Major Record Labels Agree To Pay $45 Million For Copyright Infringement In Canada
from the and-they-got-off-easy dept
We've noted the irony of the fact that the largest copyright system supporters are frequently found to infringe whenever possible. One of the most amazing examples of this concerned the major record labels, who for years were directly infringing on the copyrights of various artists, by putting their songs on compilations and mixes without first getting permission as is required by the law. Instead, the labels would put those artists on a "pending list," but they rarely seemed to get around to taking them off that "pending list" and paying them. After years of trying to get the labels to pay up, a lawsuit was finally filed, where the artists pointed out that the labels could be on the hook for $6 billion. Kind of amusing to see the ridiculously large infringement penalties thrown back at the labels. After some negotiation, it appears that the labels have agreed to settle the case for $45 million and they're also promising to make sure that artists on the pending list will get paid in a reasonable amount of time. Now, can we finally stop pretending that the major record labels ever have the best interests of the artists in mind?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
Let me see if I get this right...
2) The labels get to CONTINUE to perform the acts of infringement as long as they "promise" to pay the artists infringed against in a "timely" fashion.
Yeah... and they wonder why we call them two-faced...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I get this right...
* cases of infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I get this right...
If I understand this correctly. Thats not per infringment, its per item infringed. If the song is used on an album it might have 100,000 copies sold but only be on the list once. So how much the labels are paying per infringement is much less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop yer whinin' and go make something original yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have, and so has Mike, and Dark Helmet, and probably a bunch of others on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So which way are you going (paid) to go? Defend copyright, and you go against your beloved labels. Defend labels, and you go against your beloved copyright?
No wonder you're angry, heh, hypocrisy slapped your face and spanked your ass hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Especially the ripping off of music that is on indie labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm personally just wanting all the megalawsuits to end. $150,000 per infringement is insane. What is interesting about this is that it is practically stating what the actual "damages" are right here ($150 per infringement), yet if this number should ever be tossed around with the mafIAA on the other side of the court you would have it laughed at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For someone like Jammie Thomas, it should be much less. $0.01
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i think everyone on techdirt agrees with this statement,
what we do here is instead of fighting people who arent giving you money, try and get some value (money from other ways to buy or different products that cant be copied, using them as a marketing tool etc) out of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Precedent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Precedent?
case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Precedent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More detailed (and better informed) coverage is here:
http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/2011/01/articles/music/settlement-reached-in-can adian-music-industry-pending-lists-lawsuit/
http://www.thewirereport.ca/reports/content/11789-new_r ecord_label_agreement_lays_groundwork_for_mechanical_royalties_payments
http://www.thestar.com/ente rtainment/movies/article/919136--tentative-agreement-reached-between-labels-songwriters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Was Geist's report incorrect? He noted that a change in the law, back in the late 1980s required permission. As a "compromise" the labels set up this pending list which *acts* as a compulsory license, but wasn't quite the same thing. Separately, if there's a compulsory license and you don't pay it, then you've infringed on the copyright.
Either way, it looks like copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How utterly shocking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An AC misrepresenting Mike and spinning the issue to try to further his agenda of demonizing Techdirt?
How utterly shocking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are no better than Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh. Honest to god, you make me so sick I may just end up vomiting the bile these half-brained fuckwits spew each and every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's like downloading a few movies and putting them on a list to actually pay for at some point in the future and just never getting around to it and hoping everyone forgets. In the meantime I'm not just watching the movies I'm putting them out there and selling them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm read carefully
Let me assist you, as it seems the infringement was settled right out of the case.
"The proposed agreement settles all alleged copyright infringement liability related to that small minority of unlicenced works that have accumulated over the years."
Assuming that the small amount was willfully infringed, in the US that would mean that the labels owe $30,000 - $150,000 per case of infringement. I would just like to know why all the ACs are not rallying for the cause of the artists. They seem to be keen on people paying up when they know they are breaking the law. It's about making sure the artists get paid, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just my view, and I honestly don't care what you think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In theory, these people are distributing, not just downloading.
So, let's take the Thomas case. I did a bit of Googling, and it looks like Kazaa had an average limit of about 10 simultaneous connections back then. Even assuming you left your connection going for a long time, it seems unlikely that she would have shared a song with more than 100 people.
So, at maximum, the actual damages would be 100x the cost of the song. Assuming then-standard prices of $1.29 per song on iTunes, that would be $129 per infringement.
That's much less than the minimum statutory damages, so it's no surprise that the RIAA went with statutory damages instead. Even so - as far as I know, the latest damage amount was $1.5 million for 24 songs, or $62,500 per song. This is almost 500% of the actual damages - far in excess of what is normally considered unconstitutionally excessive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Minor quibble, I think you meant 500 times, not 500 percent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oops, you're right, sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since I'm coming in a bit late...
Irony is not just something you flatten your clothes with it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]