Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
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...
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.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
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.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
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.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
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?
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.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
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.
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.
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!
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
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.
Caveat Utilitor
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)
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.
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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.