EMI Caught Offering Illegal Downloads

Hypocricy, LLC writes "While the RIAA is swift to punish any person caught offering illegal downloads, they're not very swift with outrage when a member company like EMI offers illegal downloads. Not only did the band King Crimson's contract never allow digital distribution to begin with, but band member Robert Fripp claims that EMI offered their music for sale even after their contract ended entirely."

Shit like this happens all the time.

[julesh]

One writer I know got seriously pissed when her publisher's parent company gave google permission to include her entire book in google books. No, they didn't have the rights required to do that. Did they care? Not really, no.

Re:Seriously,

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

I don't think that you understand. The RIAA isn't a seperate organization from companies like EMI and Sony Music. The RIAA is the big record labels. They invented the name to catch the bad PR so the evil things they do wouldn't reflect badly on the record labels themselves.

Re:Shit like this happens all the time.

[empaler]

From http://books.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=43756&topic=9011 [google.com]

What if I find one of my books in Google Book Search and would like it removed?

We're happy to remove your book from our search results at any time, just as we do for website publishers and our web search results.

If you're a current Google Books partner, you can simply add it to your uploadable list of books that you don't want scanned through the Library Project. Just log in to your account and follow the instructions here [google.com]. If the book is already findable on Google Book Search, please also send an email to [e-mail] [mailto] or contact your account manager.

If you're not a Google Books partner and you want us to remove a book, you'll need to provide us with a small amount of information about yourself as well as the specific name of the book you don't want included in Google Book Search. Unless you specify otherwise, we'll use your information only to verify that you are indeed the owner of that particular book. Please see our privacy policy [google.com] for more details. To begin this process, please start here [google.com] to identify yourself as the owner. If the book is already findable on Google Book Search, please also send an email to [e-mail] [mailto] with this information.

HTH.

Re:Seriously,

[poot_rootbeer]

The RIAA is the big record labels. They invented the name to catch the bad PR so the evil things they do wouldn't reflect badly on the record labels themselves.

Evil things like certifying gold and platinum record sales, and standardizing pre- and post-emphasis equalization formulas so that an LP pressed by any label will sound correct when played back on any turntable manufacturer's device?

You need to brush up on your RIAA history, man.

Re:Seriously,

[canajin56]

The RIAA has never gone after anybody, they just like it when people think they do, especially when news companies do. News companies usually aren't stupid and don't get it wrong like that. Slashdot does though. Even when the linked articles mention which specific corporation is ACTUALLY SUING, the /. summary and title all magically replace EMI, Universal, Sony, or whichever other company with "RIAA SUES", which is a complete lie. So the real reason the RIAA won't go after EMI is because the RIAA doesn't go after anybody, ever. Plus, beyond that, King Crimson isn't a member of the RIAA, and they haven't signed an agreement with the RIAA allowing the RIAA to sue in their stead. You'll note that the BSA and the MPAA won't go after EMI for this, either, because they have no legal standing to do so, being as how it is not their copyright.

Utter fiction (mods please note)

[Anonymous Coward]

(RIAA) invented the name to catch the bad PR so the evil things they do wouldn't reflect badly on the record labels themselves.

The above statement is complete and utter fiction.

The RIAA was formed in 1952 as a technical consortium to create standards for compatabililty for phonograph recordings [wikipedia.org] such as the RIAA equalization curve. [wikipedia.org]

What they later became is another matter altogether.

Re:But since

[Quantam]

Allow me to briefly explain to you how the laws regarding awarding of damages for willful copyright infringement work.

Infringement by an individual: $150,000 per infringement
Infringement by a corporation: $750 per infringement

Re:Seriously,

[shark72]

Sorry, the GP is correct.

He was correcting an earlier post claiming that the RIAA named themselves thusly to avoid bad press, presumably from lawsuits. The GP was explaining that for most of the RIAA's existence, it's been responsible for rather mundane things like certifying gold and platinum record sales and publishing the equalization standards. Ever seen one of those gold records framed in a black shadow box? It has a big "RIAA" label on it. Remember the "RIAA equalization curve" term from your analog hi-fi days? The very same RIAA.

You appear to be very concerned with accounting chicanery on behalf of the record companies -- as well you should be, particularly if you are a signed artist. But I am not sure how it is germaine. And your "puhleez" and your hostile tone seem misguided here.

Re:Good for King Crimson.

[shark72]

"Contrary to common practice, KC owns the copyrights to their work."

It's more common than you might think. Plenty of musicians own the publishing and performance rights to their work. If they don't, the rights are often owned by a management company that's not connected to a label.

The interesting thing is that this difference between distribution rights and publishing rights was a major hitch in online music sales getting off of the ground. Record companies couldn't simply put legacy stuff up for sale without breaking the law (as we apparently see in this EMI case); they had to get permission from the singer and/or songwriter or their agent or heirs. As recently as a couple of years ago it was common to find eight of ten tracks of a CD available for download; the other two were held up because, say, the lyricist for that song wouldn't give permission.

A common reaction among P2P users at the time was "Well, if the [bad word here] record company won't make the music available for legal download, they deserve what they get and I'll exercise my God-given right to have the entire Turtles catalog for free." But ironically enough, it was often the [bad word here] artist who was holding things up.

Nowadays, virtually all new recording contracts include digital distribution clauses. But as EMI has found out the hard way, there are still a few holdouts.

Re:But since

[cfulmer]

Lest somebody take you at face value, you're just being cynical -- the statute does not differentiate. A corporation can also be found liable for $150,000 per infringement and an individual can be found liable for $750.

Re:But since

[Quantam]

Yeah. It was a joke (though sometimes it sure seems like the truth), although it hitting "5 informative" so fast ended up being a joke on me. :P If I understand correctly (IANAL), $750 is the minimum and $150,000 is the maximum for willful infringement.

Re:Seriously,

[vtscott]

Wasn't there recently a woman who shared a bunch of tunes on P2P and was fined in some dozen thousand dollars? This company should pay in the SAME proportion. That would be, what, enough to bankrupt the company?

This is beyond P2P sharing. This is commercial copyright infringement, which is a criminal offence. [wikipedia.org] For those too lazy to click, in the "Criminal offences" section it says (emphasis added by me):

For the most part, the criminal law is only used for commercial copyright infringement with one exception, and an offence is committed when, knowing or reasonably suspecting that the files are illegal copies, and without the permission of the copyright owner, a person: * makes unauthorised copies e.g. burning music files or films on to CD-Rs or DVD-Rs; * distributes, sells or hires out unauthorised copies of CDs, VCDs and DVDs; * on a larger scale, distributes unauthorised copies as a commercial enterprise on the internet;

According to the article, EMI was informed that they were distributing the music without authorization, yet they continued. At that point they were knowingly disributing unauthorized copies on the internet for a profit. Let's not waste time in civil court, this should be tried as the criminal offence that it is.