Slashdot Mirror
Record Labels To Pay For Copyright Infringement
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.'"
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.
..do as we say, not as we do ourselves.
From this I understand that I can now download as many mp3s as I want as long as I put aside 69c per mp3 downloaded in case I am ever asked to pay the full price.
Excellent! Kudos to the music companies for setting us straight on this issue.
That settlement is WAY too low. I would expect a settlement in the BILLIONS given the creative accounting used in the industry.
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
The worlds smallest violin plays for the labels.
They did something they knew was wrong, and set aside the monies they would need to pay just in case they got called on it? How is it this kind of corporate behavior is allowed? I look forward to the day when these labels are less relevant in what becomes popular. It is coming, with success stories such as pamplemoose, we should start seeing more music acts starting up without needing labels in the first place.
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.
When you check the law books, you'll notice that it usually is that way. But then, when you check the law books, copyright usually has its own rules that have nothing to do with the usual way of laws.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
yup.
Karma's a bitch.
Too bad they didn't go for the same % amount as when the industry sues the other way.
But then again, the industry would just have declared bankruptcy and reformed a little differently again.
Worry not, their spindoctors will make this out to be a positive thing, and something in no way copyrights related.
Also, watch out for "music price regulations" in CN soon.
~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
Obviously, they paid 2.5M for the lawyers. If this was budgeted from the start it explains why the figure "randomly" ended up being exactly 5% of the total set aside. This means the plaintiff's lawyers simply accepted the 47.5M the labels had set aside.
Im not sure how they operate in Canada, but I always hear about US artists being signed to labels for x number of albums. Any of the work done for those albums belongs to the label, and artists must fulfill their obligations before anything is their own again.
Excuse me. I [b]must[/b] be missing something here!
They set-aside $50 Million to "cover this". This implies they [b]knew[/b] they were doing something wrong!
They were fines $47.5 Million.
If I'm not mistaken, they just made a @2.5 Million [i]profit[/i] from the deal!
The artists involved should sue to leave the record labels, under breach of contract. Then only might the record labels break a sweat and start thinking what they did wrong.
Can this be used in future courts as a precedent? I mean, they were not only sharing files illegally, they were actually selling them too and thus profiteering from it, they were sharing them with not only thousands but tens of thousands, yet they only had to pay a bit over $100 per song. Thus, a person at home sharing a music file, not profiteering from it, and perhaps only sharing it with tens or at max hundreds shouldn't have to pay nearly as much per song.
I am actually interested in knowing cos if this can be used as a precedent then MAFIAA just got shot hard in the foot.
YEAH! I bet that justice system BURNS don't it guys? Oh that justice system burnnns!
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
I honestly think, that after all the crap that the RIAA has pulled, that they would at least get charged like they did to everyone else. But instead, they just get a little slap on the wrist and call it a day. WTF has happened to our legal system when you can basically get away with this. Isnt this horribly illegal and wrong? Why wont anyone actually stand up and DO something? Oh wait, that's right, you cant. Derp, I forgot.
And especially dead artists!
I have absolutely no respect for companies like Sony that have in their libraries huge quantities of pd music performed by great artists like Wilhelm Kempf, Karl Bohm, Lenard Bernstein, George Szell etc, etc...and on and on. Here they are not making it available to willing buyers and just sitting on it like a bunch of trolls at a bridge stopping travelers through the world of classical music.
This is why it is almost impossible for new classical artists to break through anymore. There is no way for plebs to experience great classical music as there was during the heydays of the 1960-70s when you could by classical lps just about anywhere..including low end stores like K-Mart, or Sears!
This greedy amoral cartel has absolutely no respect for the legacy of great music that is part of our heritage and deserve to be taken apart and given a financial drubbing for their behaviour!
I speak as a grieving Old_Flatulent classical musician that hopes eventually the corrupt entertainment industry system that stops great artists from blooming will eventually die.
Now that's cool.
So, whenever I download a few songs or movies, I'll simply put aside their regular price, in case the issue ever comes up. Then I'll point to this precedent and offer the collection as settlement.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
A judge still has to rule on this. Will s/he be having a look at the big picture ie. the seemingly intentional breaking of the law and the discrepancy between the perceived value of licensing depending on whether the music industry is payed or paying for it? IANAL and so wonder if the indignation and disbelief expressed here will also be felt by someone with legal power.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
If they put aside $50M, then the real value to them was at least $150M. So, they made at least $100M on the settlement.
Not bad business, not a crime, not ethical..., but it is good business for many of the big-bro-companies.
RIAA protects the wealthy from the artist. Patents protects the wealthy from scientist, engineers, inventors.... Copyright protects the wealthy from all the other crap. Congress protects the wealthy from US.
This is what corporate welfare and protectionism is all about for US, EU... Global Domination by Fiat.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Notice at least one thing: the money they ended up paying out was *set aside beforehand*. To the exact amount, minus some obviously very wealthy lawyers' fees. The entire thing -- which amounts to paying the artists for their work and some lawyers for theirs -- was spun to make it sound as if the record companies had done something rogueish. Why would they want to do that? Because they are the same record companies known for trying to give people criminal records for doing exactly that, taking music without asking for it. It has been debated for over a decade and by now the philosophy of it has been debated down to a point that the distributors are the modern day analogue of the church fighting against the translation of the Bible into a more popular language or the mass production of the Bible printing press. They've had to infringe on free speech on numerous occasions and through it all they insisted that their opinion was the future, just like before with cassette tape, and people have stopped listening, and despite all their work the online sharing and purchase model has maintained its hold and has not waned.
So they want to be part of the "in" crowd again, so they steal music. Only they actually *do* have the money to pay for it and actually do pay up at a later date. But look at it, it's only two years later. Not a huge length of time for the artists, for the lawyers sitting around waiting for "the day", not for the bankers holding the cash in what amounts apparently to escrow, none of it. But subconciously people will see the music distributors as "the same as us". "The hypocrites get some of what they've been dishing out to all of us." It's the sort of harebrained and underhanded move I would expect the MTV/EMI world to make.
You might wonder what would be gained by all of that, but it's so obvious:
1. They're in the public light again and this time they aren't the enemy of the people, rather,
2. This time they're doing what the people have been doing all along, sooo...
3. People MIGHT be more willing to use the distributors as their source of e-music instead of whatever they've become accustomed to while the plastic-case distributors have been sitting around on their hands pouting about "the new computer shit that's ruining our business". (Because they're the fellow thief, now.)
For the meager cost of 2.5 mil, it costs about the same as an ad campaign that would have taken a team of teen psychologists and new-artists to come up with the perfect subliminal punch, and which nobody would have paid attention to anyway, especially not in a down economy. Now instead of some fake or plastic ad that obviates "trying too hard", they can stage this huge play in which they appear in the role of pariah-by-sympathetic-proxy and which legitimizes itself as "real life" through the magic of scary court.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
whoa, whoa, what about estates/families?
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
It's more or less the actual amount owed to the artists for licencing. They claimed they couldn't pay it out because they couldn't identify the artists on the pending list, but of course they didn't try very hard. The class action suit merely convinced them that it was simpler to just turn over the owed money as a settlement (presumably keeping the interest) to the plaintiffs, rather than identifying and paying the individual artists.
They're cleared of all liability and they've agreed to try a little harder next time, but there are no damages, statutory or otherwise. They're paying out only the owed royalties, just delayed for a few years (would've been indefinitely, but they got called on it).
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Worse than hypocrites. They are fraudsters. Many times they have been show to sue for copyright infringement where they had no rights to sue in the first place.
The actual press release and individual settlement details (apologies for the karma whoring). Yet to be ratified by the stakeholders.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
What about them? Seriously, what? Most people don't get to keep getting paid after they died, after all.
How about this. Someonewrites a killer song. They license it to a record label for, oh, 10 years, at $xx per year payable for each of the 10 years. Maybe (probably) they live, and the song stays under copyright, and the label has exclusivity. Maybe they don't, and after 8 years someone else can put out the same song. They (or in this case their estate) still get paid for 10 years, because they have a contract saying that they do. That's how business works, there's no reason to necessarily tie it to life expectancy.
Besides, the family still gets to keep whatever money was made during the original holder's lifetime!
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
People have a right to profit from their works.
Not corporations.
Not descendants.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Guessing here, but I don't think they can hold out long trying to say a song is "worth" a different amount in Canada vs. the US. I still think it counts as an informational precedent to point to for the next case that comes up in the US.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
When you are no longer here, your music should be freely open to the public. Copyright should ONLY last a lifetime... not 50 years after!
whoa, whoa, what about estates/families?
Well, when I'm dead I won't care... I'll donate my estate to the local Zoo and have my family put on public display.
I thought the fee was $1000 per song or whatever the RIAA argued in that US case. It seems they are getting of rather lightly. Especially since they did this knowingly and in direct violation of signed agreements.
I would say any casual user could use this to set a low limit on the fee per song. They paid a little more than $100 per song title. And I expect each song title was reproduced several thousand times if not more.
Also what about seizing the physical devices that the RIAA used to make copies? If the RIAA did not lose their hardware then nobody should lose their computer.
$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.
Perfect setup!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ETENrv8cnU
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
They are guilty of commercial infringment.
I wonder if this can be referenced in any file sharing cases to set a lower fee if the defendant loses.
I hope that criminal charges are pressed by the federal Crown (government) prosecutor, such massive scale for-profit (criminal) infringement cannot be tolerated. (Section 42 of the Copyright Act)
Is certainly starting out to be a good year ^.^
So shouldn't this be 240,000,000?
Or alternatively, we can accept that fair value of infringed songs is apparently $156.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I suppose his point was that 50 million was given a chance to create interest that it otherwise would not have created. The 50 million, ends up paid either way, but in one way generates a substantial amount of interest. Who is to say, however, that this interest was greater than the legal fees of the trial. That is another question.
insight through the mind
But this was expected to be a loss from the start- they were purchasing the copyrighted materials with this money but essentially withholding payment. So, as far as it goes, the money was "spent". However, they made interest on this money while waiting to finally pay the bill- making it a gain.
I think I see what you are saying.. but as they'd set it aside specifically in case this issue arose, I don't think I'd call it a loss unless the fees went over what they'd set aside (which it didn't).
On another note, I wonder how much they'd have paid had they just licensed it normally, if that amount would have exceeded $50m, and if so by how much.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
$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?"
If copyright terminates at death, then in cases where the an individual owns copyright in the composition and a corporation owns copyright in the performance/sound recording (very common), the corporation has a vested interest in the premature death of the composer. Also, corporations never die. They transition to successors and/or assigns.
Well very few people or companies can pay out 50 million without calling it a loss no matter what they were doing with it. I mean, even if you have it to lose, you DON'T have it to lose, know what I mean?
However, the point stands, that 50 million has been set aside for a few years as I understand it (I could be wrong, but wasn't it set aside well before the class action started?). Even at a conservative rate of interest, that's a lot of cabbage annually.
They lose that "income" and that capital...but for the years they had it sitting there and NOT paying what they owed, they did benefit largely from their illegal conduct and as such should face much more inflated fines than they have thus far.
"I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
If I was an artist, I would love to be perpetually paid.
If I was a recording label, I would love to shaft my artists and get away with it.
If I was a customer, I would love to get it for free.
All three have in common that they are greedy human bastards.
Also, you forget that the record labels didn't hold up their end of the bargain, most likely because they were big and tough and able to say "What are you going to do about it?". They had financial muscles and used them, just like every other nation throughout history used the might of its army to either get its way, or let lack of might cause them to yield to whoever had a bigger army.
I doubt they'd ever, ever, ever let anyone know. That's bad for business.
Above this post in the timeline is a post whose signature reads:
There are less illiterates than people who can't read.
Almost correct. I'd put that as can't read with anything remotely resembling comprehension. Some of you write code. God help your users, and multiple gods help your co-workers.
First line of the summary and appearing four times is the word Canada . As in where this happened. Canada - you should grab something to steady yourselves - IS NOT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
So all those pithy, insightful posts about the RIAA (The Recording Industry Association of America), US statutes and so forth are a complete waste.
Yeah, yeah, I know: This is slashdot. Even so, this thread (so far) sets a new low.
I'm not very knowledgeable in the legal system but seems to me cases against individuals where record companies are fining upwards on $80,000 a song should be able cite this where the record companies itself only had to pay ~$167 per song for the same damn thing, only they were doing it on a much grander scale and making a profit on it, opposed to P2P "free" downloads.
Assuming this is the same thing legally speaking, the record companies cheated artists and basically dared them to sue. If they got caught, they usually settled for less than the actual amount. So, it was a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation for artists.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Using their own valuations presented in other court cases, they'd be looking at a settlement in the billions of dollars.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
The interest on 50 mil would be enough to keep a party going until everybody needed shots, or to be shot, from doing all the shots.
The "industry" kept 50 mil in case they were caught selling other people's IP.
Never mind the "making available" crap.
They've been caught with their pants down around their ankles, in "Flagrante elicto", with the victim bludgeoned unconscious on the bloody floor.
Throw out ALL of the attempts to extort since they obviously think there are two sets of laws, only one of which applies to them. Let THAT one be the the one where they can collect.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
So when the RIAA sues someone, it's $80k per title for infringement on a small number of titles [cnet.com] when the offender possibly does not even know what they are doing is infringement, but when the RIAA is infringing on a massive scale, having pre-planned for being caught by setting aside money in the case that they were made to pay, which clearly shows that they knew the legalities of what they were doing, they only needed to allocate $167 per title and they were allowed to pay almost exactly what they decided to pay?
Note to all file sharers: The reason the RIAA can sue you for $80k per file is that YOU didn't set the price in the first place. Set aside $167 for every title you share. Or set aside less. Problem solved.
if a record company infringes copyright and no one is around to see it, did it really happen? pot, meet kettle. sooo... if they infringed upon someone/some companys copyright on a song that they are suing some random person for downloading... can they really assert copyright if they never truthfully had full copyright? (chicken and the egg)
OK, so if I shoplift something worth $5, get caught, and am forced to pay $5 for it, that's a loss.
Thanks. That helps with my accounting.
Sure they can do that. Though the US wants everyone to use their version of copyright law, they tend not to care what rulings are in different jurisdictions, so it'll never get within shouting distance of a court in the US.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Tell me which corporation would murder artists to get access to the works?
The one that already has rights to the recordings.
Umm, no. Copyright, as the name suggests, governs copying, not use.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The infringement was the breech of duty....Each song they sold without giving the money to the artist(s) involved was in breech of the contract that gave them license to create that copy and sell it.
Um, it's 'breach', unless you're talking about their pants, a rear-loading rifle or a baby being born ass-backwards.
</spelling_nazi>
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
My oblig. reference to point out the Big4 companies, which thankfully are named in TFA instead of just RIAA/CRIA:
Warner Music Canada
EMI Music Canada
Sony Music Canada
Universal Music Canada
As I had said, together they form the acronym WESU, as in "We sue! Yes, we do!"
To which Roesti cleverly replied: "That's for the US, though. This is the Canadian affiliate, WESUC."
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Since it's a settlement it wouldn't be a legal precedent either way. But it still seems like its information the judge and jury could and should take into consideration?