Record Labels Don't Want To Answer Questions About Their Own Use Of File Sharing
from the whoops dept
The details here aren't entirely clear, but in one of the cases the RIAA is trying against someone for file sharing, lawyer Ray Beckerman (famous for defending plenty of people accused of file sharing) got the court to ask the record labels in the case to explain how employees at the labels actually used peer-to-peer file sharing apps in sending songs to radio stations. Beckerman is now complaining that the labels are refusing to answer, pretending that the judge asked a different question (about whether the labels -- not the employees of the labels -- signed up for file sharing accounts). In answering that question, the record label lawyers never even consulted the promotions department to find out if they had used file sharing apps, and simply answered based on what the head of procurement said (one assumes, they said that the company had not officially signed up for such an account). It would be nice if there were a little more background here -- but reading between the lines, it sounds like people in the promotions department were likely using file sharing apps themselves as part of a promotional campaign, and the record labels don't want to admit it, as it could hurt their case. In the past, there have been reports of the record labels using file sharing as market research, but I hadn't heard of them using it for any kind of promotions.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
why would anyone hear anything about this ???
what netter source of info is there for them ?
the results from the radio are from what they allow.
results from record sales are also mostly what they are pushing.
p2p file sharing are what the people want.
what better indication is there ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why would anyone hear anything about this ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is that they should not use a program and then sue others for using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HUH?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HUH?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point
The big difference is whether you are legally entitled to share the information on a peer-to-peer network.
People are being sued for copyright infringement – not the use of a technology. It’s comparable with burning a CD which one is legally entitled to (say a backup of a downloaded iTunes album) to copying a CD from a friend.
The first is legal, the second is illegal. The fact that they both use the same technology is coincidence.
Anyone who is illegally downloading music (or movies, games, books, etc) is aware what they are doing is against the law and they are taking a risk. It’s that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point
Indeed. But, if that were the case, then why won't the labels admit that they used these products for perfectly legal reasons? There's no reason to deny it if they used them legally...
So, I think it may be you who is missing the point. We all know there are legal uses for P2P file sharing apps. The question is why are the labels so cagey about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing the point
As per the article:
It seems to me the lawyers are being cagey. Not the labels. Pedantic? Maybe, but the liscence and redistribution rights a record label has for material it owns would seem to cover them for the promotional side of things.[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
Are the promtions company sharing the file:
Backstreet Boys - Incomplete.mp3
or the file
3839129329u215250120524.mp3
Becuase if they share it as some obscure file name, then only Radio Stations are downloading it, becuase they know what it is.
If the post it as "Backstreet Boys - Incomplete.mp3" then they share part of the "blame" for me getting the file.
And even if they share the file with an obscure name, they still may be considred partly at fault.
I belive in Canada it is legal to download mp3's, but it is not legal to be the one uploading. So it is a big deal if the record companies are using p2p services.
Another good question, is they themselves, or via an outside agency, monitor p2p networks to get stats on trends or popularity of music. I.E. How many copies of a new song are out there, how fast is it spreading, where are the downloaders physicaly located, what other music do they listen to? There is tons of marketing information as well as information on how popular a song really is available on these networks.
The degree to which the record companies use p2p apps may play into how "legitimate" they are, and anything used in a case regaring a downloader, and ends up public record, can be used by the next napster or kazza in their trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reason for Denial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reason for Denial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Root of the Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Root of the Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Root of the Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The industry more guilty than anybody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One day the RIAA will fall.... one day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I'm filming a video (with sound involved) and there happens to be a song playing in the background, am I illegally recording music? Would I have to destroy that tape?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not who is being targeted though. The RIAA are targeting people who are choosing to download instead of buying.
Like it or not it's the same as shoplifting the CD. It's simply the electronic equivilant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is not the case. For multiple reasons. If you bake 4 loaves of bread, and I steal one from your store, you are out the materials and time, and even, the space you use to market that item.
Whereas with music, there is Copyright law. Copywright law was set up to balance the good of the individual creating a "work" and society in general. Then there is the doctrine of Fair Use. Which gives the end user the right to backup, copy, rip, record off of the radio, and yes, even give such a copy to friends. No matter if it is analog or digital.
There are good laws, and there are bad laws. No reasonable person would argue, that stealing a loaf of bread, no matter how hungry you are, has not harmed the person who created it. He is out what he invested in physically producing that loaf.
When you are talking music. You have the person who "created" the work, who then "sold" his rights away by contract to a company who now "owns" the copyrighted work, who have had the copyright, designed to protect the artist duing a large part of his lifetime, to now protecting a companies stronghold on making money off of the music even when it is not in the public interest. It may be legal but how moral is it? They want you to pay if you play the music in public, in a waiting room. If you write the lyrics down and give them to a friend. They want to pay the artits as little as possible, often cheating them by cooking the numbers. They want to extend copyright so they can "own" anything that is still making a buck for eternity. They want to shut down the sales of used CD's, because, they only profit from the sales of new music through channels they control.
The two do not have a black and white comparison. And downloading from a p2p network, may not be legal, but it is also not the same as piracy or theft of a physical object. If anyone is harmed and who that would be, is not the same either.
Is the music listening public harmed? Will it lower the quality of music out there? Will it keep good bands from producing high quality music? Is the small retailer who sells new CD's harmed? Is the superchain who buy CD's cheap and interests are at odds with the small retailer hurt? Is the record label who is getting exposure and often epxerience the increase in sales of the highly profitable back catalog albums? Is the artist getting hurt? The top 2% of artits could be losing sales of todays top charting song, but 98% of artits actually benefit from the exposure.
Wheres I know that the baker who put the loaf of bread on his shelf, and had it stolen, did suffer a loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not who is being targeted though. The RIAA are targeting people who are choosing to download instead of buying.
Like it or not it's the same as shoplifting the CD. It's simply the electronic equivilant.
response: No it isn't you flaming moron. It's still illegal, but it's not the same thing as stealing inventory. No real property has been stolen, just data copied. If I were to copy a song illegally, I haven't taken that CD from the person who originally had it, just made a version that I would or would not have bought otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio station use
As suggested in an earlier post labels do have their own private servers which host music (from artists on their labe only, not other labelsl) and stations are given access to these files (which to an extent can be extremely limited as depending on the station's format, many songs are unavailable due to genre restrictions). Or there are other programs which work as restricted P2P wherby the labels pay a company to host songs from all the labels, and distrubute them accordingly to stations across North America. But in both cases, permission has been granted for this procedure.
In the case of the biggest stations in a market (trend setters or large market stations), they get every song (and versions of that song) they need without question (sometimes by downloading from a secure site or via CD). In the case of medium and small market stations, sometimes label Promotions forgets to service you with the new stuff and you're in a crunch to add it to remain current so the stations resort to P2P sharing, or someone brings in the CD (if they have it or buy) and just rip the song into the library, both of these methods are technically illegal but the RIAA and CRIA (Canadian industry) say shit cause it still benefits the artist through free airplay.
If the RIAA is going to get all high and mighty, why don't they start bustin the chops of Clear Channel and other major media corporations whose radio stations partake in P2P sharing all the time. Or who also partake in public broadcast of recording without express written consent and all that other BS. If that were to happen I would be slightly less angry with RIAA, but until then the RIAA are a bunch of pricks. Luckily I live in the land of igloos, strong beer and legal file sharing, so I have no fear of CRIA.
On a side note I also have no fear of CRIA or the RIAA because I don't really share music. I just buy it. If you really like something buy it. If you think Chamamillionaire might just be a fad (a la Vanilla Ice or Menudo) then think twice before buying it. Part of the problem is also that people want more than they can afford and we feel entitled to everything and therefore think we earned the right to download this music.
Please note I think that musicians got way too crusty about this and shouldn't be making a peep at all (cause I pay for their expensive guitars, bentleys and drugs or in the case of Metallica, your whiny Dr. Phil like group therapy - Get some balls and grow a penis), but until the law changes, I think to an extent it needs to be respected, as do the artists rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use only goes so far... if you make a copy of a cd, and give it to a friend, it is still infringement.. Fair use is also not firmly written anywhere, so the exact meaning has been varied in court cases. It is certainly not an idea you want to try to defend stealing music with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He would still suffer a loss if he didn't sell the bread... or if someone made copies of that bread in a matter replicator and sold it next to his shop.
check-and-mate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what is happening is the store next to him isn't charging for bread due to matter replicator.
the question is, would the baker still be out of bread of the free bread didn't exist?
if the taker of free bread had no intent of paying for his bread, his bread would still be on the shelf.
if the taker had the intention of buying it, but found it cheaper...then the baker lost out on his money. however it is hard to tell if the taker would have paid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rule # 4080 record labels are shady
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Share
The person sharing it gets 5 cents. The "legal owner" of the song gets 90 cents. The service providing the share network gets 5 cents.
So its all shared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weee hoooo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]