Major Record Labels Forced to Pay $45M USD for Pirating Music

[3db]

http://www.dailytech.com/Major+Record+Labels+Forced+to+Pay+45M+USD+for+Pirating+Music/article20632.htm

Off course those dirty b?stards reject any claims of wrong doing.

I think 45 Billion would have been a more appropriate fine.

(saw this in Audioasylum)

 

[Warpdrv]

hmmmm the pot calling the kettle black I see.....


Bastards....

 

[highfigh]

"Apparently they believe that they did not pirate tracks or commit copyright infringement because they hoped to pay artists at some point -- although they never did."

They hoped to pay the artists? I need a different vehicle. I should try this.

 

[digicidal]

"Apparently they believe that they did not pirate tracks or commit copyright infringement because they hoped to pay artists at some point -- although they never did."

Exactly the quote I homed in on... why can't this defence be used for any posessor of pirated media: I just couldn't afford to pay for it right now... but as soon as I was able to, I would have. I know there are many albums back in the early napster days that I would have never owned if it weren't for getting to listen to the full album first.

Of course - that would (perhaps) hold some water as an argument if it weren't for the fact that they were making profits off of the pirated works. At least with most college kids torrenting DVDs/CDs - they're broke and just want some free entertainment. These bastards were selling the stuff and then claiming that they were going to "get around" to paying the artist when they were able to!

I think the settlement should have simply been 100% (plus interest over the 30 years it went on) of all profits that were made off of the unlicensed material... I'll bet that $45M wouldn't even be the interest on that sum, let alone the principal amount. Dirty bastards indeed.

 

[3db]

Exactly the quote I homed in on... why can't this defence be used for any posessor of pirated media: I just couldn't afford to pay for it right now... but as soon as I was able to, I would have. I know there are many albums back in the early napster days that I would have never owned if it weren't for getting to listen to the full album first.

Of course - that would (perhaps) hold some water as an argument if it weren't for the fact that they were making profits off of the pirated works. At least with most college kids torrenting DVDs/CDs - they're broke and just want some free entertainment. These bastards were selling the stuff and then claiming that they were going to "get around" to paying the artist when they were able to!

I think the settlement should have simply been 100% (plus interest over the 30 years it went on) of all profits that were made off of the unlicensed material... I'll bet that $45M wouldn't even be the interest on that sum, let alone the principal amount. Dirty bastards indeed.

Unfortunately money talks and I can't prove what I'm about to say but I wouldn't be surprised if some of record execs have slipped some extra green stuff into the pockets of the legal system , hence the paltry $45 million dollar "token" fine.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I would really like to know how many artists were represented in this suit. 45 million is not a small bit of cash and if there were 50 or 100 artists being represented, a very small number really, then perhaps this was a nice first step.

The obvious downside is that because it was settled out of court, there is not a precidence setup for future artists who want to walk down the same road. Three years, and not found guilty is a shame.

But, if it is just 100 artists or less, and half the money went to lawyers, then each of them may still be getting $200,000 or so, which may be a lot more than those songs were truly ever worth... Yet, if it was 1,000 artists, or more, then it could be a lot less going to the actual creators of the content.

Good news, but still not what should have been the case. Our legal system is very broken, and the lawyers even more so.

 

[digicidal]

I would really like to know how many artists were represented in this suit. 45 million is not a small bit of cash and if there were 50 or 100 artists being represented, a very small number really, then perhaps this was a nice first step.
...
But, if it is just 100 artists or less, and half the money went to lawyers, then each of them may still be getting $200,000 or so, which may be a lot more than those songs were truly ever worth... Yet, if it was 1,000 artists, or more, then it could be a lot less going to the actual creators of the content.

Although it doesn't say how many artists were represented this CA it does indicate the number of songs held in infringement as being 300K (remember this suit was Canadian, and thus only represented Canadian infringement... the US action is still pending I believe). So if you figure that there were no lawyers fees at all - because they usually work pro-bono on large class actions right? It would still only be $150/per song... after all the extra fees & expenses, I'm sure it was as little as $50-60 (either that or I've used really expensive attorneys). Remember this case has dragged on for the better part of 3 years... so there's probably $3-4K worth of POSTAGE involved in those fees - not to mention all the other incidental expenses that can be taken out before plaintiff checks were cut.

When you consider that the oldest cases of infringement go back ~25-30 YEARS... that could potentially work out to less that $2/per year that a song was used illegally. But at least I'm sure they're still hard at work making sure housewives spend their life defending themselves over a handfull of songs - the final verdict of which is somewhere between $2,250 and $62,500 per song.... soo if the same were applied it should be a verdict of $18.75 BILLION (although in all fairness they did initially agree to the lesser amount - so if we used that figure, they would only owe $675 MILLION dollars).

Yeah you can bet with that kind of judgements on the books in THEIR favor... that they were more than happy to "lose" a few million - or more - into the pockets of the Judge and jury, to secure the type of justice they required.

The real kicker if you read through on some of the links is that during that time they were actively pursuing actions against some of those artists for SELLING THEIR OWN SONGS INDEPENDENTLY - the nerve of some artists! Thinking that just because they're not under contract and haven't been compensated that they still own anything they make... idiots!

 

[emorphien]

Should have been $45Billion...

 

[XEagleDriver]

In the infamous 2007 Jammie Thomas-Rasset case, she was found guilty of willful copyright infringement in a Minneapolis federal court and ordered to pay the recording industry $1.92 million. A cost of $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she was found guilty of sharing.

So, if you apply the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" principle and do the math in this case, 300,000 songs times $80,000 each would be $24 Billion, the bastards got off with less than peanuts!!

XEagleDriver

 

[digicidal]

In the infamous 2007 Jammie Thomas-Rasset case, she was found guilty of willful copyright infringement in a Minneapolis federal court and ordered to pay the recording industry $1.92 million. A cost of $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she was found guilty of sharing.

Even more egregious when you consider that there was never any conclusive evidence that she even shared the 24 songs in the first place - only ISP records showing the sharing came from her IP and a P2P account on her computer linked to the logs of the songs. However, at the time they seized her computer - no evidence could be found on the hard drive that the songs were indeed hosted on that computer.

Now granted, I'm sure she really did share the songs - but I also find it laughable that a private individual was convicted multiple times on largely circumstancial evidence - in support of a plaintiff whose member companies were involved in massive, well-documented piracy of literally hundreds of thousands of songs - and for significant profit no less! Gotta love how 'blind' Lady Justice is don't ya?