sony should probably be held to a higher standard because they should know better?
  right.....
  
  --
  My Sig Sucks
3. Re:Contractual vs. Piracy by realsilly · 2009-09-08 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sony would fight this in court as something that fell under a contract not as Copyright infringment. That is what I'm getting at. Which would then modify what the penalties would / could possibly be. If it's found to be a true Copyright infringement that is equivalent to that of an individual person pirating digital media, then the same laws should apply. I believe that Sony will use their full legal force to argue the case as a contractual issue not a copyright issue.
  
  --
  Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Totally Authorized by erroneus · 2009-09-08 00:31 · Score: 1

Sony says they are totally authorized and in their view, I suppose they are right.
After all, it is a strict and limited group of people who controls copyrighted material (and indeed, copyrights in general) and Sony is a proud member of the oligarchy. And what they say is authorized must be authorized since they are the ones who usually determine what is and isn't authorized.
Mexico? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 00:46 · Score: 0

Hard to say what will happen in Mexico, but in the US Sony would never have been raided (not worth the resources of the prosecutor's office). Sony would have counter sued for breach of contract. Sony would have claimed copyright for all songs. Sony would have demanded five additional albums as compensation.
A pound of flesh by Rob+the+Bold · 2009-09-08 00:51 · Score: 1

Loo[k]s to me Sony will be forced to pony up. Don't you love it when a draconian law come to bite the creators in the ass? (I do.)
As with the Merchant of Venice, if you argue for the strictest interpretation of the law when it's in your favor, then your own words should be used against you when you're on the other side.

--
I am not a crackpot.
But Sony might me right! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 01:00 · Score: 0

I mean consider this, the songs were recorded/created while the artist was working for Sony, so it belongs to them. You're slashdoters, so think of it this way, you work for a company, writing code all day of all that code only 5% makes it into the final version, you get paid for it, but also for the other 95%. When you leave the firm you can keep what you got in your head but cant take what's on the server. So I dont think it's really wrong. Still it's a petty way to make money.
1. Re:But Sony might me right! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  This was discussed three hours ago already... Musicians are not employed, they just have a contract where they promise to record X records and Sony promises to give them a Y% of the profits (after stuff like recording and marketing expenses have been covered).
And in standing with other trials... by ZekoMal · 2009-09-08 01:14 · Score: 1

Just like the other trials involving the music industry, this one looks like an overwhelming win for good. Somehow, I'm getting the feeling that all charges will be dropped; in fact, I get the feeling that the artist will somehow be -fined-. Just going with the track record for these trials, is all...
Sony isnt the bad guy here by smd75 · 2009-09-08 01:59 · Score: 1

Im usually one to want to stick it to the RIAA, Sony is most likely in the right. Now we dont have the contract, but Im pretty confident, if the artist goes back and reads the contract it will have a clause saying something along the lines "Any and all content created during the time of contract is property of Sony Entertainment." It is many different contracts. Employees at a large software company, Apple, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft... any side projects the employee is working on during time of employment is property of the employer. Infact, a project that an Apple employee was working on, made it into SL. I dont remember what it was, but I do remember the Apple reps at the Pro Day event at my school talking about it. I think it was for improved Samba support.

--
Im a troll because I disagree with you.
Hoisted by their own petard by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 02:25 · Score: 0

I think the point is that everyone loves seeing Sony hoisted by their own petard.
Is that really so wrong?
Or... by GameboyRMH · 2009-09-08 02:34 · Score: 1

Don't buy stuff/shop from places that use rebates. Avoid the hassle and vote with your dollars all at once.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Or... by Mister+Whirly · 2009-09-08 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Only like 15% of people actually redeem the rebate, and if you happen to be one of those 15% (and I am) all it means is that you are getting your products at a slightly reduced overall price. If I buy something with a rebate, as soon as I get home I fill out all the stuff, make photocopies, and send it off the same day. So far I am yet to not receive a rebate for anything I have ever sent in. The "hassle" of losing 5 minutes of my time to gain 10%-50% off the price of something I was going to buy anyway is not enough to dissuade me to buy something else without a rebate.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
2. Re:Or... by GameboyRMH · 2009-09-08 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I just look for similar products that cost about the post-rebate price of the competing product with the rebate.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
3. Re:Or... by Mister+Whirly · 2009-09-08 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Which is fine unless you want a specific product. Generally I am going to buy it either way, it is just nice to get some money back. And I have also gotten $100+ rebates before, and I know there was nothing even close to the same price without the rebates at those times. I guess I just don't think filling out a form that takes less than 5 minutes and making a photocopy that takes less than a minute is reason enough not to buy something. It just isn't a big deal to me. People also think coupons are a waste of time but I routinely save 15-20% off my grocery trips by using them. It isn't that I consider my time valueless, but sometimes I have more time than money...
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
4. Re:Or... by BikeHelmet · 2009-09-08 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I got screwed by Mushkin.
  Every other rebate I've ever sent in I received. eVGA, OCZ, Asus, and Corsair have all been great. I even received an Ultra PSU rebate several years back, which I sent in months late! :P
5. Re:Or... by Meski · 2009-09-08 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  If the manufacturers are serious about the post-rebate price, then let them make it the price they sell it for, and get rid of the rebate system. Or admit that they are being dishonest in running it. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enAU291AU333&q=consumer+affairs+rebate+site:au+scam&btnG=Search&meta=
Damages by BryanL · 2009-09-08 02:36 · Score: 1

All joking aside, do we really want damages $80,000 per song (and yes I know this happened in Mexico, no legal precedent there, blah, blah...)? The problem is that if this fantasy outcome does happen, it reinforces the precedent that songs really are worth $80,000. That is not a good outcome, no matter the immediate satisfaction we most people might have.
Sure, I want Sony to have their asses handed to themselves on a plate, but please don't let this solidify the idea that songs are worth what the RIAA says. A better outcome is for Tenenbaum or Thomas to be thrown out on appeals.
And for the record, I don't think this is a copyright case. It looks more like contract law. The rules will be a little different.
Sony doesn't need to worry by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 02:40 · Score: 0

Well, if they are using Java to calculate this Sony would owe exactly $-200887296 using the Thomas precedent.
They overflow, so to say.
Reply from a Mexican by greetings+programs · 2009-09-08 03:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Although the information is correct, the poster resoning is very silly. I am from Guadalajara, and I happen to know the guys on Alejandro Fernandez' Law Firm. I assure you almost nobody here has ever heard from Jammie Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum, or care about it, and our law system for better or for worse is completely different from the US law system. The law is more based on the written law. It is very rare that a case creates precedent, and of course to a case from the US. As much as I would love Sony Music get slapped with a big fine, you can expect they will only be slapped in the wrist and I almost sure that the lawswit aims more to prevent the distribution of the album and songs and scare some shit out of the stupid Sony execs. Besides, Alejandro Fernandez is well known for being a very spoiled brat, so take his words with a big grain of salt. His lawyer is also very aggresive, so we can expect some media frenzy about this. But not much more.

--
Greetings, programs!
The fine should be... by CodeBuster · 2009-09-08 03:27 · Score: 1

$23,148,855,308,184,500
Each of those tracks could be put on P2P by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 03:35 · Score: 0

and pirated to potentially THOUSANDS of others.
And those people could be pirates in poorer countries than Mexico, where the CDs are even cheaper.
Just like Jammie's P2P shared files.
But her case didn't consider that foreign people could have taken a copy, did they.
So why should this case consider it?
For Profit? by wfstanle · 2009-09-08 03:36 · Score: 1

I believe the copyright law provides for even greater penalties when the intent is to make copies with the intent to distribute FOR PROFIT!
Which to side with? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 03:59 · Score: 0

If Sony (artists old record company) and Universal (artists new record company) are both members of the RIAA, then who would the RIAA represent if it were to go to court?
back-of-the-envelope by nitroamos · 2009-09-08 04:01 · Score: 1

relax. you always need to make a few simplifications/approximations in order to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation...
after reading this summary, my secret hope is that the story can be used as precedent for the US. you kid yourself if you think that americans really care what happens in mexico...
Music Cartel? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 04:09 · Score: 0

I think the Mexicans have much more higher priorities towards real cartels that are out killing and ruining peoples lives.
This case is what we call a 'waste of time and misunderstanding of the court system'; it will be resolved and just another chickenshit article to get all the anti-copyright hawks all worked up.
The anti-copyright pundents have really taken a kick in the nuts the last year or so with their foolish mistake of telling that poor woman 'Jammie Thomas' to stand up; the groups that rallied here have all but abandone her now, thepiratebay operators are bankrupt from making the millions they did with ads while they relied on hollywood movies to make a product.
Here's an idea, make your own product that people will enjoy and show them your business model is superior over Sony's.
But, but, but.... that would require to actual do some work instead of leeching and whinning.
Midnight Oil put it nicely by Stormwatch · 2009-09-08 06:24 · Score: 1

Mining companies
Pastoral companies
Uranium companies
Collected companies
Got more right than people
Got more say than people
( from the Oils' "The Dead Heart" )

That's a different context, but it really fits. The MAFIAA keeps suing people into financial ruin for something that common sense would call a very minor infraction, if any at all. It'd be fair that, when THEY fuck up, people could drive them into financial ruin just as easily!

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
4 billon pesos! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 06:30 · Score: 0

In pesos.
sony rootkit by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 07:13 · Score: 0

never forget, never forgive
Missing a key point by ae1294 · 2009-09-08 08:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

You guys are missing a key point that shows that Sony is not going to be distorted but they aren't getting off the hook totally ether.
From TFA:

Sony announced it was creating an album of Fernandez' previously recorded music, which Universal protested.

The lawyers over at Universal have already read the contract and while they might know they will loose at trial they are betting Sony will settle...
Should be substantially more by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 10:08 · Score: 0

Jamie and Joel did not intend to distribute the songs for profit. Sony did. Different class of animal.
Sony must pay by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 13:19 · Score: 0

Sony must pay, and pay now. They can get their goon-friends over at Disney to kick in the rest if they are short for the cash. I recommend the higher (as did the courts). Sony owed 4 billion, bazillion dollars. Pay up or die!
The big issue, and what was missed by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-08 13:28 · Score: 0

Everyone seeing this thinks, "WOW! Mexico stood up for one of their own against Sony!" Mexico isn't exactly known for being free of corruption though. One could easily see the artist being ignored, countersued on some bogus charge or having an accident.
This isn't just one man vs a mega-corp though. This man signed up with one of Sony's competitors. They too have an interest in how this turns out, and probably equivalent clout to Sony. This is likely strictly a matter of two record companies fighting each other for who gets to sell the music, while Universal plays it as "think of the artist" for sympathy. It's nice to see the record companies turn on themselves though. That said, their cartel-ing is probably worth more than any random single artist is. I can see a deal being worked out between Universal and Sony and this whole thing being dropped without a peso for the artist.
If this was one man vs the record company, it probably wouldn't have gotten this much coverage, or a police raid. What's to stop any number of disgruntled artists from calling one in for revenge? A raid is only going to be approved if requested from a "reputable" source.
Wouldn't it be nice though, if the labels got so ticked they broke apart the RIAA and actually competed... who knows, maybe if they did they'ed get better and wouldn't need to resort to lawsuits etc to survive.
Sony is NFG by Alien+Being · 2009-09-08 13:33 · Score: 1

I used to love their products and by extension the company that made them.
My hatred for them started about twenty years ago when I learned a couple facts about them. For one, it's absurdly expensive to repair their stuff. It shouldn't be but it is. You bought their crap, now you'll pay. They, along with Matsushita and others destroyed the US consumer electronics industry by illegally dumping their goods in our country.
Throw in their willingness to ignore their own CDDA standards and make bogus music disks. And there's a rootkit? Are you kidding me? Contribute heavily to the RIAA and then go steal IP like this? Nice guys, huh? Yeah, I'll do business with them... when hell freezes over.
All depends on the contract by stanjam · 2009-09-09 01:03 · Score: 1

It depends greatly upon the contract he signed. If he released copyright to all songs written during that period, then he will not win. If the contract is simply limited to seven albums, and the rights to music on those albums (as opposed to music written for the albums, whether or not they made it on) then he may have some recourse. Without knowing what the contract involves it is very hard to say.

--
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
Bribes... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-09 01:12 · Score: 0

Where did you get the idea that the Mexican Police was bribed?
There is nothing about that in TFA.
Besides, raids on suspected copyright infringers are nothing new. There have been similar raids on The Pirate Bay, and Sony certainly operates on a comparable scale. That is not some school kid who shares a few albums on his computer.
If the allegations are true, this is a case of commercial copyright infringement. A rather big fish, certainly bigger than Tenenbaum or Thomas.
It is assumed that if the Mexican police are involved, a bribe was given. You gotta hand those bastards a few pesos to say hi and walk away free from the encounter.