record companies sued for music piracy
ILTST9
Regular
Haha look at the hypocrites. They say people like me are thieves for sharing music at no cost for no profit. The way I see it what I do with the lossless music upload blog I run benefits the artists because it gives people the chance to try out the album before they buy it if they like it, giving them exposure, which is the reason many artists are pro piracy.The labels mentioned here are only doing it for pure profit, which is despicable in my eyes when they try and make my kind out to be a villain.
http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists-music-110110/
http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists-music-110110/
The major record labels are known for their harsh stance on copyright infringements, which in an ironic turn of events is now costing them millions of dollars. Revealing a double standard when it comes to ‘piracy’, Warner Music, Sony BMG Music, EMI Music and Universal Music now have to pay Canadian artists $45 Million for the illegal use of thousands of tracks on compilation CDs.
It is no secret that the major record labels have a double standard when it comes to copyright. On the one hand they try to put operators of BitTorrent sites in jail and ruin the lives of single mothers and students by demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and on the other they sell CDs containing music for which they haven’t always cleared the rights. This happens worldwide and more frequently than one would think.
Over the years the labels have made a habit of using songs from a wide variety of artists for compilation CDs without securing the rights. They simply use the recording and make note of it on “pending list” so they can deal with it later. This has been going on since the 1980s and since then the list of unpaid tracks (or copyright infringements) has grown to 300,000 in Canada alone.
This questionable practice has been the subject of an interesting Canadian class action lawsuit which was started in 2008. A group of artists and composers who grew tired of waiting endlessly for their money filed a lawsuit against four major labels connected to the CRIA, the local equivalent of the RIAA.
Warner Music, Sony BMG Music, EMI Music and Universal Music were sued for the illegal use of thousands of tracks and risked paying damages of up to $6 billion. Today the news broke that the two parties have agreed upon a settlement, where the record labels are required to pay $45 million to settle the copyright infringement claims.
During the case the labels were painfully confronted with their own double standard when it comes to copyright infringement. “The conduct of the defendant record companies is aggravated by their strict and unremitting approach to the enforcement of their copyright interests against consumers,” the artists argued in their initial claim for damages.
Of course, the labels are not so quick to admit their wrongdoing and in their press release the settlement is described as a compromise. “The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the record labels,” it reads.
David Basskin, President and CEO of one of the major Canadian licensing collectives, was nonetheless happy with the outcome. “This agreement with the four major labels resolves all outstanding pending list claims. EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner are ensuring that the net result is more money for songwriters and music publishers. It’s a win for everyone,” he said.
The major issues that led to this dispute are not resolved though. After paying off a small part of their debt the labels can continue to ‘pirate’ artists’ music as usual, using their work and placing the outstanding payments on a pending list for decades. A real solution would require the licensing system to change, and that’s not likely to happen anytime soon.
Comments
You're fucking kidding right? This is an absolute admission of wrongdoing.
Not necessarilly, it isn't uncommon for an innocent party to settle to minimize possible damage. Though they're definitly guilty here.
Technically it isn't an admission of guilt...but it's obvious, why would they pay up so readily? If they were innocent they'd want to prove it, which they obviously couldn't have done, not even with all their lawyers.
It happens all the time - sometimes to keep the case from gaining more publicity and others to save cash in the event it does go badly. Though they are definitly guilty here, you should not use that as an indicator of guilt. Look at other facts and decide from that. One example off the top of my head is when a publisher published a hitman's handbook and somebody who owned it actually committed a murder. It was clear that the guy would have done it anyway regardless of the book, but at their insurance company's urging the very winable case was settled.
Some already are, its ony a matter of time.