[jonKranked]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/artists-lawsuit-major-record-labels-are-the-real-pirates.ars


Granted, its in Canada. But it still involves the Big Four.

Given how aggressively the recording industry likes to pursue file sharers, one would assume that the industry itself is in the clear when it comes to copyright infringement. But that assumption has been put to the test in Canada, where a massive infringement lawsuit is brewing against some major players. Members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, including the Big Four (Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada), face the prospect of damages ranging from $50 million up to $6 billion due to their use of artists' music without permission. That's right: $6 billion.

The lawsuit in question goes back to October 2008, but continues to be dragged up in the news because new plaintiffs keep joining the case. Most recently, jazz musician Chet Baker's estate has joined the growing list of musicians and artists who are getting on the music industry's case for their abuse of a certain aspect of Canadian copyright practices—something that the labels themselves don't even deny doing.

As University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist pointed out on his blog, the issue stems from a change to the law in the 1980s that eventually produced something known as the "pending list." Essentially, record companies no longer had to get a compulsory license every time they wanted to use a song for, say, a compilation album. Instead, they went ahead and used the song without waiting for authorization or making payment, adding the song to a list of music that is pending authorization and payment. If you're questioning whether you read that right, that basically means the record industries could use songs as long as they pinky swore they would get authorization and pay the artist for it eventually.

As you can imagine, the business didn't quite work that way. Instead of keeping up with its tab on the pending list, the recording industry just kept adding songs—without obtaining any rights. The pending list among the lawsuit's defendants has topped 300,000 songs from both large and small artists alike—300,000 songs that the labels are openly admitting that they have not secured the rights for. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the record companies have been unjustly enriched by the use of their unauthorized music (they have, after all, been selling the music without permission and not paying out).

The plaintiffs also show that they are painfully aware of the hypocritical stance the industry has taken in regard to copyright abuse. One part of the complaint says the companies have shown "reckless, high-handed and arrogant conduct aggravated by their clandestine disregard for the copyright interests of the class members in contrast to their strict compliance enforcement policy and unremitting approach to consumers in the protection of their corporate copyright interests." Ouch.

The recording companies targeted in the suit acknowledge that the pending list reflects unpaid royalties "in excess of $50 million," but the real extent of the damage could go far higher—possibly to the tune of $6 billion. This is because the class is asking for both statutory and punitive damages for the labels' behavior (as Geist points out, the same standards being used to go after individual file sharers), meaning that the labels could be asked to pay up to $20,000 per infringement.

 

[stoney]

awesome.

 

[jimmydean]

That Rocks!

 

[Pesqueeb]

Karma bitches!

 

[Ciaran]

Eff yeah


The record companies will win, but good on the artists for trying.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

FTW!

 

[jonKranked]

The record companies will win, but good on the artists for trying.

How are they going to win? They (the record companies) have already admitted that they owe over $50 million in unpaid royalties. This is money that the artists should've gotten in the first place when the labels used their songs. But since the record companies never paid up, the artists are going after them for copyright violation (since the labels never officially secured the rights to use the artists' material - there is a law that allows them to do this - publish the song prior to obtaining the rights to use it, but I haven't read the law, so I'm not sure how long after the publishing the record companies have to secure the rights).

 

[jonKranked]

Here's another article on it, which gives a better description of the situation in regards to the "pending copyright" list:

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement

 

[ohio]

I just fapped to that article.

 

[DRB]

Now the record industry will just get more aggressive with the filesharers in order to cover the royalities they owe.

 

[jonKranked]

Now the record industry will just get more aggressive with the filesharers in order to cover the royalities they owe.

Well, in some instances file sharers could be able to argue that the labels have no grounds on which to sue, seeing as how they don't actually have rights to some of those tracks in the first place.

 

[4xBoy]

Well, in some instances file sharers could be able to argue that the labels have no grounds on which to sue, seeing as how they don't actually have rights to some of those tracks in the first place.

I would like to see some of the people that had to pay go back and find they had recordings that the label didn't have rights there for the suit should be null and void.


I'm pretty loaded to know if that makes any sense right now.

 

[jonKranked]

No that makes sense.

 

[Mr.Bishop]

This article really made my day. I hate what has happened to the music industry... its really just turned into a bitter legal dispute. I can't believe that nobody has been embracing the shift in technology, and spending these vast resources attempting to monitize that vs. suing everybody.

I'd say this is a clear cut case of Karma if I've ever seen one.

 

[jonKranked]

Absolutely. The music industry as it has stood since the mid 1900's is dead. It just isn't in the ground yet. They are clinging to what is now an obsolete business model. They thought they could stand against digital, and they were wrong. Instead of embracing it, they fought it, and that was their downfall.

 

[dante]

Anybody remember that scene in Rome where the guy gets raped with his head in the latrine? I kinda hope that happens to the record labels in this case. Figuratively, of course...

 

[Mr.Bishop]

Absolutely. The music industry as it has stood since the mid 1900's is dead. It just isn't in the ground yet. They are clinging to what is now an obsolete business model. They thought they could stand against digital, and they were wrong. Instead of embracing it, they fought it, and that was their downfall.

I think I'm most amazed at the fact that they've spent so much money fighting it, and so little trying to capitalize on it. I mean it seems like if even 1/4 of the resources being put into lawsuits were put into accepting the fact that the .mp3 is what people want... someone would get mega rich.

On that note... anyone got an idea for the solution to the music industry's business model? Figure that one out and we could all be loaded.

 

[skinny mike]

On that note... anyone got an idea for the solution to the music industry's business model? Figure that one out and we could all be loaded.

my guess is that once cd's go the way of the dodo artists will be able to just release the files themselves, like radiohead did with in rainbows.

at least that's how i hope everything would go, instead of having another sue-happy monstrosity with a different name.

 

[jonKranked]

On that note... anyone got an idea for the solution to the music industry's business model? Figure that one out and we could all be loaded.

I do - want a PM?


Also, trent reznor did it with an album with pretty good success.

 

[Mr.Bishop]

I do - want a PM?


Also, trent reznor did it with an album with pretty good success.

I absolutely love the Trent Reznor model. Artists releasing their music directly, and having to go out and perform to promote seems like a nice return to older and more pure times.

I know the biggest argument against this is the ability to find out about new artists. Record companies did a lot of marketing to help push people into stardom. Of course, they push mostly total crap so perhaps its zero loss.

 

[narlus]

I absolutely love the Trent Reznor model. Artists releasing their music directly, and having to go out and perform to promote seems like a nice return to older and more pure times.

I know the biggest argument against this is the ability to find out about new artists. Record companies did a lot of marketing to help push people into stardom. Of course, they push mostly total crap so perhaps its zero loss.

that is the biggest problem.

if Radiohead were just readying their first or second record, do you think anyone would have given a toss about their pay what you want model for In Rainbows? not a chance.

due to the increasing fractionation/marginalization of the market, i think the SUPERSTAR model is dying. it'll be interesting to see in ten year's time who fills the stadia and arenas. i think one of the last massive bands with any kind of staying power we'll see is Metallica.

 

[jonKranked]

tit'll be interesting to see in ten year's time who fills the stadia and arenas. i think one of the last massive bands with any kind of staying power we'll see is Metallica.

And that's only courtesy of the proliferation of white trash

 

[Dartman]

And that's only courtesy of the proliferation of white trash

Mullet power!!!

 

[Mr.Bishop]

And that's only courtesy of the proliferation of white trash

I must say I caught Metallica's last tour here in MTL, and though I'm not particularly a fan, they are immensely talented musicians. Of a particular style of course, but their show is very captivating.

Bands like that are able to put out an energy that draws you in, and thats hard to re-create. I have a feeling like there might be room for superstars that were created out of their own raw talent, musicianship and skills as performers.

Maybe its too idealistic of me to think that people could recognize and enjoy actual talent?

 

[jonKranked]

I'm not saying they're not talented, they're just riding their own coat-tails. Nothing they've put out in at least the last decade has been as cutting edge or groundbreaking as their early records.


edit: that, and the outed themselves as corporate whores during the late 90's napster fiasco

 

[jimmydean]

Perry Ferrell made some interesting points about bands making money off performance rather than album sales and promoted the idea of free downloads as an embrace with technology. While I understand your point, narlus, I remember when Metallica gave out demo tapes at shows and made a bulk of what little they had performing.

I haven't bought many CD's over the years because they aren't practical on the motorcycle and more often than not a CD only has maybe 50% worth listening to. I love going to shows and would rather pay $35 (I'm cheap) to see a good show at the Roseland than $50 at the Rose Garden.

But I have never been a fan of arena rock shows, either.

 

[Mr.Bishop]

I'm not saying they're not talented, they're just riding their own coat-tails. Nothing they've put out in at least the last decade has been as cutting edge or groundbreaking as their early records.


edit: that, and the outed themselves as corporate whores during the late 90's napster fiasco

I hear you on their new music... Metallica as of late has been total ****. But their live performance is truly amazing. Honestly I have never seen an arena show that had so much raw energy. I think their studio music sucks, but their live performance as musicians brings it back.

So I guess I would also have to draw a differentiation between music writing ability and music performing ability.