Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Record Labels To Pay For Copyright Infringement

Posted by Soulskill on from the of-pots-and-kettles dept.

innocent_white_lamb writes "Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., EMI Music Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada Co. have agreed to pay songwriters and music publishers $47.5 million in damages for copyright infringement and overdue royalties to settle a class action lawsuit. 'The 2008 class action alleges that the record companies "exploited" music owners by reproducing and selling in excess of 300,000 song titles without securing licenses from the copyright owners and/or without paying the associated royalty payments. The record companies knowingly did so and kept a so-called "pending list" of unlicensed reproductions, setting aside $50 million for the issue, if it ever arose, court filings suggest.'"

14 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Let me get this straight ... by adam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So when the RIAA sues someone, it's $80k per title for infringement, but when they are infringing, they set aside $167 per title?

    --
    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    1. Re:Let me get this straight ... by RabbitWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also..

      "let's try this illegal thing! Maybe we won't get caught and we can keep the 50 million. if we do, what harm?"

      So you can keep yourself out of prison and do whatever you want if you're a millionaire. I am shocked.

      --
      it's under construction
    2. Re:Let me get this straight ... by mcvos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In light of the RIAA's own standards on this, as well as the position of power that the record labels have, this should have been punished far more harshly than this.

    3. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Longjmp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they agree to pay 50 million *voluntarily* I would assume they already made ten times the amount with their illegal actions

      --
      There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
    4. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well I could argue that strictly speaking I don't buy any music illegaly...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Let me get this straight ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a bit surprised that they were allowed to settle. The statutory penalty for copyright infringement in the USA is $750-$30,000. Why would the class settle for less than the minimum statutory penalty? If they'd managed to get somewhere in the middle of the damages range, then it would have been significantly more than the total lifetime profits for the songs, so the labels might have been less inclined to lobby for ludicrous penalties.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Haedrian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not sure why

      Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc
      EMI Music Canada Inc
      Universal Music Canada Inc.
      Warner Music Canada Co

      Paid less than the penalty for copyright infringment in the USA. May have to do with the C word though.

    7. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. If they budgeted for this they must have made more than that from doing it, ergo they'll do it again if they get half a chance.

      Logic says they should be fined several times this as a punitive measure.

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Tuoqui · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually in RIAA Math...

      300,000 Songs * $150,000 (per song infringed) = $45,000,000,000 (that's 45 BILLION)

      You could easily make a case for $150,000 per song because they willingly and knowingly used songs for which they did not procure the rights for. Willful and Systemic infringement rather than casual infringement. The only way to make it not happen again is to make it so they have a huge loss over it.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
  2. Prime example of.. by Gaygirlie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..do as we say, not as we do ourselves.

  3. Lesson learned by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you infringe copyright, do it for profit. It's cheaper that way.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Those that Make the Rules... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those that make the rules do not have to follow the rules.

    Those that write the laws do not have to follow the law.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  5. Re:Reality Check Please by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure they made more than 2.5 million profit...

    You see if you steal songs and hold 50 million in reserve, then you're expecting to make more profits than those 50 million, otherwise what's the point of stealing the songs?

  6. Re:Net loss, still not a profit by anyGould · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $50m earning interest will still be a loss once paid. Unless they found a ridiculously awesome interest rate, or left it sitting for long enough to more than double. I don't see evidence of either, so overall it would be a loss.

    Not really - they had already set aside that $50 million, "just in case". (And it turns out that they overbudgeted by 2.5 mil, so someone's getting a bonus for being under budget this year!). The difference is that rather than actually *pay* that money, they stuck it in the bank and collected interest. All that interest is profit for them (i.e. money they otherwise wouldn't have earned).

    What bothers me about it is that there appears to be no punitive damages at all. It's like not putting payments down on your house but stashing the money aside, and when they finally come track you down, handing over the stash and saying "no harm no foul, right?"