Record industry to get spanked

[Spudman***]

This looks pretty interesting. Maybe some artists will finally get what they deserve.
http://www.thestar.com/business/arti...r-infringement

Geist: Record industry faces liability over `infringement'

By Michael Geist
Internet Law Columnist
Published On Mon Dec 07 2009

Chet Baker was a leading jazz musician in the 1950s, playing trumpet and providing vocals. Baker died in 1988, yet he is about to add a new claim to fame as the lead plaintiff in possibly the largest copyright infringement case in Canadian history. His estate, which still owns the copyright in more than 50 of his works, is part of a massive class-action lawsuit that has been underway for the past year.

The infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $60 billion. If the dollars don't shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association.

The CRIA members were hit with the lawsuit in October 2008 after artists decided to turn to the courts following decades of frustration with the rampant infringement (I am adviser to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, which is co-counsel, but have had no involvement in the case).

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.

Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list," which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use. It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee.

Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing more than 300,000 songs.

From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment.

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.

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.

After years of claiming Canadian consumers disrespect copyright, the irony of having the recording industry face a massive lawsuit will not be lost on anyone, least of all the artists still waiting to be paid. Indeed, they are also seeking punitive damages, arguing "the conduct of the defendant record companies is aggravated by their strict and unremitting approach to the enforcement of their copyright interests against consumers."

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or at michaelgeist.ca

[Brian Krashpad]

Go get 'em, plaintiffs!

[bigG]

I sincerely hope that they get spanked, and spanked good! To the full $60 billion!

Irony, indeed! Kharma, anyone?

It's about time that some of these giant corporations who have never been "touched" start receiving what they dole out so readily!

And, I, for one, don't care if it puts 'em all out of business! "Do-it-yourself" recording and smaller studios (and CD pressing plants) will EASILY fill the gap left by the big guys dying by their own hand, so to speak!

[marnold***]

I've always loved how the RIAA wants to plead poverty or say "It's all about the artists" while at the same time trying to screw over those same artists seven ways to Sunday.

[Kodiak3D]

Bankrupt them all. The recording industry needs to realize a reckoning is coming. Clock's ticking.

[Eric***]

And, I, for one, don't care if it puts 'em all out of business! "Do-it-yourself" recording and smaller studios (and CD pressing plants) will EASILY fill the gap left by the big guys dying by their own hand, so to speak!

Question about this: this sentiment is the same one I initially have, thinking that internet publication and other avenues of distribution could displace the big 4. However, having no experience whatsoever within the music industry, I imagine my view may be somewhat uninformed.

Can anyone comment on what a takedown of the major labels would do to the music industry? Would it be a good thing, or would there be far-reaching ramifications that would be bad for everyone?

[Spudman***]

It will certainly make it harder for musicians and bands to be able to afford recording in a high quality studio. Home studios don't have near the same quality of gear and treated rooms. Most folks aren't going to shell out $100K or more for a console or outboard gear such as pres, compressors, converters and high grade monitors.

Right now there still is a big advantage having a major label supporting distribution. Until that gets sorted out that can mean the difference between 100 thousand units sold and 10 thousand units sold.

[oldguy]

I hope they pay the artists what is owed them, to the max.
What I don't want to see is the "this will break us, we'll just file bankruptcy to avoid paying up" ploy, followed by re-organization, more of the same, and gee-what'd-I-do, fellas?.
I get really sick seeing legitimate lawsuits ending w/ the guilty party filing bankruptcy and walking away snickering.
So, yeah, I hope they pay up, change their evil ways, and stay in business.
There are prob'ly thousands of jobs there we don't see that are on the line here also, and not guilty parties, just people trying to make a living working in the studio, behind the console, etc.

[red]

It will certainly make it harder for musicians and bands to be able to afford recording in a high quality studio. Home studios don't have near the same quality of gear and treated rooms. Most folks aren't going to shell out $100K or more for a console or outboard gear such as pres, compressors, converters and high grade monitors.

Just a guess (obviousluy), but having less people who can afford a product usually drives prices down for said product. So it might be the case that most people won't be able to affort all those goodies for a while.

Right now there still is a big advantage having a major label supporting distribution. Until that gets sorted out that can mean the difference between 100 thousand units sold and 10 thousand units sold.

No, no. Distribution has become a non issue since we all have fast Internet connections. Most of us can download a full CD (I'm not talking about compressed formats like OGG or MP3) in less than 5 minutes.

But I do agree that there's a huge marketing machine working hard to promote artists associated with a big label. They pressure radio and TV stations into playing the songs they promote, and so on. So it definitely helps to work with a label. You'd have to be extremely good AND promote yourself aggresively to make it without involving a major label at some point, the way the world works now.

[Eric***]

...I do agree that there's a huge marketing machine working hard to promote artists associated with a big label. They pressure radio and TV stations into playing the songs they promote, and so on. So it definitely helps to work with a label. You'd have to be extremely good AND promote yourself aggresively to make it without involving a major label at some point, the way the world works now.

Isn't that part of the contention with the industry as it is right now, that we are fed whatever pretty band the labels decide to push? It would certainly be an overhaul to have the marketing machine disintegrate, but I feel like that's what a lot of people want.

[red]

Isn't that part of the contention with the industry as it is right now, that we are fed whatever pretty band the labels decide to push? It would certainly be an overhaul to have the marketing machine disintegrate, but I feel like that's what a lot of people want.

That's one way to look at it, and certainly you've got a good point as far as the ethics of much of what they seem to be doing goes, but some good does occasionaly come of it, albeit unintentional. I'm talking about the 0.01% of the musicians that actually do deserve to be in your face.

If there would be another system in place, a fairer and simpler one, then more power to it. But as things stand now, I wouldn't have been able to listen to Pearl Jam in the early 1990s, with just a month delay of the US, in Eastern Europe, had it not been for all the pushing done by whatever major label they were on. Granted, that was at a time when nobody had invented MP3 files, and the Internet was just a parody of what you'd see in a SF film - so I guess should just let it drop, and just wait for things to play themselves out, and find out .