Absolute must-read in the copyright wars

[Nate the great]

I think Mr. Geist made a mistake. I'm pretty sure it's not $20k per song but $20k per copy sold because each sale is a separate act of infringement (I think). We're looking at what could literally be trillions in dollars in damages.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think Mr. Geist made a mistake. I'm pretty sure it's not $20k per song but $20k per copy sold because each sale is a separate act of infringement (I think). We're looking at what could literally be trillions in dollars in damages.

Santa must have definitely read my list this year!!! *Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle All the Way*

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think Mr. Geist made a mistake. I'm pretty sure it's not $20k per song but $20k per copy sold because each sale is a separate act of infringement (I think). We're looking at what could literally be trillions in dollars in damages.

I think it's $20k per "infringement," which is probably per song, not per copy. I suspect that a corporation that grabs someone's book and publishes it w/o permission is fined per print run, not per individual copy sold.

It's possible that each sales *contract* counts as an infringement, so records of their distributors might be relevant.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Feed 'em to the lobbyists. They'll eat anything.....

So will the American public, more often than not...

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I think it's $20k per "infringement," which is probably per song, not per copy. I suspect that a corporation that grabs someone's book and publishes it w/o permission is fined per print run, not per individual copy sold.

It's possible that each sales *contract* counts as an infringement, so records of their distributors might be relevant.

"p2pnet news view P2P | RIAA:- Helped along by RIAA lawyers, an American jury of 12 ordinary people wants an ordinary American mother to come up with an extraordinary $1.92 million for Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but run by a Canadian).
The money is being demanded in recompense for 24 songs Jammie Thomas-Rasset is said to have shared online.
That works out to $80,000 per song.
Or was it 1,700 copyrighted tunes."
(Source: P2Pnet)

EDIT: I put this here as relevant because Michael Geist, who is "adviser to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, which is co-counsel, but [has] had no involvement in the case":

"The class action seeks the option of statutory damages for each infringement. At $20,000 per infringement, potential liability exceeds $60 billion.

“These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that led the recording industry to claim a single file sharer is liable for millions in damages...” "

Guess it depends on what they use as precedent (if anything), but as a musician I would think they'd go by units sold, as that's how the labels measure income. They can also go per song and ask for stupid-high punitive damages (do they have those in Canada?)

In either case, the 'Murican ambulance-chasers will be watching this case closely. Be right back, gonna make some popcorn...

[Elfwreck]

Quick conversion & formatting of PDF, 'cos the original's not searchable. And this is too cool not to share.

[DawnFalcon]

Nate: Well it's arguable either way, but even taking it per song...

[Barcey]

Who knows, maybe the CRIA will win the defense and then Canadians can download whatever they want as long as they put it on a "pending list".

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

You may be in favor of strict copyright enforcement or hoist the Jolly Roger with pride, but here's a legal case (in Canada) that is a wonderful description of the MAFIAA in action.....


http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

Beautiful in how this simple report and suit displays for all to see the duplicity that exists in such industries. Thanks for posting the link!!

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The Corporations involved have had both the time (over 20 years) and the resources to have prevented this situation.

Very true, but irrelevant.

Originally Posted by RSE

Life + 50 to Life + 70 doesn't benefit one creative artist - by definition.

This point is rather debatable, but also a separate topic that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I fully support criticizing any organization when it does something wrong. In this case, the flaw is that the labels exploited an aspect of the structure to deny an artist the royalties they were contractually obligated to pay. However, again: this has nothing to do with copyrights -- other than that the artists are using copyright laws to protect their own rights.

Originally Posted by RSE

They want more and more Draconian controls, lobby left [etc]... These are the people to whom we should look to for fair and equitable answers to copyright issues?

If you catch a thief red-handed and the thief says "stealing is wrong," does that somehow prove that stealing is in fact right?

I concur that record labels aren't exactly holding the moral high ground here. But again, record companies -- large and small -- would abuse or abide by whatever system was present, regardless of the actual specific structures of copyright, based upon their own moral character rather than legal constructs. (E.g. I don't see a lot of people screaming that Blue Note Records is a vile corporation because they've made enough of a profit to survive a few decades of operation....)

Originally Posted by RSE

Dead people don't create! But corporation keep milking and milking and milking....

Y'know, the hatred of "Corporations" for the desire to make a profit is getting rather tiresome.

The idea that the artists are only possible individuals who should financially benefit from the sale of a creative work is -- how should I put this politely -- an analysis bereft of nuance. For example, a musician often requires resources, financial and structural, to make and distribute a professional recording. Really, how many musicians will be great songwriters and performers and recording engineers and at making a great master and making good cover art and doing their own press photos and booking gigs and getting radio play and hauling gear, doing their own accounting and marketing and promotions, ad infinitum?

It is easier to do it yourself nowadays than it was 20 years ago -- but it's still exceedingly rare for an artist who hasn't already achieved major success with a major label to go it on their own, and get national attention.

Again, I do not see any justification for violating a contract and preventing an artist from their royalties. However, record labels and publishers put significant resources on the line to get content into your "greedy" hands, eyes and ears. The labels take a risk on the artists they work with; even a platinum-selling artist can spend huge sums on a new recording and it can bomb. In exchange for the risks they take, they have the right to earn a fair profit. Not a profit that violates their agreements, but a profit nonetheless.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Y'know, the hatred of "Corporations" for the desire to make a profit is getting rather tiresome.

The idea that the artists are only possible individuals who should financially benefit from the sale of a creative work is -- how should I put this politely -- an analysis bereft of nuance. For example, a musician often requires resources, financial and structural, to make and distribute a professional recording. Really, how many musicians will be great songwriters and performers and recording engineers and at making a great master and making good cover art and doing their own press photos and booking gigs and getting radio play and hauling gear, doing their own accounting and marketing and promotions, ad infinitum?

It is easier to do it yourself nowadays than it was 20 years ago -- but it's still exceedingly rare for an artist who hasn't already achieved major success with a major label to go it on their own, and get national attention.

Again, I do not see any justification for violating a contract and preventing an artist from their royalties. However, record labels and publishers put significant resources on the line to get content into your "greedy" hands, eyes and ears. The labels take a risk on the artists they work with; even a platinum-selling artist can spend huge sums on a new recording and it can bomb. In exchange for the risks they take, they have the right to earn a fair profit. Not a profit that violates their agreements, but a profit nonetheless.

I'd reply in full, but you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about in relation to music and the music industry.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

[PKFFW]

I do appreciate the irony here and I hope they get a whopping big bash over the head just for lols.

However, a couple of thoughts occurred to me.

1: If the perceived evils of copyright are used to justify "file-sharing", as is so often the case, shouldn't everyone be up in arms about the wrongness of this claim and hoping the corporations win? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander after all right?(tounge firmly in cheek here btw!)

2: Not to be a cynic when it comes to the equality of the law and how it is applied but does anyone seriously believe this will result in a $6 billion dollar judgement? Or do you think the guys with the real money will some how win or at the very least mitigate the vast majority of the damage? So the marshmallows and petrol may be a bit premature.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[pdurrant]

Here's another must-read. How the major music labels treat "unrecouped" artists, and how they fail to properly account for digital royalties.

http://www.toomuchjoy.com/?p=1397

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

1: If the perceived evils of copyright are used to justify "file-sharing", as is so often the case, shouldn't everyone be up in arms about the wrongness of this claim and hoping the corporations win? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander after all right?(tounge firmly in cheek here btw!)

It's not that this suit is right, per se, more like we appreciate the fact that such wrongness is brought about an entity we despise. Sort of like when people hope a child molester gets raped in prison - the desire does not express approval for the act of rape, but enjoys both the irony and the feeling of revenge upon the person.

[zacheryjensen]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I have to say, while I appreciate the irony and exposure of hypocrisy, I really don't see how this is a criticism of copyright per se. If anything, this is an argument in favor of copyright, as the aggrieved artists are using copyright laws in order to redress numerous contract/copyright violations by the music industry.

True, the recording industry frequently cites copyright as the mechanism by which they protect artists' content, has pushed for excessively punitive laws, and has flailed blindly during the transition to digital. But even if copyright laws were significantly relaxed, there's a good chance the record companies would find some other loophole to exploit. The root issue is the record companies allegedly violating their contracts, not abusing copyright. I see no particular indication that whatever system replaces the record labels will necessarily result in artists being treated any better, or that the people involved will act in a more ethical fashion.



What does she have to do with this?

I mean, she's not a great poster girl in the "copyright wars" anyway. She did nothing to support the artists whose work she distributed in an infringing manner; two juries have concluded that she egregiously lied in her denials of culpability. She also had numerous opportunities (and still does) to settle for a smaller sum, and apparently refuses to settle. The laws may be too strict and the judgment outlandish in her case, but she's not exactly an innocent victim who is pure of heart or intent.

By the way, it's pretty well known that the record industry (and labels both large and small) frequently indulges in shenanigans like this -- and apparently the movie industry is even worse. AFAIK this type of conduct is far less prevalent in book publishing though.

When is it ever a criticism of copyright? Isn't it usually a criticism of government handing out new rights to IP holders freely while stripping them from consumers all in the name of big business? That and the continued idiocy of said big business in not improving their business but instead suing people in demand of continued survival of aging business models? etc. etc...

I think most copyright related commentary comes from people who actually support copyright, just, with more of an eye towards how it supports the smaller individual or cultures.