PDA

View Full Version : Warner, Sony BMG, EMI, Universal Sued for Piracy



Rart
12-09-2009, 04:12 AM
http://media.bestofmicro.com/pirate-arr,C-7-439-1.jpgWarner, Sony BMG, EMI, Universal Sued for Piracy
December 07, 2009

While the major record labels were dragging file-sharers and BitTorrent sites to court for copyright infringement, they were themselves being sued by a conglomerate of artists for exactly the same offenses. Warner, Sony BMG, EMI and Universal face up to $6 billion in damages for pirating a massive 300,000 tracks.

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 obtained copyright permission.

In the past we’ve covered many disputes between artists and labels, where the latter is being accused or even sued for using songs without permission. Just a few months ago Latin America’s biggest artist, Alejandro Fernández, sent the police to a Sony Music office to confiscate over 6,000 CDs that the label refused to return, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

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.

Growing tired of the labels’ piracy, a group of artists have filed a class-action lawsuit in Canada against four major labels connected to the CRIA, the local equivalent of the RIAA. In October last year Warner Music, Sony BMG Music, EMI Music and Universal Music were sued for illegal use of thousands of tracks and at present the case is still underway.

How and why this blatant copyright infringement could go on for years is a mystery, but the labels’ double standard has been picked up by the plaintiffs as well. “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 argue in their claim for damages.

The suit is still ongoing but already the labels have admitted to owing at least $50 million for infringing the rights of artists, and this figure could grow as high as 6 billion. So who are the real pirates here?

:source: Source: http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-face-60-billion-damages-for-pirating-artists-091207/ | http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Record-Labels-Sued-Piracy-Artists,news-5287.html
:view: Homepage: http://torrentfreak.com | http://www.tomsguide.com

Darth Sushi
12-09-2009, 04:17 AM
LOL, the kettle calling the pot black!

ShadowsServant
12-09-2009, 04:55 AM
There you go, there is no one on this earth that has access to an internet connection and a computer that does not copyright infringement, period.

TheFoX
12-09-2009, 03:01 PM
The difference between filesharers and the music industry is that we do it for fun, while they do it for a profit.

While filesharers may be accused of obtaining and sharing copyright music, the industry looks like it is being accused of profiting from obtaining and selling copyright music.

So which is worse.

Obtaining and sharing (non profit).

..Or..

Obtaining and profiting (selling to us, or expecting to sell to us).

Actually, it would be interesting to know if there would be a case for a consumer to demand their money back for music they have paid for, if they discovered that they were sold it illegally by a music publisher?

ShadowsServant
12-09-2009, 08:15 PM
TheFox, yes there is a difference but in all honesty we all do it.
The gray area as you nicely put it, is that filesharers for the most part don't do it for any profit.

I know of a few people that do in fact sell what they download.
There is a local store around where I live that sells DVD Movies for 2$ or so. I've seen what they look like and they are definitely copies.

Most filesharers just do it to save money.
There definitely is a problem, could be that the price tags are too high or the files are badly commercialized.
Somewhere, something needs to be revised.

It's ridiculous, you go to the theater and watch a movie, you pay around 11$. You liked it and you'd like to watch a specific scene again, it's nice that you can just get it without spending an other 25$ to own your own copy.

We all have our reasons, which is worse is the question. I think that the ones that are making profit with something that isn't theirs should be penalized.