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.'"

38 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe they get a volume discount?

    2. 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.

    3. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      It's a bit more insidious than that. This 50 million wasn't just sitting in a trash bag under the CEO's desk. It was out there, making interest. So they profited from their copyright infringement. Their punishment should be worse!

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:Let me get this straight ... by somersault · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I currently buy all my music legally.

      This is making me reconsider, at least when buying music published by these douchebags.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Let me get this straight ... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, yes. although I will point out this is Canadian law which is a little less insane.

    8. Re:Let me get this straight ... by grimJester · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You missed the obvious question: How on earth did the damages end up within 5% of what they had set aside? Using the per infringement figure, they set aside $167 and paid $158 when the statuatory damages range from $750 to $150,000? Wtf is going on here?

    9. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Vitani · · Score: 5, Interesting

      INAL, but this could be a GOOD thing. Now when someone gets sued by the RIAA they can point to this case and say that they should only be paying the RIAA $167 per track, as per this example. They could perhaps even argue to pay less as they had no business interest in the infringement, unlike in this instance.

    10. 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.
    11. 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
    12. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why would the class settle for less than the minimum statutory penalty?

      Because class action lawsuits are primarily for the benefit of the lawyers, not the class members. This way, the lawyers get a big payout without actually having to do any work. And the musicians get screwed yet again.

    13. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Interoperable · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's unclear to me to what extent there was any actual infringement. As I understand it, the artists agreed to have the CMRRA represent their interests with regard to licencing their work. The CMRRA then set up an agreement that allowed the recording companies to use a work and pay for it later. Which they never did.

      It may be that proving infringement in court would be difficult due to the existing agreement. Probably, it would be more like a breach of contract. It's tough to know what case could have been made for infringement, but it certainly would be a tough legal battle. Too bad, that would have been very, very fun to watch.

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    14. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In cases like this sometimes I wonder if it's beyond that, that the company and the class action lawyers collude to screw the class. That they purposely get themselves sued by "friendly" lawyers who settle for peanuts so they have legal immunity from everyone who didn't opt out of the class. Mass commercial copyright violation sounds more like a federal crime worthy of prison time than this.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re:Let me get this straight ... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, fair is fair: if those dirty pirate scum had just waited to become major multinational corporations before they hit bittorrent, they would have been fine. But nooo, they just had to go downloading first...

    16. 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...
    17. Re:Let me get this straight ... by anti-pop-frustration · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't understand, there are two kinds of copyright infringement.

      The commercial one, in which benevolent publicly-traded corporations profit form the work of unpaid artists and the evil non-commercial kind, performed by individuals, which doesn't generate any profit at all.

      The non commercial one is of course far more immoral and dangerous to society, and it should be punished to the full extent of the law (in this case $1,920,000 in statutory damages for sharing 24 songs).

      Remember kids, when you download MP3s, you're downloading communism!

    18. Re:Let me get this straight ... by PhilHibbs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why should the policies of the Recording Industry Association of America have an effect on Canadian justice?

    19. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What should have happened is, the MafiAA corps should have been forcibly disbanded, assets sold, and all singers and songwriters released from their slave-labor contracts.

      The double upside there is that we could get rid of the MafiAA companies and destroy the Payola system that still strangleholds music radio today. Maybe we'd have some real radio stations that would do things like play local artists, new acts simply because they like the sound, or even spin entire albums now and again.

      Of course, we should probably reinstitute the media ownership limits. In 1995 there were over 5000 independent radio station companies, by 1997 five companies controlled 95% of the radio market.

    20. Re:Let me get this straight ... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't we have an awesome new precedent though for the next file share case?

      Jammie's Appeal through counsel:
      "Your honor, given this new information, I ask for her damages to be reduced to $4000."

      Especially since there was no wishy-washy "making available" stuff - these were raw Sold, and not by any third party, but by the originators of the modern concept of copyright.

      Can we PLEASE close out this era of mega-suits?

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    21. 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
    22. Re:Let me get this straight ... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Deregulating the radio industry was a horrible mistake that sounded like a good idea at the time (and I was far from a Clinton fan). You're right... it's all Clear Channel and a handful of others. There are still a few nice indie stations (great one in New Braunfels that I can pick up sometimes) but it's not like it was.

      When I was in Nashville in the late 90s, Clear Channel was driving the reduction in playlist size as well. Not only were artists and songwriters getting cut out, it was getting more difficult to get radio play (where songwriters and artists get a few pennies per play).

      The numbers in that article don't jibe very well though. Only idiot bands and previous megahit makers spend that kind of money recording an album. And the numbers get that high because of catering and nightlife. In 1998, AFM scale for each musician for a single song was $50, while some of the top earners for session work were getting $300. Currently scale can be up to about 3 times that (it varies from region to region, and some are still as low as 1998 numbers), but it's laddered based on amout of performance. Engineers made about $70/hr, and the studio got that much as well.

      The typical manager cut is 10% or less, unless again the band is made up of idiots that are way too excited about getting a major deal to actually read the contract. However, it leaves out the agent/promoter cut too, which is 10% or less. It's not exactly a wash though, because that's only for live shows.

      However, with all of the money needed to record and distribute, the band typically doesn't make a dime off of CDs until about 1MM in sales.

      On the road though, the band does pretty well. Again, using 1998 numbers, the Dixie Chicks were making a minimum of $400k per show. They traveled with their own trucks, lights, sound equipment, etc... so a large portion of that went to putting it all together. However, at the end of the night, they were likely splitting about $60k between the three of them. Bands of less notoriety typically have a backline setup as part of the rider. Also, equipment manufacturers are very easy to get B endorsements (items at cost) out of, and fairly easy to get A endorsements (free stuff) out of if the band has any radio play at all.

      The band has to pay for travel expenses, but rarely if at all pays for hotels and meals. Again, AFM scale was $50 per show in town, $200 per show out of town, with a $35/day per diem. That also hasn't changed much.

      Artists these days make their money on the road, and produce CDs to drive the butts to the seats. And they can make a pretty nice living at it. The recording industry (outside of self and indie labels) is a sham.

      And on Payola, Sony learned a long time ago the fines for getting caught were nothing compared to the amount of $$ they made by pushing their artists onto the radio. Give harsher penalties and they might reconsider.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    23. Re:Let me get this straight ... by dogsbreath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IANAL but in Canada, suing for damages is a bit different from the US... my understanding is that damages awards for loss have to be consistent with actual, concrete, demonstrable loss. I know that these things get complex and follow some convoluted paths, at least to the non-lawyers, but I was given this example. Say I offer to sell you a car at $1000 less than the going rate and you accept but before you come over to pay and collect the vehicle, I sell the car to someone else. You can sue me for damages but you are basically limited to the $1000 difference between the going rate and my original offer to sell. Now that's straight damages. I don't believe there are any statutory damages for copyright.

      Bill C32 I think, changes that. It introduces American style "statutory" damages with a minimum per instance (er... $100 non-commercial and $200 commercial) for copyright violations. The maximums are much higher ($5000 for commercial). The Bill has passed second reading, still needs third reading and to pass in the senate. It is not yet in force:

      http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=7026&List=stat

      So... you have to think that there is some house-cleaning going on. Currently, the damages would be limited to actual license costs plus possibly legal fees, hence the ability for the association to set aside an exact amount for the settlement. They have been thinking about this for a long time.

      I believe that the industry association has a vested interest to get this matter out of the way in prep for the passing of C32, which could push the damages up significantly, as high as $1.5 Billion. I would also be suspicious that the Heritage Minister is involved here somewhere and strong armed the artists to accept the industry settlement so that Bill C32 could be put into place without any embarassing fallout. The argument would be that C32 is good for the artists so accept this and be done with it. I think that everyone involved in the settlement is doing the ol' nod nod wink wink.

      There has been a long running difference in view between Heritage Canada (artists, er... proponent of blank CD/DVD surcharges) and Industry Canada (resp. for telecom, ISPs, etc and traditionally against making ISPs etc responsible for infringing data transmission). I would bet money that the two ministries have been settling differences behind the scenes and in cabinet. This "settlement" is just one item on a long list of to-do items that are part of aligning Canadian copyright law with American law. I am not saying there is conspiracy but there is an expected amount of co-ordination and deal making within the Conservative party cabinet. Okay.... maybe it IS a conspiracy ;->

      One thing is for certain: a lot of shit has been going on behind the scenes in this story.

    24. Re:Let me get this straight ... by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Precedents usually have to come from the same country...

      IANAL. We don't have mass lawsuits in Canada like they do in the US. This isn't to say that the CRIA didn't try, but when they experimentally sued their first 29 filesharers in 2004, the judge (who incidentally is now chairperson of our telecoms regulator, the CRTC) ruled against their request for disclosure of the identities of the alleged fileshares. The cases then obviously were dead in the water, and I don't believe any have been filed since.

      If you're interested in the reasons why the judge rejected the CRIA's request, the reasons why the request violated the rules established for such disclosures were:

      1) The CRIA had hired a third party company, MediaSentry, to do the investigations, and the affadavit alleging evidence of infringement was signed by the president of this company, rather than the employees who did the investigation. As such, alleged evidence was hearsay, and not admissible.

      2) MediaSentry had employed decoy music files, but did not verify that the alleged infringers had downloaded the actual songs in question and not the decoys, which they weren't being sued for. As such, no evidence was provided that the files in question were even the plaintiff's infringed files.

      3) The CRIA alleged that the infringement was performed by various Kazaa usernames, but provided no evidence as to how they associated these usernames to the IPs for which they were seeking discovery. As such, there is no evidence that the IP was involved in the infringement.

      4) The copyright act states that reproduction of an audio recording for private use by the copier does not constitute copyright infringement, and so the alleged downloading of the MP3 files did not constitute copyright infringement

      5) No evidence was provided that the alleged infringers had distributed or authorized the reproduction of the files, merely that they had placed personal copies in a location that was accessible to others, and this does not constitute copyright infringement. Others accessing the accessible files is not copyright infringement, the user must take a positive act of sending the files themselves.

      6) The CRIA alleged secondary infringement, but didn't even try to establish knowledge on the part of the defendants

      7) The lawsuits were filed long after the infringement was alleged to have taken place (about a year), and retrieving the information requested (contact info of the person using the IP at the time) over such a long period of time was not practical or reasonable, and quite likely not even possible. Furthermore, the contact info of the account holder that owned the IP is not necessarily the same as the person who committed the infringement on the computer.

      8) The great length of time between the alleged infringement and the filing of the lawsuit causes privacy concerns to outweigh the copyrights of the plaintiffs, since they gave no reason as to why they waited so long. I think the idea here was that clearly the damage caused wasn't terribly important since they waited so long.

      The ruling in the end denies the CRIA's motion, and granted costs to the ISPs who participated. So the CRIA's attempt to try mass lawsuits US-style imploded in a spectacular manner. Without major changes to Canadian law, such lawsuits are impossible.

  2. Prime example of.. by Gaygirlie · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  3. From this I understand that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. OK, I got the $2.5M difference by grimJester · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Reality Check Please by OzTech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

    1. 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?

  8. A lesson well learned by pinkushun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  9. We have let them do this to the music industry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:Legal ramifications by Mouldy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Probably not. It was settled outside of courts, so AFAIK, you can't use that in other court cases.

  11. It's not "damages", it's a settlement by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Informative

    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"?
  12. 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?"