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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
Why does a judge have to rule on an out of court settlement? AFAIK there is no law that allows a judge to force a plaintiff to continue with a tort they wish to drop.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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"?
$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.
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)
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.
$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?"