Rhythmism.com

*head asplode*

-------
Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may owe $60 billion in damages


Jazz great Chet Baker's estate is suing the major record labels for releasing his music on Canadian CDs without paying compensation (a common practice in Canada, where over 300,000 songs have been released on CD without compensation). The defendants -- Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada -- have admitted that they owe at least CAD$50 million, but Baker's estate is entitled to up to CAD$60 billion.

The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences... It is difficult to understand why the industry has been so reluctant to pay its bills. Some works may be in the public domain or belong to a copyright owner difficult to ascertain or locate, yet the likes of Sarah McLachlan, Bruce Cockburn, Sloan, or the Watchmen are not hidden from view.
The more likely reason is that the record labels have had little motivation to pay up. As the balance has grown, David Basskin, the president and CEO of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd., notes in his affidavit that "the record labels have devoted insufficient resources for identifying and paying the owners of musical works on the pending lists." The CRIA members now face the prospect of far greater liability.
The class action seeks the option of statutory damages for each infringement. At $20,000 per infringement, potential liability exceeds $60 billion.

Geist: Record industry faces liability over `infringement'

wow

yikes

Finally someone is catching up on this b.s. I'm pretty sick of this Copyright "game" which is just an oligarchal oppression by some rich elite few.

They always wanna throw the book at Joe the plumber who downloaded 20 songs for personal use but big corporations always seem to get off fine.

I have a friend who is a major (Music Hall of Fame inducted) musician. And for several years Walmart sold bootleg copies of his work and there is essentially nothing that can be done about it.

walmart is on my top 10 list of companies I would like to see get reamed in the ass..

If you don't mind me asking, how exactly is your friend not able to do anything?
Did he record before 1976 prior to the copyright act, and its a loop hole being used?
From what I remember a Copyright is good for about, 28 years?

sux either way

Walmart serves a purpose. Its a perfect example of race to the bottom capitalism and we need that so one day joe and jane American wake up and realize that its better to spend around 150 bucks on that nice Milwaukee drill that one day you could gift to your kids after using it for 20 years than the 19.99 plastic special that'll blow a motor out after some light picture hanging.

Yes, back in 1810, it was 14 years with a renewable 14, probably until 1900 or so.

Now it's life of the author PLUS 75 years, or 90 years, depending on which territory.

In a culture where everything is being remixed every moment, one could argue that it's a bit of a joke, but back on topic: all the same it is a very common practice for major labels to stop accounting to artists, even though their records are still being sold.

I think that the same penalties they are siccing on dead people, teenagers and unemployed mothers for file-sharing should be applied to every infringement the major labels commit by taking someone's music and selling it without paying the artists. Fat chance...

This is just making me notice that 'bully' and 'lobby' (like lobbying the government to pass all kinds of laws criminalizing copyright infringement yet further, as in the ACTA legislation currently being debated in total secrecy, as it is a clear case of national security) sort of rhyme well together.

No this music was recorded in the 80s.

Its just that Walmart has a such a huge legal team and it is very hard to touch them. Walmart is claiming no fault because they bought the merchandise from a Chinese distributor in good faith. Walmart buyers push and look harder and harder for the cheapest deals on wholesale and its all about the numbers--even when it is suspiciously low. They would just rather get the deal and pay later (if at all) The Chinese Vendor most likely found the whole album online and then made tens of thousands of their own copies with artwork and everything.

Are you telling me your friends can't find a good law firm to take this on and get paid based solely on them wining?

I mean the chance to go agaisnt walmart with a case like this would be any serious law firms dream.
they would gladly take half the compensation at the end of the case

First, this article is about Canada...Second, the 1976 Copyright Act is a US Law...Third Zuki is right with the length of time, and in future years will expand the length of ownership.

Unfortunately Canada doesnt use the statutory mechanical rate as we do in the US. Music publishers can negotiate/charge whatever they want to the record companies, therefore record companies can pay a marginal (if any) rate to the publishers therefore paying the writers a marginal (if any) fee. So depending on the contract, what they have done can be stated as legal, but this case just sounds like another way record labels are ripping everybody off.

Many times with 'special' compilations or promotional CD's (like free CD if you buy a particular product) the writer will get a reduced rate, or even gratis. These are negotiated in the contract with the publishing/record companies. So everyone needs to look over what the signed and what the record company is considering a 'compilation'.

The exploit now/pay later has been a problem in many countries outside the US and I'm glad to see this go to court.

Has he even consulted a lawyer? If it happened to him, it's probably happened to others, so what's going to stop Walmart from continuing this practice. If he can't win the battle for money on previously sold merchandise, perhaps he can set the groundwork to be paid for future sales of his music. Also, the record label and music publishing company are losing out money, so it wouldn't be just him taking on Walmart, those companies have huge legal teams too.

hey dudes you know walmart isn't in the compilation business right?

yay copyright!

Not following you...yes Walmart does not make the compilations, but does sell compilation music CD's


Am I missing some extremely awesomely dry JP humor?

since when are record companies all about taking care of their artists?

puhleeze...

waif me, my friend...

you're missing the point that you can't recover from wal-mart just because they sell goods that happen to carry infringing material so all this talk of suing walmart is misplaced and retarded.

yes, however we were discussing walmart, not the article or Canada..


thanks for playing, stick to wings buddy

again.

let me know when record companies start taking care of their artists.

they don't. and they never have.

and unless they have an incentive to, they never will. end of story.

Can you go after the distributor?

sorry for being such an ignorant moron about law

nah really the only entity you have any shot against is the label that's infringing. the distributor and walmart have no reason to know they're aiding in any kind of copyright infringement and cant be held liable. see also: ebay and counterfeit goods. they're nothing more than a conduit.

Hypothetical question.
What would stop someone from manufacturing a bunch of nike knock off's and selling them to walmart for half of what they would normally buy them for if they can't be held liable?

two fists and a twelve gauge.



hypothetically.

touche, I meant from a purely legal standpoint

but thats canadian. is that real money anyway?

Are you really this retarded?

if ash were a buyer for walmart, he would only buy from the guy in the van parked outside, selling "nikes."

JP, i'm interested to hear your take on the original article, from a legal perspective. is there any meat to this lawsuit?

yes and no

20k per infringement is idiotic, but it's akin to how the labels are trying to milk file sharers for way way more than what downloading a song on kazaa is really worth. dude's entitled to something but not nearly as much as the convoluted number he's throwing out there to gain attn

I believe the correct answer is yes.

yeah, seems about right. tho i'm glad he's putting the screws to the labels - it doesn't seem any crazier than some of the absurd lawsuits the RIAA has pulled against supposed illegal downloaders.

WAIT

it's 60Bn canadian

thats worth what, 2.25 USD?