CRIA Faces $60 Billion Lawsuit

jvillain writes "The Canadian Recording Industry Association faces a lawsuit for 60 billion dollars over willful infringement. These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that led the recording industry to claim a single file sharer is liable for millions in damages. Since these exact same companies are currently in the middle of trying to force the Canadian government to bring in a DMCA for Canada, it will be interesting to see how they try to spin this."

Comments

Irony

[girlintraining]

Irony, defined: The institution responsible for changing copyright law so individuals face millions in fines and years behind jail now has to argue against it to save its own ass.

Re:Irony

[gigabites2]

Serves 'em right.

Re:Irony

[schmidt349]

Your Canadian accent makes it hard for me to understand you. I thought I heard you say "argue against it" instead of "buy off their accusers/judges/jurors."

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations can't go to jail. Corporations can't willfully infringe either, because they have no will of their own.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, please, please let the recording industry lose and learn a goddamn lesson! But I don't have much hope for that. The same industry that bankrupts individuals over a little file sharing also lobbies and donates funds to politicians. Why do I feel that they're just gonna get a (hard) slap on the wrist for this?

Remember, this is the same Sony that rootkitted millions of PCs in the US and Canada and got off with "those who purchased an XCP CD will be paid $7.50 per purchased recording and given the opportunity to download a free album, or be able to download three additional albums from a limited list of recordings if they give up their cash incentive." That $7.50 includes being at fault for copyright infringement for including GPL code in their rootkit.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily our judges are not elected so it makes it a little harder to bribe them (can't contribute money to them without it being an obvious bribe, vs. a campaign donation/etc. in the US).

Re:Irony

[KefabiMe]

Past evidence shows what is likely here. I know this doesn't have anything to do directly with music, but corporations have taken over the government. They insist on having the same rights as a human being, yet when it comes to punishments they know they can get away with murder.

If I had attempted to root kit even a small fraction of the PCs that Sony did, or commit copyright infringement on a much much smaller scale than what this story talks about, I would be ruined. I would lose all my possessions, probably be thrown in jail, unable to contribute to society, and disconnected from social ties. But we all know that these record companies won't be drastically hurt by this. Besides, the executives have already given themselves bonuses and spent the money on blow, or whatever else it is that these people spend millions on.

No one is going to jail over this. The industry will not be hurt. And no lessons will be learned.

Re:Irony

[erroneus]

This is shocking and awe inspiring to me. They have paid thousands if not millions to have these laws put into place. And here's the kicker -- it's not casual copying or sharing -- it's massive for-profit piracy. There should be criminal charges filed, prison time served and a massive reorganization of the companies charged.

Re:Irony

[dakameleon]

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word 'bribe'. Indeed, the very first definition on Google for Bribe is:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bribe :
make illegal payments to in exchange for favors or influence; "This judge can be bought"

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Now please go f*ck yourself.

I think you mean "Take off, hoser!"

Re:Irony

[arbiter1]

Its a bitch when the rules and damage ammount you get set for things comes back to royally bite you in the ass as it has for CRIA

Re:Irony

[shentino]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel

Seeing as how it was based on common law it may trace its ancestry back to Britain and might well be relevent in Canada, seeing as it's part of the empire.

Re:Irony

[m.ducharme]

Officers of those corporations can (but probably not in this case).

Re:Irony

[selven]

It's like Microsoft and software patents: they'll find a way to bullshit their way through with their self-contradictory needs.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend says "Minnesota nice" really means "Minnesota nice to your face" (while putting a knife in your back).

Is that true, eh?

Re:Irony

[A nonymous Coward]

No point in polluting prisons with them. Just make the fines so big they have to declare bankruptcy ... and make sure they can't. Make 'em live in poverty the rest of their lives.

Re:Irony

[girlintraining]

I think you mean "Take off, hoser!"

Oh, this is just ducky...

Re:Irony

[euxneks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel

Seeing as how it was based on common law it may trace its ancestry back to Britain and might well be relevent in Canada, seeing as it's part of the empire.

Commonwealth. We are not part of any empire save our own.

Re:Irony

[Shark]

Except we have a representative of the queen as governor general with power (unused, but power still) to abolish any law that the queen disagrees with.

Re:Irony

[kurt555gs]

Better yet, make them live here: http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/WCYLT.html/

Re:Irony

[TapeCutter]

I don't know about the Canadian GG but the Aussie GG does not have the power to strike down laws. He (she actually) only has the power to sack the government in the specific case where a double dissolution deadlocks parliment to a point where it is incapable of financing the new law and the government of the day refuses to either back down, or hold an election to break the deadlock. Even in those specific cirumstances it depends on who sacks who first since the government of the day also has the power to sack the GG. (re:Whitlam vs Kerr).

I suppose that technically the GG could refuse to give royal accent to the new law but in that case the government of the day could simply sack the GG and appoint someone more cooperative.

Re:Irony

[Fluffeh]

Good god, I think I opened my Christmas presents early by reading this article...

If there is such a thing as a glee/giggle dance, I just did it.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to be confused and/or uptight. If both cases, perhaps you should stay off a site where everyone thinks they are a comedian. If the former then this should help:

joke

n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal
    a. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
    b. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.

v. joked, joking, jokes
1. To tell or play jokes; jest.
2. To speak in fun; be facetious.

Re:Irony

[PachmanP]

We are not part of any empire save our own.

Ah yes, the vast Canadian Empire. At one time covering up to 6.7% of the land area of the earth. It was a fearsome empire with the children trained from birth to hurl rocks across frozen lakes and ice fish.

Re:Irony

[BlueStraggler]

I suppose that technically the GG could refuse to give royal accent to the new law

Canadian Law would be much funnier if given in the royal accent.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget reorganization. How about banishment from Canada for the infringing companies, and expulsion for all Company board members from holding a Corporate officer, or member position in Canada. THAT might send a message to these assholes, and any who linger in this industry or any other.

Re:Irony

[DarkProphet]

Not exactly, it just means that we will treat you nice (for the most part) regardless of whether or not we actually like you. The knife in the back is completely optional.

Contrast with New Yorkers, who are more than happy to hand out unsolicited "fuck you's" for just being in their presence.

Re:Irony

[Abstrackt]

I think you mean "Take off, hoser!"

Oh, this is just ducky eh...

FTFY. Welcome to Canada. ;)

Re:Irony

[legojenn]

You say it like it's a bad thing.

Re:Irony

[Yaa 101]

If we, the public start to play along in the words war called public relations and put in front of "Sony did this and Sony did that" the sentence "The decision makers within" then sooner or later there will be an environment in which people are going to check who those decision makers are.
Expose the decision making individuals within and they will be honey to the bear lawyers out there.

Re:Irony

[ahankinson]

You need to brush up on your civics. The Queen is the Queen of Canada. She is the same physical person as the Queen of England, but legally she is two completely separate entities. She can only be advised by Canadians on Canadian matters, and legally has no ties to the UK.

The GG, especially of late, is appointed out of the people who have contributed to Canadian society. While some disagree with the value of the appointees contributions, they are largely done outside of partisan lines. This gives our head of state an important role in the system of checks and balances, and means that his or her appointment isn't subject to the same dirty tricks that typically comes with elections. The theory is that even if a party can manage to push a bad law through Parliament (especially in a majority Gov't situation), and through the Senate (a longer-term and more "sober" house, but political nonetheless), it can be stopped by the head of state if it isn't seen to benefit Canadian society. This avoids the situation we're seeing now in the US where a whole country can swing one way or another depending on which party has the president in the White House. Canada's is fundamentally a more stable setup.

The well-functioning of Canadian society depends on all three parts of government acting together, which they do most of the time with little issue. Yes, it is true that the GG can stomp on a bill, but if it's passed both the House and the Senate and hasn't raised any serious questions, then it's mostly a formality. Likewise, she can't "abolish" a law without the approval of the other parts of government either.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, yes the GG could refuse to sign any bill she disagrees with. It has not ever happened in the history of Canada. Even if something like this happened, there would probably be an emergency council where they would force the GG to sign or retire. The GG is really a sock puppet for the ruling government, and always sides with who is currently in power.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The record industry spend their millions on payola to get airplay for 3 by Britney Spears. Arghhh!

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to break the bad news to you.

If you have the queen on your money you are British... Sorry to break the bad news to you.

Re:Irony

[Fishead]

Didn't the GG step in last year to put that coalition on hold? I don't pay TOO much attention to politics, but last year when everyone was fighting like dirty school kids I seem to remember the GG had to step in. With the Liberals and NDP pretending that because there's a minority gov't, the people clearly wish to have a coalition rather then the clowns we elected. The way I remember it, they were trying to push a non-confidence vote through before the Christmas break. The GG was out of the country at the time, and had to rush back to put an end to the nonsense. Because the elected fools are really only concerned about themselves, and Dion knew this was pretty much his last chance at PM, they couldn't be trusted to make a decision based on the good of the country. Michaëlle Jean stepped in and sent everyone home early for christmas break during which time the politicians had to listen to their constituents who were very unhappy with the whole thing. By the time they got back to work, the coalition had dissolved and we were back to normal.

Regardless of your political standing, the whole thing was done without voter support. Michaëlle Jean had the power to either endorse the coalition (allowing the losers to form the gov't), or to call an election. We just HAD a stinken election. Because the GG office is not elected, she was able to make the decision based on the good of the country, not the twisted/manipulated view of our elected representatives.

But yeah, that was a good time going into a recession.

Re:Irony

[Grimbleton]

It's true. Fuck off. :)

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, now, maybe not...consider, if the defendant wins the case, it sets up a precedent that future defendants (citizen Joe, perhaps?) of such motions can use to have their own cases decided more favorably. OTOH, if they lose, then it opens the door for retaliatory suits from others who might now have a brick to throw back at the likes of the RIAA/ CRIA etc. Either way, it's a signal that the endless money train the recording industry has been strong-arming is about to get just a little less profitable and a wee bit riskier for them. Not much of an improvement, but it's a step towards change of SOME sort, at least.

Re:Irony

[multisync]

The GG is really a sock puppet for the ruling government, and always sides with who is currently in power.

As she did last year, when she prevented a confidence vote by poroging parliament.

Re:Irony

[multisync]

With the Liberals and NDP pretending that because there's a minority gov't, the people clearly wish to have a coalition rather then the clowns we elected

The Liberals, Bloc and NDP were doing exactly what is called for in a minority situation: cooperating. If Harper and Flaherty hadn't jumped at the chance to "destroy the competition" they wouldn't have had to run and hide in Michaelle Jean's skirt.

The way I remember it, they were trying to push a non-confidence vote through before the Christmas break.

Your memory could use refreshing. Flaherty delivered an economic update, which included plans to eliminate the subsidy political parties receive, as well as civil servants' right to strike and other measures that the opposition parties could never support. All "money bills" are confidence motions, so the government created your pre-Christmas confidence crisis itself.

Flaherty painted the opposition in to a corner by presenting an update they could not support, then called them "undemocratic" ("separatists and socialists," our PM describing the MPs *we the citizens elected*) for threatening to do as they are elected to do.

We just HAD a stinken election.

Which Harper broke his own fixed election date legislation to call. The coalition was an attempt to head off another one.

Re:Irony

[Xelios]

Rick Mercer (Canada's version of Jon Stewart) did a great explanation of this very system and how it works, using that event as an example. Funny too.

Re:Irony

[mpe]

This is shocking and awe inspiring to me. They have paid thousands if not millions to have these laws put into place.

After the MPAA was caught pirating a movie, with both the MPAA & the RIAA having been caught pirating software it was only a matter of time before something like this happened.

And here's the kicker -- it's not casual copying or sharing -- it's massive for-profit piracy.

With this going on for 20 odd years.

There should be criminal charges filed, prison time served

Does Canadian law allow for "corporate people" to be imprisoned?

and a massive reorganization of the companies charged.

Even paying a fraction of the proposed amount would probably leave the companies involved so insolvent that liquidation would be the only possibility.

Re:Irony

[mpe]

Its a bitch when the rules and damage ammount you get set for things comes back to royally bite you in the ass as it has for CRIA

It's known as "hoist with one's own petard" :)

Re:Irony

[mpe]

But I don't have much hope for that. The same industry that bankrupts individuals over a little file sharing also lobbies and donates funds to politicians. Why do I feel that they're just gonna get a (hard) slap on the wrist for this?

As long as it gets before a judge it's going to hurt. The Canadian Judiciary are no friends of the entertainments industry.

Re:Irony

[RocketRabbit]

Oh come on now.

The commonwealth is the English Empire.

Re:Irony

[Rogerborg]

The commonwealth is the English Empire.

...run mostly by Scotsmen.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Even paying a fraction of the proposed amount would probably leave the companies involved so insolvent that liquidation would be the only possibility.

As hard as I try, I'm not seeing a downside.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

She is the same physical person as the Queen of England, but legally she is two completely separate entities.

Schrodinger's Queen? One queen, two entities?

Re:Irony

[draco664]

Sorry to break the bad news to you.

If you have the queen on your money you are British... Sorry to break the bad news to you.

The same way that if you have a pyramid on your money you are Egyptian?

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

It may sound good in paper (well, ascii), but this is just going to cause the copyright cartel to break up and reform into new corporations owned by the same people.

As one wise person once summed it all up: "Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility.". And he knew that a whole damn century before the MAFIAA and decades before the oiligarchy was even born.

Re:Irony

[BForrester]

The Canadian GG has the power to veto laws (by not signing), but the power is largely symbolic, and has never been used. On the other hand, the GG has forced a Prime Minister to resign, refused to dissolve parliament, and recently (she) prorogued a parliamentary session in order to avoid a call for elections just two months after the previous government was instated.

BTW, we now prefer royal assent. Under the old system of royal accent, it was annoying to have the GG proclaim after every passed bill, "Oh, jolly good then. Capital job. Right-O. Carry on then."

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly her reply is a veiled joke. 'I'm Minnesotan and proof of the legendary Minnesota Nice. Now please go fuck yourself with a rake. HAND.' See how this works?

Re:Irony

[hr raattgift]

A few corrigenda and then some tl;dr information for you.

The short version is that several nasty civil wars were fought to make sure that this sentence of yours is legally and politically false:

if a party can manage to push a bad law through Parliament (especially in a majority Gov't situation), and through the Senate (a longer-term and more "sober" house, but political nonetheless), it can be stopped by the head of state

The Parliament of Canada consists of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Queen of Canada. (This is not what you say in your sentence above; you meant "the House of Commons" rather than "Parliament" presumably).

The consolidated Constitution Acts (1867-1982) says:

IV. 17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.

Also:

Yes, it is true that the GG can stomp on a bill, but if it's passed both the House and the Senate and hasn't raised any serious questions, then it's mostly a formality. Likewise, she can't "abolish" a law without the approval of the other parts of government either

is only true with respect to "without the approval of the other parts of [Parliament]", and then only if you read "The Queen" as "the Prime Minister", effectively.

The Queen (as an institution, rather than as a person) has a vital Constitutional role that is quite active. IV. 54. requires that the Queen make a recommendation before any spending bill may lawfully be passed by Parliament; 55. and 57. require that the Queen give Assent to any bill before it is enacted.

Both Houses of Parliament have their own rules that further restrict their activities with respect to IV. 54. (and the Senate is further constrained by 53. which requires that all money-raising bills originate in the House of Commons). Finally, 56. allows the Queen to disallow any Act within one year of its passage. In general, very little legislation may lawfully be passed without both the Queen's *prior and subsequent* consent.

In practice the Queen of Canada is read as the government of the day, since she may not exercise her powers directly or through the Governor-General without the advice of the Prime Minister (which is often delegated to other ministers and officials).

The Recommendation requirement and the statutory and house rules allow even a minority government to control all budget legislation. A House of Commons and Senate dominated by opponents cannot increase taxes *or* spending without the approval of the government (i.e. the Prime Minister of the day); if they want to do that, they must force the government to resign. (As examples, they can do this either by refusing to pass any legislation at all, or by starving the government of Supply, or the House of Commons can indicate that it has no confidence in the government's ability to govern).

Non-budget legislation can be passed by both Houses of Parliament in spite of the government's wishes, in which case the government likely would refuse to give the bill Royal Assent, killing it dead.

A government that controls Parliament and in its last few months starts passing Acts that the immediate successor government strongly disagrees with could see the use of the Disallowance power used against those Acts by the incoming government.

The power of the Queen of Canada to act contrary to the advice of the Prime Minister was fully extinguished in the wake of the King-Byng affair (1925), the Balfour Declaration (1926), the Statute of Westminster (1931) and finally by section 12 of the consolidated Constitution Act which ultimately finalized Parliament's abolition of the Queen of Canada's ability to exercise any personally held (or delegated) constitutional powers without the advice of the Prime Minister (or the Cabinet Committee and Emergency Committes of the Privy Council of Canada where the Prime Minister is incapacitated).

Moreove

Re:Irony

[Chirs]

Contrary to what the Conservatives tried to claim, what the Liberals and NDP did was completely legitimate.

The Conservatives proposed some really nasty legislation--bad enough to trigger the coalition talks even though they were eventually withdrawn

As the Conservatives were about to lose a confidence vote (and thus be forced to step down as the governing party) the Prime Minister asked the GG to step in and prorogue parliament. There was serious discussion at the time as to whether she would do it or let the coalition take a run at governing.

As to whether or not it had voter support, that's impossible to gauge since it wasn't an election issue. However, given that the majority of individuals voted for someone other than the Conservatives, a Liberal/NDP coalition would arguably be more representative of voting results.

Re:Irony

[RobertM1968]

Not exactly, it just means that we will treat you nice (for the most part) regardless of whether or not we actually like you. The knife in the back is completely optional.

Contrast with New Yorkers, who are more than happy to hand out unsolicited "fuck you's" for just being in their presence.

While true, at least we're pretty universal in handing out those "fuck you's" ;-) And sometimes with the best and most pleasant of intentions!!!

So, fuck you all!!! And I mean that in the nicest of ways! ;-)

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

You want irony? The companies want the same rights as people, let them be treated as people. The company perpetrates a criminal act, the company goes to jail -- all business operations are required to cease for the duration of the sentence, all assets are frozen.

Re:Irony

[BoberFett]

Minnesota Nice is actually Minnesota Gullible. It's just looks like Minnesotans being nice when really most of the people here are just smiling at the person talking because they don't understand what was just said.

Re:Irony

[Mister Whirly]

"Minnesota Nice" in effect means "I will pretend to be nice to your face, and when you are not around talk shit and stab you in the back as much as possible". Basically most Minnesotans are very passive aggressive. I know - I have lived there for 35 years of my life.

Re:Irony

[Mister Whirly]

No, we are smiling because we are secretly plotting to kill you and don't want you to know. We just pretend not to understand to lull you into a false sense of security. And you bought it all. Now who is gullible?

Re:Irony

[sabt-pestnu]

A zombie bankruptcy like the same way that SCO has declared bankruptcy?

I do hope you're not talking about a Chrysler-style bankruptcy. Or worse, a Lehman Brothers bankruptcy...

Re:Irony

[hesaigo999ca]

I will be happy to see how this one turns out, in case I get caught downloading,
I might need to know what their defense is, and how to apply it in court.
: )

Re:Irony

[hesaigo999ca]

So true, so true.... (sigh)

Re:Irony

[psyque]

oh snap!

Re:Irony

[poofmeisterp]

The industry will not be hurt. And no lessons will be learned.

I'll agree but add on a trailer. No lessons will be learned, except for those related to more effective cover-up and methodology modeling of future ventures.

IMHO.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The commonwealth is the English Empire.

...run mostly by Scotsmen.

Right and by this Yank's estimation it has been that way for over 160 years.

Re:Irony

[euxneks]

Ah yes, the vast Canadian Empire. At one time covering up to 6.7% of the land area of the earth. It was a fearsome empire with the children trained from birth to hurl rocks across frozen lakes and ice fish.

You forgot kicking ass at hockey and making love in canoes.

Re:Irony

[StikyPad]

Why, exactly? I can try to sue you for anything and everything.. that doesn't mean I'll be successful. I'm withholding any dancing until (and probably beyond) there is a judgment against the defendants.

Re:Irony

[BoberFett]

I've lived here most of my life. Trust me, I know how gullible people here are.

Re:Irony

[Mister Whirly]

Well that just proves my point. We have even you fooled too.

We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Anonymous Coward]

So that the artists might be more directly ripped off by the filesharing.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how much time you spend on the internet, but we've been doing exactly that for a good while now.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[pitchpipe]

People might buy more and share less if they knew that more of the money went to the artist. I don't know that for sure, but if I were a bettin' man I'd put money on it. People have a natural aversion to $BIGCORP, but they have a natural affinity for their favorite artist.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[digitalunity]

Indeed, they are showing their true colors here. They don't care about the artists income, they care about lining their own pockets. You think when they sue consumers for copyright infringement they divvy up that money among the artists whose copyrights were violated? Nope.

They want to collect all the money without paying it out to artists. Not to mention a lot of them aren't paying artists at all, or enough for their digital downloads.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Zak3056]

Indeed, they are showing their true colors here. They don't care about the artists income, they care about lining their own pockets. You think when they sue consumers for copyright infringement they divvy up that money among the artists whose copyrights were violated? Nope.

Actually, the money does go to the people who own the copyrights.

That's how bad the music industry is--the typical recording contract involves a record company giving a loan to the artist (an "advance") who then finances the recording (including advertising.) The loan is paid back from owed royalties before the artist sees a dime, and when all is said and done, the record companies come out owning the copyrights to the finished product. It's like getting a mortgage, paying on it for 30 years, and at the end of the term, instead of gaining clear title, the bank says, "Thanks for the house!"

To add insult to injury, the record companies do whatever they can to screw the artist out of whatever small percentage they're due (breakage fees for 78RPM vinyl records, for example. No, I'm not kidding.)

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a thought:

Before downloading the album, send the band a check for $10 or so, to "do with as they see fit."

Is it still illegal to download the album? Is the burden now shifted to the musicians to pay the corporations?

Also, personally, I preordered an album on vinyl, then proceeded to download the album and have been enjoying it for the past few weeks. The thing is, I don't actually have possession, I simply paid for something that I'll get at some point in the future. Is this still wrong?

Now, what if the LP includes a download card (as many do)? Meaning that I've paid to get something I could get now, but need to wait to be able to use.

The biggest problem is that I'm a grad student, and even though I like to support my favorite artists (most are non-RIAA, but that's besides the point), I tend to download what I want, and buy what I can.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[sjames]

To make it worse though, they also fail to pay the royalties owed by contract on the money they get for copyright infringement. They just pocket it.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[TapeCutter]

If an artist signs away their work without understanding the fine print then it's poor judgement on their part. If a record company routinely fails to honour contracts by witholding royalties then they are a criminal organisation.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[clang_jangle]

People might buy more and share less if they knew that more of the money went to the artist.

It works that way for me. For several years now I've been buying music from artists who sell it directly, and using TPB for RIAA music. Though frankly, I seem to require less and less RIAA music as time goes by.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Shabazz Rabbinowitz]

Hear, hear. As Guy Forsyth once said (while still with the Asylum Street Spankers):

"I would like to talk about something called 'Musical Darwinism.' If you go see a band, and they suck? Don't tip. That way, they'll die and next week there'll be another band. But if you see a band that you like, Ladies and Gentlemen, give dearly." (Track 11)

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Foobar of Borg]

If an artist signs away their work without understanding the fine print then it's poor judgement on their part.

The only choices available are (1) accept one of the various identical contracts, or (2) never be a publicly known musician.

If a record company routinely fails to honour contracts by witholding royalties then they are a criminal organisation.

They are criminal organizations, but who can successfully sue them? Plus, if they can write the laws through "campaign contributions" then they are no longer "criminals" even if their activities are highly immoral and exploitive.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[realityimpaired]

They are criminal organizations, but who can successfully sue them? Plus, if they can write the laws through "campaign contributions" then they are no longer "criminals" even if their activities are highly immoral and exploitive.

Buying laws through "campaign contributions" is significantly more difficult for them to do in Canada... up here, it is illegal for a corporation (either privately owned, publicly owned, or foreign owned) to give *any* campaign contributions, or other contributions, to a political party, candidate, or electoral district association. There is also a maximum on an individual's personal contributions: they cannot exceed about $1100/year (it gets adjusted every year for inflation/deflation, and is currently just over $1100). Additionally, any contributions exceeding $20 are a matter of public record. They can't get around it by donating goods/services in liew of cash, either, as the equivalent cash value of the goods/services donated are counted against that $1100.

Breaking those rules is Election Fraud, and the bare minimum penalty for a politician being found guilty of Election Fraud would be that they lose their position in parliament and are barred from ever voting or running for office again. They could, potentially, go to jail. And if it were a party that's guilty of it, they could be de-listed as an official party and lose their access to public funding for their campaigns.

References:
Relevant section of the Canada Elections Act
Online financial reports for contributions, searchable by the general public. As a matter of public record, you can also request older records by calling the phone number provided on that page.

Obligatory disclaimer:
I no longer work for that department, but I used to work for Elections Canada, and it was my job to know the Elections Act inside and out in order to be able to answer questions like this.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[gobbo]

If an artist signs away their work without understanding the fine print then it's poor judgement on their part..

True, except for the part where the fine print is designed to obfuscate and mislead, and the company's agents recruit under false pretenses, and the negotiations involve all kinds of sleazy practices and misdirection, and the playing field is basically a monopoly.

If we held to a pure 'caveat emptor' line of reasoning then we might as well do away with all fraud laws and similar industry regulation.

The stereotype of the naiive artist is based on the common fact that they (we) have no taste for the implicit corruption and nastiness of business and legalese, instead preferring innuendo, sniping, and petty ego thumping. Money is really just an extension, or symptom, of fame. This means that most artists are the business equivalent of a minor.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[TapeCutter]

"The only choices available are (1) accept one of the various identical contracts, or (2) never be a publicly known musician."

Yes, that's the standard recording industry sales pitch. However if it were true then it implies the Beatles were not "publicly known" until 1962 and could not found their own record company six years later.

Option (3): If you want to be a billionare rock star like Paul McCartney or Elton John then you need to work at getting "publiclly known" before you get to sign a contract on your terms and become an "overnight sensation".

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[BLKMGK]

Suggested reading -> http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

Honestly it reminds me of how the movie companies screw people too. Stan Lee for instance. Big superhero movie makes piles of cash at the box office... but when it's time to pay HIS share well suddenly the accountants have done the math and he gets a pittance. It's sort of like what I call "hospital math", if you've ever looked at one of those bills and wondered why a tongue depressor cost $20 well now you know! Also reminds me of how when I was younger and someone said they worked for a "non profit" I thought wow they're really sacrificing... Until one day a story about a charity I was giving a *significant* portion of my paycheck to (I worked minimum wage at the time) was paying their executives truckloads of cash. Non profit just meant they didn't turn a profit, never mind that they didn't help anyone and paid their executives tons of money. Sorry world, I pretty much lost desire to give to charities after that, I was giving something like 25% of my money away at the time - never again.

Anyway, you get the idea. Yes the fine print spells these things out but when a big name "hip" record guy is telling you you're going to make it BIG and he works for one of The BIGS and he tells you how this contract is "standard" well geez you're sick of eating mac and cheese and you SIGN. No pressure or anything right? Courtney isn't the only one who has spelled this out but that article was the one that turned me off of buying CDs forever. I have since slowly begun to buy MP3 from Amazon (sorry Apple, I prefer MP3) but a CD in a store? No way. If I could I'd pay the artist directly, fuck the labels. I sincerely hope this lawsuit eats them alive and that we see suits just like it here in the States - pretty please?

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Ihmhi]

Right, what record label did Jonathan Coulton sign up with again?

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly right. I stopped buying music the minute I saw news of the big corporations suing fans. Haven't bought any other than artist direct since.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Anonymous Coward]

None of them. He went with option 2.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[sodul]

Unfortunately the ones that have the power to pass such laws in the US have absolutely no interest or incentive to do so. Who is dumb enough to put a trap triggered by the feeding hand ? Me, I'm just paying my taxes without representation.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Bragador]

Also, there are so many great underground free songs out there that I don't even see a future for that industry.

The future will be in shows.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[JAlexoi]

People act as they find most beneficial for themselves. There is no such thing as altruism(with exception of self sacrifice). American politicians gain most by being door mats for the corporations, while looking "good enough" for their constituents. Even, if they don't look good enough, they can finance a very good campaign, with the contributions from those corporations. It's all about the money.
The only prominent democracy on this planet is Switzerland.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Anonymous Coward]

That is an awesome act.

Things in Australia aren't as bad as they seem to be in the US, but I'd still love to have a law like that on the books here :)

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[The Archon V2.0]

Just a thought:

Before downloading the album, send the band a check for $10 or so, to "do with as they see fit."

Is it still illegal to download the album? Is the burden now shifted to the musicians to pay the corporations?

It's still wrong, because the musicians aren't allowed to do things like that. It's in their contracts - the publisher gets the cash and gives the musician whatever fraction of a percent was agreed in the contract the musician signed when he was too poor to afford a contact lawyer to explain the fine print. See, that's the fair and legal way to do things!

Also, personally, I preordered an album on vinyl, then proceeded to download the album and have been enjoying it for the past few weeks. The thing is, I don't actually have possession, I simply paid for something that I'll get at some point in the future. Is this still wrong?

Well, since major copyright holders insist that any format shifting is wrong, then from their point of view, it doesn't matter if you order the album, wait for it to arrive, rip the music yourself from the copy you bought, and never distribute it beyond your own PC, it's STILL wrong.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[The Archon V2.0]

Actually, the money does go to the people who own the copyrights.

That's how bad the music industry is--the typical recording contract involves a record company giving a loan to the artist (an "advance") who then finances the recording (including advertising.) The loan is paid back from owed royalties before the artist sees a dime, and when all is said and done, the record companies come out owning the copyrights to the finished product.

In addition, the advance and the royalty rate are set by the record company, and set in such a way that if the album is successful but not successful enough to go super-mega-ultra-platinum, you won't make back enough to pay back the advance. In other words, you can make a very popular album and still wind up owing your label money.

Ain't it grand? And we thought debt bondage was something only pimps and slave traders did.

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Anonymous Coward]

If an artist signs away their work without understanding the fine print then it's poor judgement on their part.

Never read an industry contract, eh? They're designed to confuse the lawyers on all sides so they can be twisted to fit any situation that will make the label money. Who cares about the artist? The label sure doesn't.

And good luck getting your music played on commercial radio without a contract waiving all your rights and ownership of your material. Just doesn't happen. No contract indenturing you to slavery for the next zillion years giving the industry all your money? So sorry, you must want to stay a garage band forever...

If a record company routinely fails to honour contracts by witholding royalties then they are a criminal organisation.

See above. The industry calls this 'business as usual'. And it's not criminal in the least. The industry has already bought all the politicians and judges. Who cares what the laws are if you own the courts?

Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men

[Ihmhi]

I'm pretty sure "Still Alive" alone makes #2 false.

my bet

[sofar]

is they'll never pay a fine. guess how?

Re:my bet

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh! Oh! I like playing this game! I guess they won't pay a fine because... well they could... um... yeah, I guess don't know. :(

Re:my bet

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll put it on their "Fines Pending" list.

Meet The Old Boss... Same As The New Boss...

[MightyMartian]

All this is going to do is to convince CRIA to up the amount of money and the number of hookers it sends to Ottawa to "persuade" Parliament to pass unbalanced draconian laws that

a. Further criminalize consumers
b. Abrogate all the sins of Big Media

Look at the history of the North American recording industry. They've been ripping off artists for years. Bo Diddley was scammed out of millions in royalties by faulty userous contracts.

Re:Meet The Old Boss... Same As The New Boss...

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

This is Canada. Our politicians don't f*ck hookers.
Our politicians get their jollies f*cking the Canadian public.

Estoppel in America (and hopefully Canada)

[Foobar of Borg]

In American law, if you admit something on the record (AFAIK, IANAL, DSB [disclaimers suck balls]), you are prohibited from disclaiming it later. So, if they admit that a single song is worth, say, $75k, then they will just have to suck it up when they do the same thing. Now, if they can simply throw Bitch Mainwol in jail for a number of years, I would say that justice has been served.

Re:Estoppel in America (and hopefully Canada)

[PhilHibbs]

If I say "jaywalkers should be put to death", and I jaywalk, would I be executed for it? Have they actually sued anyone in Canada for outrageous damages? I think this is awesome, but I doubt that they will end up on the sharp end of this one.

Re:Estoppel in America (and hopefully Canada)

[mdwh2]

I'm not sure how that example is relevant, unless evidence was put forward to justify the death sentence, and then the Canadian court was considering that.

Here however, the question of how much damages are is relevant, and it seems reasonable to take their public statements into account as evidence, no matter which country they made them in.

Re:Estoppel in America (and hopefully Canada)

[ais523]

If I say "jaywalkers should be put to death", and I jaywalk, would I be executed for it?

Only if your argument manages to convince the court into actually executing someone for it. Otherwise, you can claim that you've changed your mind due to the precedent set by the court when they rejected your argument. Also, that analogy doesn't really work, because I suspect (but don't know for certain) that the principle only applies to civil cases.

Re:Estoppel in America (and hopefully Canada)

[PhilHibbs]

I suppose so. I'm just trying to think like a *RIA* lawyer.

Re:Estoppel in America (and hopefully Canada)

[Foobar of Borg]

If I say "jaywalkers should be put to death", and I jaywalk, would I be executed for it?

That's irrelevant since we are dealing with civil damages, not criminal sentences. The correct analogy would be if you admitted to jaywalking. You could not later go back and say "I didn't really mean that!"

Have they actually sued anyone in Canada for outrageous damages?I think this is awesome, but I doubt that they will end up on the sharp end of this one.

They've done that all over the States, so it wouldn't surprise me if they had already tried it in Canada.

They deserve what they get

[appleguru]

Every penny won by the artists in this lawsuit will be deserved. I hope the CRIA is found liable for every penny of the $60 billion and is put out of business once and for all.

I also hope similar infringements are found in the United States for both the RIAA and the MPAA. No company that treats their customers as poorly as these companies do deserves to be in business.

Time to cut out the middle man. The internet has opened huge new avenues for distribution; it's time the industry starts getting on board and the artists and content creators start getting more of what they are due.

Re:They deserve what they get

[DangerFace]

I hope the CRIA is found liable for every penny of the $60 billion and is put out of business once and for all.

This is so naive it very nearly pains me. Not because you think the CRIA might lose - I think of that as optimism. No, rather because you think that $60 billion is a lot of money, and that they will have to pay it. Now, IANAL, but I am pretty sure that once a company declares itself bankrupt and disappears from the face of the Earth, that's it. Gone.

Two weeks later, the Canadian Association for the Recording Industry will pop up, and lo and behold! All the same employees, bar the dead wood they were trying to shift in the first place!

Of course, I sincerely hope I am wrong. I like to think of myself as quietly optimistic, and as such I look to a future where the greedy and the vicious are chastened by society's scorn and live lives of charity and humility. Unfortunately, while that bit of my brain is being quietly optimistic, there's another bit shouting DON'T BE SO STUPID!

I was going to go to the doctor about these voices in my head, but if the RIAA hear about them singing that Miley Cyrus song I'll be done for. No, better off just keeping quiet, like they want...

Re:They deserve what they get

[CaptainTure]

Does anyone know if there are similar practises in the United States, UK or Australia?

--
chendry@auzip.com -- don't worry it's OK, it's there on purpose :0

Re:They deserve what they get

[VGPowerlord]

Actually... the lawsuit names four actual companies. Big companies. Companies that have parent companies who can, in turn, be held accountable.

To be specific, the companies are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada.

Somehow, Capital Records of Canada managed to get missed.

Re:They deserve what they get

[mochan_s]

To be specific, the companies are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada. Somehow, Capital Records of Canada managed to get missed.

It's Capitol records. They were eaten by EMI a while ago.

Re:They deserve what they get

[spasm]

Funny thing, I was just driving home from the Hollywood farmer's market yesterday in LA. My wife, on seeing the Capitol Records building, said "Wow, they still exist? What do they *do* now anyway?" I laughed and said "I think they just sue people for a living". The only visible connection to music anywhere on the building was a poster promoting some Beatles re-release in a window. A poster for a group of musicians who stopped creating new music almost half a century ago..

Anyway, that's why Capitol Canada got forgotten. They're so irrelevant no-one cares.

Re:They deserve what they get

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyrights that the companies being sued are assets that would be sold during the bankruptcy proceedings, and the proceeds would be distributed to the plaintiffs. The idea of EMI or Sony declaring bankruptcy to avoid liability is silly, they clearly have more than $60B in assets.

Re:They deserve what they get

[Anonymous Coward]

To be specific, the companies are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada.

Somehow, Capital Records of Canada managed to get missed.

It's Capitol records. They were eaten by EMI a while ago.

That's a shame. If Capitol were still around we could refer to all of them collectively as WESUC.

Re:They deserve what they get

[Anonymous Coward]

So you hate an organization because it fights copyright infringement but praise the law that will potentially end them for copyright infringement? Huh? It has to work one way or the other, if they're guilty than the people being brought in for copyright infringement are guilty and thus are in the wrong. Or if you feel that people who willingly break copyright are being wronged then you have to side with this organization.

Either way you're just as much a hypocrite as the other. How does it feel to be on the same rotten shit barge after all?

Re:They deserve what they get

[Dr. Hellno]

For one thing the record companies did one better than just pirate the music- they pirated it for commercial purposes. While the former may or may not be legal in Canada (depends who you ask), the latter is certainly illegal.

Really though, even when people posture as ideologues on this issue they usually aren't. I don't particularly think it's wrong to pirate music or even to sue people exorbitantly for doing so. I AM going to do the former if I feel like it, and I hope that the labels are prevented from doing the latter. It's easy to mistake that for me thinking that I have the moral high ground.

I think everyone's just happy that someone turned around and kicked the bully real hard in the shin. Maybe it'll take the heat off the rest of us for a while.

Re:They deserve what they get

[diginess]

No, you're completely missing the big picture which everyone else is seeing here. 1. These companies don't pay their real employees, the artists. a. The only contracts they offer make the artist work for free essentially. You could make more at a 7/11. In fact, you'll owe them far more money when you're done working for them. 2. These companies make a good deal of money suing their fans. a. These companies are lying in that they say they are collecting money for the artists. In fact, that money does not see its way to the artists. i. Therefore, they are ruining people's lives for no purpose other than to make themselves more money. They really do not care about their artists. In conclusion, the world would be a better place if these people were all dead.

Re:They deserve what they get

[JAlexoi]

Well... In Canada Warner, EMI, Sony BMG and Universal become WESU of Canada, or in short WESUC

Re:They deserve what they get

[JAlexoi]

And yet, they loose all of their property in the result of bankruptcy. That includes intellectual property.

Re:They deserve what they get

[Tarsir]

In your haste to appear world-weary and wise, you seem to have mistaken $60 billion for $60 million. I assure you that $60 billion is indeed a lot of money. This list shows that the largest (by market capitalization) company in the world has a market cap of 336 billion. I am willing to bet that $60 billion exceeds the market cap of all the companies which comprise the CRIA.

Re:They deserve what they get

[Anonymous Coward]

If they declared bankruptcy, wouldn't the creditors (ie. winners of the lawsuit) be given the company assets - including all of the copyrights they own. So they wouldn't be able to come back with any existing assets that they could cause trouble with and would have to start from scratch. Which I think would be very difficult in the current production & distribution environment.

Re:They deserve what they get

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as "Capital Records of Canada".

But, Capitol is in fact a division of EMI, so it is definitely included in the EMI Music Canada family of labels.

As a Canadian, ...

[Looce]

... and as someone who doesn't really trust companies that much, let me just say that, if the CRIA gets fined for willful infringement, I hope that this is the precedent that ends up being applied to the United States, not the reverse.

Now the recording industry's argument is going to be less and less well-received by the general population, and this can only be a good thing.

Re:As a Canadian, ...

[m.ducharme]

There are problems with that: namely that

1) judgments in Canadian law are not binding precedent in the US (though a court may judge them as persuasive).
2) the damages are whatever the statute says they are (statutory damages) and thus in the US the damages will be whatever the relevant statute says they should be
3) we don't know if the record companies are pulling this particular kind of scam in the US
4) the record companies losing this case doesn't stop them from going after other infringers, in fact it just strengthens their legal arguments because now they have more precedent to stand on.

The good news is, it looks like the labels are going to have to pay out on this, and it's going to give them a black eye in terms of public perceptions. Judges and juries may be less sympathetic to Warner, Sony and their ilk in the future.

Re:As a Canadian, ...

[debrain]

Sir,

A finding of liability in the United States is not necessary (and often not even warranted or appropriate) to enforce judgments made by foreign Courts.

As a general rule, because the USA and Canada have such similar legal systems, and especially because of provisions in the WIPO Copyright Treaty (specifically Article 14), a judgment awarded by a Canadian Judge against a company who has assets in the United states is very likely enforceable in the United States by way of the law of comity.

In other words, a plaintiff with a judgment from a Canadian Judge that finds copyright infringement by a defendant can take that judgment (literally the paper with the Canadian Judge's signature) to a Court in the United States and ask a U.S. Judge to enforce the award against the company's U.S. assets. The U.S. Judge need not reconsider the merits of the case (though there is usually some discretion if the award conflicts with what a domestic could would have found), and in many cases wouldn't have the authority to not enforce the award.

Thus whether the judgment is a binding precedent (i.e. stare decisis) in the U.S. is not relevant to its enforceability. If the defendants would be liable for these acts in the United States is probably not relevant to enforceability of an award - if they are liable in Canada for copyright infringement, they cannot shelter their assets in the U.S. (Nor could they shelter their assets in Canada from a U.S. judgment).

Incidentally, a binding precedent (which would typically be made by an appeal court, not the judgment of a trial court) requires all "lower" courts (or, with strict stare decisis courts the same level as the deciding court) hearing subsequent cases with the same factual and legal analysis to come to the same finding as the precedent.

Re:As a Canadian, ...

[m.ducharme]

I'm sorry, I don't think the poster I was replying to had comity in mind when he said this: "if the CRIA gets fined for willful infringement, I hope that this is the precedent that ends up being applied to the United States, not the reverse."

Also, I noted when I downloaded the statement of claim from Dr. Geist's website, that the companies sued are actually Universal Canada, Sony Canada, etc. Presumably comity won't be an issue, as the Canadian subsidiaries will just pay out the judgment or face sanctions in Canada.

But thanks for the detailed lecture of comity and stare decisis, it's been a few months since I studied that stuff in class. I try not to make long, technical posts on legal stuff because I'm not a lawyer yet, only a student, and I might miss some of the subtleties that a lawyer would be better able to explain. Also, I find that providing overly detailed legal explanations on a computer technology site makes me sound like a pompous ass. Note though that this knowledge has come from me making some long-winded posts and stupid errors, and learning the error of my ways. YMMV.

Re:As a Canadian, ...

[Looce]

You're right. I'm definitely not a lawyer. :)

And I wasn't really using the word 'precedent' in its legal sense, more as an informal way to reflect on what has happened with the RIAA and CRIA in the past. The RIAA has pushed for Canada to reform its copyright law, which sparked a consultation at http://copyright.econsultation.ca/ in July, with the consensus between most of the posters that this was what happened. But instead of the RIAA pushing on the CRIA to pass new legislation, with some Americans aware of what's happening in Canada with the CRIA right now, it may very well be that this will spark some lawsuits in the US over similar things, because there are compilation CDs in the US too.

To the grandparent (or great-grandparent... anyway, to the lawyer's post): I knew there was some treaty between the US and Canada that would make some things applicable to both countries if a company was in both; I figured that if it wasn't NAFTA, it would have been something else. Thanks for making me learn something! :)

Re:As a Canadian, ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that exactly what NAFTA, ACTA, TRIPs, WTO etc. are meant to do? Harmonization between rules in Canada and the rest of the world including U.S.A? :-)

Whoever funds those companies...

[ForAllTheFish]

... must be really bad at math, or they would have been a little nervous about the line on the balance sheet that reads: Total Liabilities: $6,000,000,000

Re:Whoever funds those companies...

[biryokumaru]

Nah, they wouldn't be concerned until it said something outrageous, like $60,000,000,000.

Re:Whoever funds those companies...

[Arthur Grumbine]

$60 billion! Chump change! BofA isn't scared and they may get hit for a lot more than that!

Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Maxwell]

This will be settled ASAP by CRIA. They simply can't risk this case coming anywhere close to a decision. If they 'win' they set a precedent that borrwing files is OK. If they lose, well, they lose big!

When they settle, they will have strong 'proof' that they 'represent the artists' and will use that to help their cause. This will be over in weeks, the actualy lawsuit is just a bargaining tactic.

Moving on...

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[MightyMartian]

Let's also remember this is Canada, and so far as I'm aware, there has been no infringement case where the value per song has been pegged. While rulings from other jurisdictions may, to one degree or another, inform a ruling, US precedent has no bearing. It's quite feasible that if this were to go to trial, the judge might decide each infringement is only $1000 or $10. Since this particular situation seems restricted to record company actions in Canada, and doesn't happen in the US, it's difficult to see how the complainants can possibly hope to maintain the value per song that they're asking for.

I think CRIA will settle ASAP, but mainly to assure that there is no low-ball price per song is put on the books. Imagine if they had to argue that they should only be paying pennies per song in civil awards. When the Canadian DCMA comes along and they start pursuing file sharers, the precedent is already there that each song is only worth, say, $1 per infraction. It would pretty much wipe out any chance of fear and extortion even for those found guilty of illegal file sharing.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be settled ASAP by CRIA. They simply can't risk this case coming anywhere close to a decision. If they 'win' they set a precedent that borrwing files is OK. If they lose, well, they lose big!

Actually, it's even worse, since this infringement is commercial infringement, which means your business is infringing copyright to make money. Which is very different from non-commercial infringement for personal use only.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Lonewolf666]

A settlement requires both parties to agree.
In this case, I don't see how the CRIA can "prove" to be in the right. Unless they offer a really substantial settlement (several hundred million?) plaintiffs might prefer to go ahead with the lawsuit.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Random5]

They were selling the songs for profit though. Even if they were to set a figure of $1 per infraction, that would be $1 for each copy of a song that was sold which will still be a very significant sum - 300,000 songs on the list, assume they each sold a paltry 1000 copies and suddenly they're liable for $300 Million which would be a significant but manageable amount for those corporations to pay off.

I think it's a little more likely they'll end up paying a much higher rate as they were willfully infringing for commercial gain - look how much harder the pirates selling fake CDs were hit by the law than those who just downloaded.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[canajin56]

Except that we do have statutory damages for willful copyright infringement. They admit they knew they didn't have the rights, and that they made $50 million off selling things they were fully aware they had zero rights to. In fact, this is a class action, over the fact that they have used a total of THREE MILLION SONGS WITHOUT PERMISSION. The law is clear, $20,000 per instance of copyright infringement. You're right, the Canadian courts haven't tested the legal principal that copyright infringement laws really mean per copy, not per copyrighted song that you misappropriate. If Canadian courts HAD approved such an absurd notion, then the CRIA members would be faction quadrillions in damages, where each CD they sold would mean them owing $20,000 per song, PER CD. Instead, it's limited to per song.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[agbinfo]

IANAL but even if they manage to settle this case without divulging the amount per song paid, wouldn't an individual that gets sued by the CRIA be entitled to obtain this information through discovery?

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Beardo the Bearded]

In Canada, it's still not a violation of copyright law to copy something for personal use. The last two attempts to change the law (Bills C-60 and C-61) were put aside during the last few elections.

It is, and always has been, a violation to provide the copies. This provides the interesting point where if someone downloads an album via Azureus, that's legal up until the point when you start seeding. (Which is, of course, before you're done downloading, but that's a matter for the philosophers.) In short, up here, it's legal to download but unlawful to upload.* That's because we pay a CIRA levy on all blank media; a "pirate tax", if you will. CIRA has already decided that I'm going to use that spindle of DVD-Rs for pirating, so I should pay a little extra at the counter to compensate them for the loss of revenue. I am not making that up.

Now, the proposed penalties for uploading under C-61 were $20k per offence. It was $500 for downloading, or $20k if you broke any encoding whatsoever. These values were going to be put into Canadian law but were fortunately stopped by government instability. (That's a much longer story than /. has time for.)

Canadian law does not require our judges to use previous cases as a stepping point for punitive damages; you won't see a billion-dollar fine put up simply because you have to have a rationale for the punishment.

Our courts are also loser-pay, which is why you can't just drop a lawsuit or you admit you've lost and will have to pay the costs. If they were to sue, say, me, I would refer them to my lawyer. They know that I've got one, and that that first call is likely to cost them the $200 once the dust settles. (I would call her in the meantime and tell her to have No Mercy.) You won't get scare-tactic suits up here like you have in the states.

* I know that not all copyright infringement is music-sharing online. In fact, the most dangerous type (from my EE perspective) is false labelling on electronics, especially circuit breakers and other protective devices. This is an endemic problem and it's scary as fuck when a 200A breaker keeps going and melts into fucking slag at 400A.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Hatta]

It's a class action. As long as the attorneys get a big enough chunk of the settlement, they'll accept it.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[MightyMartian]

* I know that not all copyright infringement is music-sharing online. In fact, the most dangerous type (from my EE perspective) is false labelling on electronics, especially circuit breakers and other protective devices. This is an endemic problem and it's scary as fuck when a 200A breaker keeps going and melts into fucking slag at 400A. /blockquote.

Crikeys! I'm doing my own house wiring right now, with a Cutler-Hammer panel (pain in the ass breakers, BTW). How common is this problem?

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[timeOday]

Imagine if they had to argue that they should only be paying pennies per song in civil awards. When the Canadian DCMA comes along and they start pursuing file sharers, the precedent is already there that each song is only worth, say, $1 per infraction.

That's all assuming the equivalence between CRIA pirating and individuals doing it. I'm sure CRIA will argue it's not the same; they'll have some legal argument that they are "special" and simply a little slow working through their royalty backlog rather than being pirates, etc etc.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[m.ducharme]

Keep in mind that it's a class action settlement. Those are generally a matter of public record. Decision or not, settling this one is basically painting a big old target on their back.

They won't have much proof that they serve the artists, as it's the artists that are suing the labels. I don't think they'll be able to spin that one so easily.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually DVD's don't have that tax,

Hence why you got o the store and blank DVD's are cheaper than blank CD's.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[schon]

It is, and always has been, a violation to provide the copies.

No. There is no law against "making available", which is why when the CRIA filed a court order to obtain the personal information of alleged filesharing users in 2003, the judge basically said "you haven't shown that any law has been broken." Bills C60 and C61 both had provisions to add "making available" to Canadian law, but as you mentioned, both of them died on the floor of Parliament.

This provides the interesting point where if someone downloads an album via Azureus, that's legal up until the point when you start seeding.

Again wrong. If you're using Azureus then you are (by definition) making a copy for your own personal use. Once you're seeding, it's *other people* who are making the copies.

In short, up here, it's legal to download but unlawful to upload.*

True, but irrelevant in this context, as when using P2P, nobody is actively "uploading" - people download from you (which is not the same thing), but you're not actively making any copies. The copy you made went into your "downloads" directory, which you (ostensibly) made so you could listen to it. The additional copies made when other people download from you are legal, as they are (also ostensibly) being made for those people's personal use. "Making available" isn't illegal, so no laws are being broken.

That's because we pay a CIRA levy on all blank media; a "pirate tax", if you will. CIRA has already decided that I'm going to use that spindle of DVD-Rs for pirating, so I should pay a little extra at the counter to compensate them for the loss of revenue. I am not making that up.

You may be surprised that the US has a similar levy, but it applies to blank "audio" CDs only. As mentioned in the link, many other countries have a copyright levy too.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[jvillain]

Being entered into evidence no doubt will be transcripts of the RIAA companies swearing before numerous judges in the US that the value of a song is really $40,000 or what ever the number is. That is what makes this sooooo juicy. They are going to have to tell the just that we were full of sh_t when we said that.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[lowen]

Hrmph. Shouldn't the tagline be:
ASCII stupid question, getty stupid ANSI.

Was born in a moment of frustration with the Xenix System III getty running on a serial port of a Tandy 6000 box connected to a TRS-80 model 4 with a hires card and ANSIterm......the getty was expecting a straight ASCII reply, but kept getting what to it was garbage because the term was sending an ANSI sequence instead in response to the control codes... The gist being that the two were talking past each other and thus no communication was happening....

Man, been a long time. I thought I was the only one who had used that....and I think the last time I used that was over a year ago....

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Anonymous Coward]

th@s not copyright infringement, th@s fraud and may even be criminal recklessness

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[AcidPenguin9873]

I'm not going to get into arguments about legal definitions and whatnot, but you are basically contending that it's impossible to illegally pirate content using P2P networks in Canada. I would be very surprised if what you say is actually true.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[arkhan_jg]

then the CRIA members would be faction quadrillions in damages, where each CD they sold would mean them owing $20,000 per song, PER CD. Instead, it's limited to per song.

That's not how statutory damages work.

There's three kinds of damages for copyright;

1) actual damages. This is where you work how much has been lost. So it would be the few cents per song per CD that was sold without permission that was owing on royalties. The difficulty of this in general though when it comes to copyright infringement is that you often don't know how many copies were distributed. So you have option 2,
2) statutory damages. This is a 'stand-in' figure for actual damages. They go - "we only caught bob the market trader with 2 copies of our CD. But he likely sold lots of copies, which we can't prove directly. So we'll ask for the statutory damages laid down in law instead". These are charged once per infringement (not per individual copy), but go from eye-watering to downright extortionate amounts, i.e. the $20,000 per track claimed for in this case. Of course, one reason they're so high is because the music industry lobbied for them to be.
3) punitive damages. This is where the court goes - "Ok, here's your (actual damages/statutory damages) fine to pay back for the financial harm you caused. Now here's an nice big extra punishment fine on top so you don't do it again, and neither does anybody else.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Khyber]

It's a class action - attorneys do not do the accepting, the class representatives do the accepting.

Speaking as someone that finished a class-action suit not too long ago.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[L4t3r4lu5]

So the plaintiffs present their legal representatives with a written instruction:

"This goes to trial. No settlements. Signed, [Everyone]"

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Hatta]

Yes, but they have to be organized and persistent enough to go against the advice of their attorney. I don't think that's likely.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[tomtomtom]

* I know that not all copyright infringement is music-sharing online. In fact, the most dangerous type (from my EE perspective) is false labelling on electronics, especially circuit breakers and other protective devices. This is an endemic problem and it's scary as fuck when a 200A breaker keeps going and melts into fucking slag at 400A.

Surely, if the problem was actually copyright infringement, then the device would still work exactly as the original "official" product? The fact that it doesn't suggests either (i) it's a totally different product passed off as something its not, or (ii) it's the same design, but grossly negligent workmanship was applied in its creation.

The situation you are describing is actually a problem with regulatory compliance (devices not properly tested and certified for sale); the copyright (or trademark, for that matter) infringement is completely incidental to the safety issue. Putting your life on the line on the basis of the brand name of your gear (which I presume you think will give you information like "this product actually does what the law requires it to") is utterly stupid.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[schon]

you are basically contending that it's impossible to illegally pirate content using P2P networks in Canada

No. It's not piracy, it only applies to music, and it depends on how the specific P2P network operates.

I would be very surprised if what you say is actually true.

It doesn't really matter what you believe, it's true whether you believe it or not.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[AcidPenguin9873]

Hey buddy, lose the attitude. I appreciate the citation, and I am now better educated about this issue and the law in Canada, but to become educated I had to endure two posts of smug. Oh wait, this is Slashdot, and you are the norm.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[Cederic]

At a guess, no - the information is not relevant as no infringement has been legally demonstrated, and thus an out of court settlement involving no admission of guilt or liability has no bearing on other cases.

Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour

[easyTree]

They admit they knew they didn't have the rights, and that they made $50 million off selling things they were fully aware they had zero rights to.

I'm not sure this law thing operates like politics. In politics you can 'hold your hands up' and say 'my bad, I made a mistake - I accept full responsibility' and that's the end of it - you walk away scott free - i.e. the name of the game is getting people (well, politicians :) to tell the truth (a lofty goal) - not to punish them for their crimes.

I'm pretty sure in law, there's some element of punishment involved. Clearly IANAL.

justification

[kbob88]

Wait, so the majors have been selling CDs for over thirty years with songs they don't own the copyright on?? They've been charging consumers for something they didn't own?

And they wonder why consumers are downloading music...

In retrospect, I don't think we've been pirating music at all over the past decade or so. We're all just small record labels that have been creating (very limited run) compilation CDs and putting the songs on our own 'pending lists'. We fully intend to pay the rights holders, once we can locate them and negotiate rights. Brilliant idea, guys! Thanks!

Re:justification

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up!

Re:justification

[CodeBuster]

Brilliant idea, guys! Thanks!

Only if they actually get away with it; otherwise they might still be on the hook for those statutory damages. IANAL, but what happens if they plaintiffs prevail and Warner, Sony, et al refuse to pay? I doubt their assets in Canada exceed $60 billion so what is to prevent them from simply leaving Canada entirely and abandoning whatever they cannot take with them?

Re:justification

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's why I have a broadcasting licence.

I just have to have 35% Canadian content on all mix tapes, MP3 collections, and playlists in accordance with CRTC regulations.

Re:justification

[slashqwerty]

IANAL, but what happens if they plaintiffs prevail and Warner, Sony, et al refuse to pay? I doubt their assets in Canada exceed $60 billion

The article claims there were 300,000 songs infringed and the cost per infringement is $20,000. That only comes out to $6 billion. So something somewhere is incorrect. Either the math or the source numbers.

Re:justification

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. That would be just awful.

Re:justification

[Jaysyn]

Treaties & Conventions? Seizure of other assets (think child companies).

Re:justification

[Luthair]

Presumably their back catalogues are worth something.

Re:justification

[fishizzle]

The article claims there were 300,000 songs infringed and the cost per infringement is $20,000. That only comes out to $6 billion. So something somewhere is incorrect. Either the math or the source numbers.

Good catch. Michael Geist sent a tweet about that recently.

Thanks to @niespika for pointing out embarrassing math error - record label liability could exceed $6 billion, not $60B.

He's updated the article on his main site with the correct figure of $6 billion:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/

Re:justification

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I have a broadcasting licence.

I just have to have 35% Canadian content on all mix tapes, MP3 collections, and playlists in accordance with CRTC regulations.

You have a license from the Canadian Government, so would that make you a privateer rather than a pirate... Does Canada offer these "Letters of Mark" to non-citizens?:)

Place your bets!

[Anonymous Coward]

The betting pool for how long it takes CRIA to get a law passed specifically granting them immunity for all past, present, and future infringements is now open! I've got five mod points on Christmas '09!

I think the number is still low...

[Fallen Kell]

Seriously, I think the $60 Billion is still extremely low. At $20,000 per violation, that means only 3,000,000 violations, which I think is very light for the class of 300,000+ songs that are in the Payment Pending list. That is only estimating that 10 copies of each song were sold this way. The real numbers exist. They can find out EXACTLY how many copies of EACH unauthorized song were sold as all of that is accounted for each individual CD/Album/MP3 from the CRIA members. If we use the REAL number of songs and counts of infringement. I think we are talking easily more than 50 million violations here, not 3 million (which is only 10 sales per song, and we ALL know that a production run of CD's will be in the thousands each, and each COPY is a violation, not just each SALE, even broken CD's at the manufacturing site are unauthorized copies that took place (you know all that breakage cost part that they put into the contracts), they still count in terms of unauthorized/pirate copies). And remember, it is per song, so an album may have 15+ individual infringements in it, not a single infringement for the entire album.

Re:I think the number is still low...

[Anonymous Coward]

royalties will be a few pennies per song, I don't think they will get the full 60 billions but they need to get paid for it anyway, and that loophole fixed in the law. Using songs without asking for permission first is ridiculous, everyone else would get charged for this.

Re:I think the number is still low...

[Fallen Kell]

Ahh, but that is just it. We are not talking about royalties here, just as we do not talk about price of the song when dealing with damages for making a copy of it. We are talking about violating the contracts which allow the company to distribute the CD's, which, in turn means the agreement which allowed the distributors make copies of the work, in which the performing artist gives the distributor(s) the right to make copies of their performance work (which is fundamentally owned by the artist in question), null and void, which in turn makes the each copy a copyright violation. Sucks to be the guys who wanted all those copyright laws in place now that they get to have that very weapon turned against them.

Re:I think the number is still low...

[adamchou]

They can find out EXACTLY how many copies of EACH unauthorized song were sold

AWESOME!!! I'm going to start buying a ton of music from Canada now. Of course, I'm going to choose pending music from my favorite CRIA label

Like GM?

[SydShamino]

I wonder if this will eventually turn out like GM and its dealings with the unions over the years. Bear with me...

GM corp. and shareholders spent decades working out deals with the unions, trying to minimize labor costs. They made deal after deal that would do things like promise better pensions, all to keep current costs down.

Then, when it all came crashing down, the net result was that the labor union ends up as a major (the major, after the government) shareholder in the company. All that effort goes to naught when it resulted in the "little people" gaining complete control of the company.

So I'm reminded of it here because the CRIA and RIAA and their kind have spent years creating the webs of copyright law that they now use to sue their customers. It would be fitting and just if those same laws lead to the "little people" - the artists - taking control of the industry.

Were I an artist in this case, I'd readily accept a major stake in the company in lieu of the settlement, especially if it was likely that the settlement would force them into bankruptcy and I'd never see my money anyway. Enough suits like this, and we could stroll in and fire the board and all the executives, and turn it into something that serves the artists and consumers.

Re:Like GM?

[Anonymous Coward]

As time marches forward more artists can begin reclaiming their copyrights from the RIAA-affiliated companies. With the internet around they can likely make more money doing this than not, so the recording industry is about to stop losing the old catalog even though they've fought (with the MPAA at their side) to extend copyright beyond any reasonable term.

Re:Like GM?

[VGPowerlord]

er... wait, are we talking about the same GM that would pay unskilled laborers $20/hour to weld parts?

During a time when Minimum Wage was $5?

Your definition of "minimize" seriously needs to be looked at.

Diclaimer: I live and work in the Lansing, MI area... which is a GM town.

Re:Like GM?

[XorNand]

Nitpick: But welding is most definitely a skilled trade.

Re:Like GM?

[PeterP]

If you think welding is "unskilled", you haven't done much of it. Welding is a trade, like plumbing or carpentry, that takes years to master, and $20 seems pretty fair (possibly even on the low end) for compensation.

Re:Like GM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welding is not unskilled labor. Get GM's dick out of your mouth and say something useful, or keep on suckin' until you get your cumuppance.

Re:Like GM?

[Drishmung]

Enough suits like this, and we could stroll in and fire the board and all the executives, and turn it into something that serves the artists and consumers.

But, why bother?

I would be interested to know what value the record companies provide. If they were to cease to exist, would they be missed? This is not necessarily a hypothetical question, as there are strong indications that the major record companies may in fact cease to exist. That being the case, is it useful to examine what value they bring to:

1. The artists?
2. the consumers?
3. society as a whole?

(Depending on your political stripe you may or may not value the third item at all).

In the past a case could be made that the labels served a useful purpose, They smoothed out artists earning, so that they got paid regularly; they provided recording studios and producers and physical media and distribution when all of these were rare and expensive. They provided publicity and management that talent scouts that arguably did nurture new talent.

Is this the case today?

Does the economy or society benefit or not from the music industry (as presently constituted)?

By the way, if you wish to argue that point three has no value, and no consideration whatsoever need be given to any so called 'rights' of society in this private transaction between parties---then you had best recall that copyright itself is an unnatural right granted by society. A limited monopoly granted for the express purpose of encouraging the creation of works for the common good. If society has no interest in the transaction, then there is no basis for the transaction.

Note: while obviously taking a position to encourage debate I'm not trying to prejudge here. I'm not close enough to the industry to know the answers: do the artists actually benefit from the labels these days?

Re:Like GM?

[MarkvW]

Take a major stake in a company run by people you don't trust?

The only stakes I'd want would be a controlling stake or a stake in the CEO's heart.

Re:Like GM?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're welcome to drive in a car welded by a douchebag making $7 an hour who previously worked at 7/11.

The rest of us, who don't live in your Ayn Rand jackoff fantasy world, prefer a car welded by somebody who knows what he's doing and actually gives a shit.

Re:Like GM?

[unix1]

Nonsense. We all know that if you pay for the law that law cannot be used against you - it's like you are the owner of the law and you can direct the minions to use it as you see fit. That was not the case for the GM from what you describe.

So, don't be expecting the "copyright police" busting down doors, shutting down any major labels and arresting any of their executives to make examples out of. That's not how the corporate representation in government works.

Re:Like GM?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are currently running low on people that know how to weld.

Re:Like GM?

[Psaakyrn]

And then you get int an "Animal Farm" situation.

Re:Like GM?

[ravenshrike]

Are we talking about the same 'little people' who immediately sold off their shares to pay for their pensions?

Re:Like GM?

[TangoMargarine]

Unfortunately, power corrupts.

Re:Like GM?

[schon]

We all know that if you pay for the law that law cannot be used against you - it's like you are the owner of the law and you can direct the minions to use it as you see fit.

History disagrees with you. Bill C-32 (which was bought and paid for by the CRIA) established the CPCC levy. That same law was then used against the CRIA when they tried to sue people on filesharing networks.

Re:Like GM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nitpick: But welding is most definitely a skilled trade.

And making music isn't?

Re:Like GM?

[unix1]

That's not exactly the same. In the case you cite, the law prevented them to do extra work to collect extra revenue and instill extra fear - basically it prevented them from gaining extra "luxury" of those things. It didn't threaten them in any way, or force them to do anything different during their day-to-day business or in a big picture.

On the other hand, in the case in TFA, the law should be used against them to file criminal charges, send people behind bars, go after the individuals as well as the corporations to the point where they have to declare bankruptcies and, if they survive it somehow, completely turn their business practices around. To some degree, they need to be held up as examples that for-profit willful copyright infringement is a very serious matter.

How much are you willing to bet that is what's going to happen?

The shoe is on the other foot

[Joce640k]

This time they're the defendent so they're not allowed to mysteriously 'drop' the case. They can be forced to go to trial.

Just remember....

[mrthoughtful]

Always - I mean always - be careful what you wish for.

Do as I say...

[gzearfoss]

I predict that the CRIA will have a sudden change in heart about copyright violation enforcement - that will last as long as it takes to get this case dropped or settled. Then, it'll be back to business as usual.

The question is, where did the money for the royalties from these CDs end up?

Re:Do as I say...

[canajin56]

They kept them. But they're earmarked "To give back once we get permission to use this song, if they ever call and we don't just hang up on them for some reason" so they reason it's perfectly legal.

Re:Do as I say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully, with this guy.

Re:Do as I say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably paying their lawyers in the USA who are pursuing file-sharing cases...

CRIA will never get nailed for this

[Phrogman]

Because here in Canada we have been following the same evolution of Capitalism that the US has adopted: companies (or groups of them) are superior to individuals and are held to a different standard. By all rights they should be forced to pay the billions in damages that they have earned by violating the laws they use as justification to get music downloaders to pay in court. They should get bit in the ass by the same principles they have been applying.
I am far too cynical to believe this will happen though, as I am sure many of you are. The right bribes will be paid to the right Canadian politicians and they will pay a few million in damages and that will be that. I don't trust Harper's government further than I can puke (and I almost do everytime I remember that we elected him. I am ashamed my country could possibly do so), and I expect them to suck up to the big music industry corporations and settle things quietly in their favour.
I sincerely hope I am wrong but I am far too cynical to think it will happen. We have government by corporation these days and they determine the laws and penalties.

Re:CRIA will never get nailed for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiiight, the Conservatives are not corrupt, you keep on believing that, sucker.

Re:CRIA will never get nailed for this

[selven]

There are more than 3 choices. There's the Green party, the Marijuana Party, the Libertarian party, all of which would be better than Harper. They don't stand a chance of winning right now but if you vote for them you could help fix that!

Re:CRIA will never get nailed for this

[roman_mir]

as a Libertarian at heart I could vote that way, but in my riding there were none.

Given a choice between liberals, ndp, conservatives and green, I had no choice but to go conservative. I don't care how much I am moded as a troll, I vote Conservative, that's my choice goddamit and the haters can suck it.

Re:CRIA will never get nailed for this

[Phrogman]

I agree the other choices weren't much better. Canada has produced a sad lot of political leaders in recent years. I don't like any of them particularly, and the voter isn't left with much of a choice. However, IMHO anyone has to be better than Harper. You are of course welcome to your own opinion. Personally, despite their dismal track record I think its time the NDP got a shot at things, if only to shake things up.
The Marijuana party or the Greens - not so much. Any party with specific narrow agenda is never going to be my primary choice.
The way I see it, the Liberals of many years ago switched from being Liberals to be "Conservative Light", and the current Conservatives are merely "Ultra Conservatives". We don't have a really Liberal party any more, and even the NDP are less socialist than they used to be. The whole political framework has shifted to the right in Canada.
Mind you, even the most right-wing politician in Canada is to the left of the Republicans in the US, so perhaps I should be thankful for what we have anyways.

Re:CRIA will never get nailed for this

[roman_mir]

as a Libertarian I can never ever ever vote for ndp, I can't stand communists and AFAIC they are.

Liberals or Conservatives in Canada are not that much different, but I prefer Conservatives since they are supposed to be fiscally responsible at least in theory and I can't vote for a party that makes its stand based on opinion polls.

Green or Marijuana? No chance. Unfortunately in my riding there are no Libertarians to vote for and those in other ridings are quite pathetic candidates.

Re:CRIA will never get nailed for this

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't trust Harper's government further than I can puke (and I almost do everytime I remember that we elected him. I am ashamed my country could possibly do so), and I expect them to suck up to the big music industry corporations and settle things quietly in their favour."

No No Phrogman you have it rather sideways. It was the Liberals that got caught in bed paying off their company friends with big contracts with no work required to get a huge cheque. Actually not even a contract, as they just sent out cheques to their friends. It was the NDP's Bob Ray (Buffalo Bob) that drove/taxed companies out of Canada to Buffalo NY in less than 1 term in office. Who by the way has now turned magically into a Liberal. Who is still hoping to be Prime Minister once they toss Iggy next spring and then force an election. Forget the NDP or the Green's they don't stand a chance and if you think they do, then you need serious therapy or just a rock to the head. So Phrogman let's be more realistic and sane here. This is what Bob will do.

With the Liberals in power and involved, there will be 'Puking' involved alright. All Canadians will toss lunch if they vote for that mess and discover that Buffalo Bob does make a deal with the music industry. First he watches the case go to court and the music industry lose big time. They go chapter 11 as expected by the billions they get in fines and restitution. Then the Liberals will of course step in with a 'no need to ever pay it back' or even account for the money, loan. They will simply put a tax on all Canadians to bail out the music industry, That my friend is how the Liberals will save the music industry and all Canadian will be barfing up their lunch, not just you. The music industry will raise prices of music to get their profits back to normal because Canadians won't be able to afford to buy music, even on itunes. End of story. Well not quite. Liberals or Conservatives, it really doesn't matter. The truth is that the losers will be the Canadian people once again.

Re:CRIA will never get nailed for this

[Phrogman]

Well, I think its too bad you can't make the distinction between a Socialist party and a Communist party, as they are highly different, but to each their own. I tend to view the Conservatives as being damned close to Fascist at times and I do know they are not the same thing in reality.
For me the great evil in the western world is the rise of Corporate Capitalism, as I think the bigger corporations are controlling things to the point where they render Democracy's benefits somewhat doubtful. As such I prefer a bit of Socialism to counter the Corporatism that seems so powerful these days.
Luckily we live in a Democracy and can have opposing views :)

Re:CRIA will never get nailed for this

[roman_mir]

oh, I can make the distinction, I was born someplace that was supposed to be socialistic and striving to being communistic. So I hate both, socialistic and communistic, trust I hate them, and ndp to me is as close as it gets to those concepts in Canada, so no way in hell, I'd rather die.

Fascist is really only corporatis, and as long as I can use that to my advantage, it's not a problem, of-course big corporations colluding together with any form of government has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with corruption, you can't argue that Canadian Liberals were not in bed with corporations any more than I can deny that Conservatives are.

You go ahead, and believe that a political system has any meaning in the world where the power wants money and money wants power, so any government will cater to corporations and corporations want to control the government. But I do not wish for socialism or communism, as I said, I'd rather live in corrupt hell than in socialist/communist heaven.

Re:CRIA will never get nailed for this

[LeperPuppet]

If the CRIA are convicted and fined the full amount, we'll finally find out whether it's possible to overdose on Schadenfreude.

Re:CRIA will never get nailed for this

[alexo]

Given a choice between liberals, ndp, conservatives and green, I had no choice but to go conservative. I don't care how much I am moded as a troll, I vote Conservative, that's my choice

I have no love for the Conservatives but your choice to vote for them does not make you a troll.

I do suggest however that you reevaluate your choice and vote Green the next time. Enough people do that and the major parties may take notice and start listening to their constituents for a change.

In most cases, the default vote should be against the incumbent. That way your elected representatives would have to actually earn their keep to stay in office.

Politicians, like diapers, have to be changed regularly and often, and for the same reason.

wouldn't it be nice..

[Anonymous Coward]

CRIA is a mini-me of the RIAA and with any luck, they will be sued out of existence before they bring a backward, Draconian & American DMCA to Canada. But I doubt it.

(no offense Americans.. unless you're one of the cronies who created the DMCA)

Re:wouldn't it be nice..

[VGPowerlord]

CRIA is a mini-me of the RIAA and with any luck, they will be sued out of existence before they bring a backward, Draconian & American DMCA to Canada. But I doubt it.

(no offense Americans.. unless you're one of the cronies who created the DMCA)

Trust me, we don't take offense to this. The DMCA was one of the most backward laws the US government has been bribed... er... incentivized to pass.

Almost as backwards as the Copyright Act of 1976 and moreso than the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

Re:wouldn't it be nice..

[alexo]

CRIA is a mini-me of the RIAA and with any luck, they will be sued out of existence before they bring a backward, Draconian & American DMCA to Canada. But I doubt it.

Not to worry, you'll get it via ACTA instead.

Poetic justice

[mirix]

Although I'm sure they'll get out of it one way or another.

I would like to point out:

[NoYob]

notes in his affidavit that "the record labels have devoted insufficient resources for identifying and paying the owners of musical works on the pending lists." The CRIA members now face the prospect of far greater liability.

I'm assuming that the CRIA is basically the Canadian branch of the RIAA, or at least affiliated with it?

So, let me get this straight, those people can track down some college kid over the whole internet, what was probably using some dynamically assigned IP address, who may have moved a few times, etc.. and the CRIA can't find Bruce Springstein or even some lesser known artist because they haven't allocated enough resources?

Riiiiiiigggght.

Re:I would like to point out:

[Anarchduke]

Yes, sometimes I can really relate to the concept of karma.

Re:I would like to point out:

[ais523]

So, let me get this straight, those people can track down some college kid over the whole internet, what was probably using some dynamically assigned IP address, who may have moved a few times, etc.. and the CRIA can't find Bruce Springstein or even some lesser known artist because they haven't allocated enough resources?

Of course. It is in fact very easy to allocate resources insufficient to find Bruce Springstein. Cheaper than allocating resources that are sufficient, too.

Worldwide practice

[XSforMe]

The big labels have been pulling this stunt world wide during years. Recently in Mexico, Police raided the major offices of Sony after it decided to tell Alejandro Fernandez (a Mexican folk country singer) they were going to publish some of his tunes with or without his permission. After the smoke had settled, the Police seiged over 6K pirated CDs from the same offices of those who can't keep their mouth shut when it comes to bashing pirates.

Re:Irony (Planet of the Apes)

[tekrat]

Isn't this the essential plot of Planet of the Apes (the real one, not that shoddy remake). A man, with no interest in humanity, suddenly has to defend the human race as being superior, to a religious zealot who believes that God created Ape in his own image.

Haha

[Turzyx]

.... I think that sums up my thoughts quite nicely.

This isn't irony...

[bennomatic]

It's what copyright law was intended for. It's not Joe Schmoe making a mix CD for his best friends that's a problem. It's not even the guy who allows 10,000 people who weren't going to buy an album anyway to download it from his server. The problem is people and organizations who make a career out of profiting from other people's work.

The RIAA, CRIA and the MPAA are effectively no better than pimps. It's good that the law is finally being applied as it should.

Re:This isn't irony...

[Hatta]

It's what copyright law was intended for.

That's what is ironic about it.

Re:This isn't irony...

[gmhowell]

GP thinks irony is like rain on your wedding day.

Re:This isn't irony...

[noidentity]

GP thinks irony is like rain on your wedding day.

Why, because all the ironed clothes would get wrinkled or something, requiring re-ironing?

Re:This isn't irony...

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone clear this up for me? I wouldn't expect rain on my wedding day, so why isn't it ironic?

Thanks.

Raise your hand if ...

[Skapare]

... you think big corporations, especially investor owned ones, are fundamentally honest.

Re:Raise your hand if ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fundamentally what now? I'm sorry, I couldn't catch that last part over the sound of all these sacks of cash spilling onto my desk...

Re:Raise your hand if ...

[MSesow]

In my limited slice of experience, the only times I have seen large corporations behave honestly is when a) there is a law explicitly telling them they must be (like nutritional information and ingredients in food), or b) there is some sort of marketing they can get out of it. In either case, not being honest would cost them money, and given that the sole purpose of a corporation is to generate profit it should be no surprise that the too-common view is to cut as many corners as you can to maximise that profit. Sure there are some exceptions I have seen, but when generally speaking about the corporate world, they are the candle of hope floating in the ocean of greed.

A little more than Disney

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

To put this in context, 60 Billion is just over the market capitalization for Disney. So the claim is that the infringers... should have to give the producers... a little more than Disney.

Re:A little more than Disney

[danlip]

a mickey mouse amount

One unanswered question?

[One_Minute_Too_Late]

If this has been going on since the late 80s, why did it take so long to file the class action lawsuit?

Re:One unanswered question?

[danlip]

If this has been going on since the late 80s, why did it take so long to file the class action lawsuit?

Because it's only been the last few years that the RIAA has been claiming an outrageuous amount of money per infringement, which makes it worthwhile to file the suit by laiming the same amount.

Re:One unanswered question?

[realityimpaired]

Because it's in Canada. Up here, we don't file a lawsuit at the drop of a hat. We make a phone call. We write a letter. We make a second phone call. We send a fax. We ask to speak to the supervisor. We remain polite the whole time, and try to make the other party understand our point of view so that the dispute can be solved amicably.

Most of us *never* file a lawsuit, and those of us who do only do it because the other party stops returning our phone calls.

In seriousness, they were probably holding out hope (albeit in vain) that the recording industry would see their way to doing the right thing, and to paying the artists their due.

Re:One unanswered question?

[swordgeek]

Because they've only now hit the end of their rope, so to speak. They've spent decades trying to work with the CRIA, but with either false or no progress.

Hey CRIA!

[Hurricane78]

CRIA me a river!

Re:Hey CRIA!

[Anarchduke]

Yup, that's on the pending list too.

CRIA? same as RIAA: they're WESU !

[KWTm]

I had previously suggested that RIAA was just a disguise, a mask used by the Big4 companies behind RIAA, and suggested that we actually refer to them by name: Warner, EMI, Sony, and Universal. Together they form the acronym WESU, as in "We sue! Yes, we do!"

Now this CRIA organization is suing. Hmm... let's see who the big members are. From TFA:
"The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association."

Sound familiar???? Good thing we unmasked the Big4 companies as WESU!

Re:CRIA? same as RIAA: they're WESU !

[realityimpaired]

CRIA is being sued... at the moment, copyright law in Canada doesn't give them anything to sue Canadians for, at least when it comes to file sharing. It's considered acceptable use under Fair Dealings. (our equivalent of Fair Use). They're trying to lobby the government to change that, of course, so that they can begin their campaign of terror against us, too.

Personally, I think a $60bn payment isn't enough. They should be fined out of existence. Sadly, I don't think it'll come to that.

Re:CRIA? same as RIAA: they're WESU !

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Attention, my friends! Don't listen to the parent poster! This innocent-sounding WESU, is nothing but a mask, a sock puppet, a misdirection, for the Warner, EMI, Sony, and Universal, the people behind the notorious RIAA and CRIA! Notice their transparent attempt to change their name to something as innocuous as WESU.

I say we should refer to them, in full, as Adorable Puppy Murderers and Crippled Child Rapists International from now on.

Re:CRIA? same as RIAA: they're WESU !

[roesti]

I had previously suggested that RIAA was just a disguise, a mask used by the Big4 companies behind RIAA, and suggested that we actually refer to them by name: Warner, EMI, Sony, and Universal. Together they form the acronym WESU, as in "We sue! Yes, we do!"

That's for the US, though. This is the Canadian affiliate, WESUC.

Re:CRIA? same as RIAA: they're WESU !

[Spazztastic]

That's for the US, though. This is the Canadian affiliate, WESUC.

I wish I had mod points. I actually laughed out loud and now my coworker is looking at me.

Re:CRIA? same as RIAA: they're WESU !

[Anonymous Coward]

$60bn - last year's coke bill for the music industry?

Re:CRIA? same as RIAA: they're WESU !

[Coren22]

Amen

These "welders"...

[Anonymous Coward]

...were the equivalent of fry cooks at McDonalds. Sure they could do that one weld all day like a champ, but ask them to do any type of welding beyond the assigned task, and they were lost. If a robot can be programmed to do the task, it really doesn't take much "skill".

Re:These "welders"...

[Khyber]

It takes skill to make a weld that will pass an x-ray inspection, and if you can do it once, you can do it again, on other parts.

Glad I took metal shop in high school.

Re:These "welders"...

[dbIII]

It looks like we've got a Barbarian vs Farmer situation going here. You're effectively expressing the opinion that any fool can dig a hole but it takes skill to bash heads, and you've missed that it's more than just randomly digging holes.
Just because it is not a skill you have does not mean that it is worthless. The robot thing is wrong as well - if somebody is doing it instead of a robot then it's not easy enough for a robot to do.

Re:These "welders"...

[Tacvek]

That is not true. There are quite a few remaining jobs in the auto industry that could be replaced by robots but are not. Some of them the unions would never allow toe be automated. Others while automatable, might cost more per unit work once you factor in costs of the robot. (Robots wear out over time, need maintence etc), even if the job is actually quite easy for the robot to do.

Others are cases of laziness, where it would take too much work on the part of those in charge of making decisions for a rather small gain.

One last possibiltiy is that switching over to robots would result in a major short term loss, with the gains coming in only in the long term. Modern corporations tend to chose to maximize short term profits. Consider the fact that the plant might need to be shut down for a few moths to set up the robots, during which no cars are made. No cars made means fewer cars to sell. Fewer cars to sell means less short term profit. Combined with the major expenses of the retooling, the quarterly and annual earnings reports would look quite dismal.

Re:These "welders"...

[dbIII]

Ah yes, the Union conspiracy strikes again even though I only suggested that some people have skills.
You haven't considered that where welding robots are used the cars have been designed to have joints simple enough that robots can be used to do it (arc welding thin sheet without burning holes isn't easy). Considering that most of the GM designs built in the USA belong in the 1970s when do you think that is going to happen?

Re:These "welders"...

[Tacvek]

I did not say that welding was one of the jobs.

My problem was with the statement that "The robot thing is wrong as well - if somebody is doing it instead of a robot then it's not easy enough for a robot to do."

I do know that in a nearyby GM foundry, there is a job that involves driving a crane around on tracks attached to the ceiling, with the cranes carrying molton iron. The cranes are driven by human operators, despite the fact that the job is essentially mindless. The operators of the cranes all agree that there is no reason the system could not be automated, and that the automation might even make things safer. The articulated robot arms used in parts of the assembly process are far more complicated then such a robotic crane would need to be.

Basically the main reason GM does not is that the union would fight it, and it would be a major pain in the ass of a project to set up, so they feel it is not worth it. That is despite the fact that the job is indisputably easy enough for a robot to do.

If there was a good reason for not wanting to do robots, perhaps they can be made remote control. It would move people out of harms way, allowing GM to avoid hazard pay to the crane drivers, plus the cranes move slow enough, and the reaction time requirerments are low enough that in doing so they could have one person remoting driving several of these cranes saving more money.

I have no doubt that complex welds take skill, and even some moderate complexity welds can benefit greatly from skill.

Re:These "welders"...

[dbIII]

Basically the main reason GM does not is that the union would fight it

I do not believe that is remotely close to the truth, and you are getting waaaaay off topic to try to justify pointless union bashing. For one thing consider safety issues and the consequences of failure of an automated system. Big dangerous things operating near people have human operators for very good reasons. There are people on the floor under those cranes.
Some people simply have skills you and I don't have. This has nothing at all to do with unions. Despite fools in California bleating that the prison union is destroying their economy you'll find that in most industries wages account for tiny fractions of the total expenses. You can work it out yourself if you think for a few seconds. When you have less than twenty guys a shift rolling 6000 tonnes of steel rod do you REALLY think their wages add up to a lot of the costs and do you REALLY think they can demand any price?

Re:These "welders"...

[Tacvek]

Hot metal crane operation is an unskilled job, which has minimal training, and in fact is far more likely to fail in a fatal manner when operated by a human then when not. There have been fatalities under human operation, while there have been no fatalities under automated operation in those plants that use them. Draw your own conclusions.

Re:These "welders"...

[dbIII]

Hot metal crane operation is an unskilled job

Oh really? Unlike you I have worked in heavy industry and do not hold the misguided view that you can get crane drivers tickets from the back of corn flakes boxes. Anything else you want to add to the unskilled job list - airline pilot or ships captain for instance? You should have stopped at welders, a trade where it can take years to get enough skill to weld some joints.
The only conclusion I draw is that you are making all of this stuff up. Where is that steelworks with fully automated cranes for instance? That's right, it's easy to have no fatalities in a place that doesn't exist.

Re:These "welders"...

[Tacvek]

Hot metal crane operators need no degree, and are considered part of the unskilled labor force. I know this, since I have a friend who is a hot metal crane operator, at least when he can be, and has not been bumped to say the assembly line by somebody with more seniority. Yes there is some training, but it is not nearly as significant any of the jobs classified as "skilled jobs". Not to say that there is no skill at all involved, but the skill involved is not sufficient to cause classification as "skilled labor".

Re:These "welders"...

[dbIII]

As I said above "Barbarian vs Farmer" mentality with a degree/sword obviously making you consider trade qualifications/experience worthless.
Hopefully you'll get enough experience of working and talking to others to change this mindset before you actually manage people.
BTW, it took three years for the crane drivers to get their full qualication at the steelworks where I worked as an engineer in the early 1990s. There are enough people on this site that you'll always find somebody that will catch you out in a lie.

It occurs to me that there was some odd truth told

[erroneus]

In all the years of whining and complaining about needing stricter laws and harsher punishment and longer copyright terms, they always cited that the artists and their families are not getting paid because of piracy!

Well, I guess they weren't exactly lying were they. It's just that the people they claimed to be responsible for the atrocities against artists were not the file sharing public, but themselves.

So, let me get this right..

[cheros]

..the CRIA were taking people to court for choosing piracy over handling stolen goods? I mean, if you take something and sell it on without paying for it that is called stealing, no?

Well, I'm with a previous poster here: 10 violations per song is ridiculously low given some of the artists on that list. The have the exact figures, so use them. If they cannot produce those numbers that implies guilt anyway, because those same numbers are required to PAY the rights - not having the numbers would demonstrate a lack of intention to ever pay out.

Time to break out the popcorn, I think. This could get entertaining. Any chance of a repeat in the US?

is this really a copyright issue

[whoever57]

most of the copyrights are owned by the labels rather than the artists, and they are unlikely to press charges against each other. what this is really about is royalties that should have been paid to the artists for the use of the works [created by the artists but now owned by the labels] -- in other words contract violations.

Re:is this really a copyright issue

[DinDaddy]

Interesting point. If the contract is worded right, though, the artists may be able to argue that the contract was nullified as the labels did not fulfill their end, and so the copyrights revert to the creators, and then they can nail them anyway.

Or that's how it turns out in my dream.

Perfection

[DJRumpy]

Sometimes life just balances out. Should this pan out, it would be a day to celebrate. Karma is a BITCH ;)

CORRECTION: $6 billion

[Anonymous Coward]

Mistake there somewhere: the correct figure is $6 billion, NOT $60 bil. See here: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4595/159/

They shouldn't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only in canadian $'s

Re:They shouldn't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, $60CDN is a trivial amount in the mighty greenback. Only $57,083,102,704.56.

Ahhhhh

[Stumbles]

The goose and gander finally meet.

Re:Ahhhhh

[catman]

Let's hope the goslings will make beautiful music ...

Oblig.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey America!

In Democratic Canada, we sue our CRIA and let DMCA-type bills die on our parlimentary floor!

Petard, meet hoist

[haruchai]

  Okay, imagine some archeologist of the distant future, researching the quaint copyright laws of the 20th and 21st century
  ("Who were Sonny Mouse and Mickey Bono?") coming across this in the partially restored digital records?

  Truth is truly stranger than fiction.

We need to get rid of money.

[Anonymous Coward]

"People might buy more and share less if they knew that more of the money went to the artist."

So in other words the purpose of sharing is to deny the big media profit? Now why didn't Joel Tenenbaum try that argument?

Re:CORRECTION: $6 billion - MOD PARENT UP

[Phroggy]

Mod parent up - Michael Geist is the author of the article, and he made a math error. The page Slashdot links to hasn't corrected the error yet; the author's own site has the correction:

Update: An earlier version of this column noted that record label liability could exceed $60 billion in this case. A reader helpfully noted the math gremlin - the correct number is $6 billion ($20,000 per infringement X 300,000 songs).

I donno

[Weezul]

American copyright laws was originally created *specifically* because American publishers were not paying American authors. I expect Canadian copyright laws actually has a longer tradition going back more directly to British common law, but the origin was still protecting artists from publishers.

I'd think the best reform for copyright law would be :

(1) publishers of unauthorized copyrighted works are liable for damages based upon their profits from the sale of those works, and their gross income, so individuals and startups are immune, should never make any money from infringement, and large companies cannot infringe at a lose even for the purpose of protecting market share.

(2) copyright does not extend beyond 7 years unless the source code is registered with the library of congress.

Re:I donno

[ais523]

That would allow a publishing house to publish copies of everything it came across at cost; OK, so it wouldn't be making a profit and so wouldn't be publically owned, but it could very carefully break even, thus letting the people in charge of it do other things too and not have to fund it. That would pretty much have the same effect as removing copyright law altogether; I'll let the other Slashdotters argue about whether this would be a good thing or not.

Re:I donno

[Weezul]

You didn't read the comment. I specifically excluded that option, but basing the penalties upon their profits from the song *and* their *gross* profits.

It's still our fault!

[L4t3r4lu5]

If this ever comes to the UK (law may not allow it), it'll still be the consumers' fault.

Much like viewing indecent images of children is "creating a market" for child abuse images, obviously listening to music which is improperly licensed is "creating a market" for recording industry infringement!

... other forms of banditry

[catman]

I was actually looking for another Discworld quote when this one popped up. I think it's appropriate:

One reason for the bustle was that over large parts of the continent other people preferred to make money without working at all, and since the Disc had yet to develop a music recording industry they were forced to fall back on older, more traditional forms of banditry.

WESU - I love it

[Smegly]

Good thing we unmasked the Big4 companies as WESU!

Excellent idea! Exposed sunlight for long enough into dark places, will kill the vermin living and multiplying there...

$6 Billion, not $60 Billion

[Genwil]

Prof. Geist tweeted on Monday that the correct figure is $6 Billion and not $60B, but it is still a lot of cash. They have shown how greedy they are and single-mindedly in pursuit of the dollar.

Media Tax

[DarthVain]

To be honest when I started reading this article, I thought it was about the fact that in Canada we pay a tax on every piece of digital media that ASSUMES that we will pirate music on it. Compact Discs, DVD, iPods, thumb drives, etc... everything assumes every Canadian is pirating music on every type of digital media. The part that I thought they were getting sued about is that they (the CRIA) gets this money and is *supposed* to distribute this money according to some formula to artists. Over the decade that this has been taking place, how much of that money has made it to artists do you suppose? I am going to go out on a limb and say zero. The amount is huge by now I am sure, and I doubt they have distributed to anyone except their own pockets, lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians.

I guess that class action suit is still pending...

Re:Media Tax

[DarthVain]

After some Google I see it is a different organization. The Canadian Private Copying Collective, check out the nifty website: http://cpcc.ca/english/index.htm

Anyway I am still of the mind they deserve an independent audit, as well as an investigation/assessment of their actions.

Call me a cynic

[someone1234]

I doubt they will pay. Only the small men pay.

Government

[alexo]

I don't trust Harper's government further than I can puke

Apparently, about 9m.

Joking aside, I have no love for Harper but if there is anything that I've learnt from the US Bush/Obama fiasco, Ignatieff's government will be just as revolting, possibly more so.
However, I'm afraid that will remain academic.

Dance of Joy

[HannethCom]

There is the Dance of Joy from Angel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t20KguJbanA&NR=1

Is there any way

[Mister Whirly]

that part of the settlement could include a clause that states under no circumstances that another album by Celine Dion or Bryan Adams is EVER released anywhere? Thanks in advance.

Re:Irony (Planet of the Apes)

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the essential plot of Planet of the Apes (the real one, not that shoddy remake). A man, with no interest in humanity, suddenly has to defend the human race as being superior, to a religious zealot who believes that God created Ape in his own image.

I don't know if you could characterize Taylor as "having no interest in humanity". However, he is clearly pessimistic about it, before landing on the titular planet he even has a line that goes something like "Some where in the universe there has got to be something better than Man," after musing about the wars and atrocities people inflict each-other. Of course, he soon gets a lesson in why "It could be worse..." is usually a logically defensibly position.;)