Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copyright Troubles For Sony

Posted by kdawson on 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."

27 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. If only... by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You just know they'll find some way to weasel out of it...

    1. Re:If only... by sopssa · · 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 rolfwind · · 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.

    3. Re:If only... by Another,+completely · · 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.)

    4. Re:If only... by siloko · · 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 . . .

    5. Re:If only... by jcr · · 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."
    6. Re:If only... by commodore64_love · · 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
    7. Re:If only... by dimeglio · · 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.
    8. Re:If only... by Skrynesaver · · 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
    9. Re:If only... by Opportunist · · 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.
  2. Some counterpoints by Hitman_Frost · · 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 · · 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 pipatron · · 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 */
    3. Re:Some counterpoints by deathy_epl+ccs · · 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.

    4. Re:Some counterpoints by rdnetto · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hush you! Quit raining on our parade!

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    5. Re:Some counterpoints by Jellybob · · 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.

    6. Re:Some counterpoints by thisnamestoolong · · 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
  3. So how many cd's do we need to sell by zlel · · Score: 4, Funny

    to feed our musicians again?

  4. Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by beerbear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mexico. United States. Not the same thing.

    --
    Hold my beer and watch this!
    1. Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? by Instantlemming · · 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...

  5. "You woldn't steal a CD" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would you, Sony?

  6. Screw the lottery by cfriedt · · 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.

  7. Sweden. United States. Not the same thi... by meist3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh whoops

  8. Re:51576? by Lonewolf666 · · 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
  9. Re:51576? by L4t3r4lu5 · · 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/
  10. Re:51576? by Spy+der+Mann · · 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.

  11. Punishment by whisper_jeff · · 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...