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."

TFA proceeds on a false assumption....

[idontgno]

It's not illegal if a corporation is doing it. Or The President (same thing). Or the CIA. Or if the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Defense say it's OK.

But since

[JamesP]

this is "official piracy" there is no DMCA, there is no "thousands of dollars lost per song", etc, etc

Record companies do this ALL THE TIME.

Thay will most likely get a slap in the wrist and carry on with their criminal activies as usual.

it seems to be hypocrisy, but it's not

[circletimessquare]

you are assuming the message of the RIAA is "don't trade digital music because it doesn't abide by good ethical or legal standards or common business sense"

you are giving the RIAA way too much credit if you think that thought ever motivated them

the RIAA's message has really always been "do whatever the hell we tell you to do because we have more lawyers than you"

with such a realization, you can come to understand the RIAA is operating in perfect consistency, without any hypocrisy about its behavior at all

As a friend of mine in the biz says...

[dkleinsc]

The way the music industry is set up right now, the big 4 companies screw the label execs, who screw the label talent managers, who screw the band managers, who screw the musicians. (His career so far has been moving slowly up the chain, so that he's now responsible for more screwing people over than being screwed. Also, he's honest enough that when he was managing a band he wasn't simply taking the money and telling drunk band members they'd spent it all on drugs.)

The fact that EMI assumed that King Crimson had agreed to the one-sided contracts that they have for most everyone else is a clear indication of how screwed up the industry is.

Re:Seriously,

[mrsteveman1]

Thats true and also irrelevant, this is not a situation where EMI just decided to participate in P2P, this is a situation where they were never given the rights to publish this bands music online in the first place, and continued to do so even after ALL their rights were revoked by the end of the contract.

Re:Seriously,

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

The point was that something should be done, but it's not going to be done by the RIAA. The group should sue EMI themselves.

Re:Seriously,

[Sancho]

It was also, almost certainly a mistake. Compare to most copyright infringement, which is almost always willful.

The band absolutely deserves every cent that EMI made selling their music. They might even deserve a bit extra. But to suggest that this was intentional without knowing for sure is really pretty silly. "Never attribute to malice that which is easily attributed to stupidity," and all that jazz.

What's more interesting to me is the intellectual masturbation that this can generate. The customers didn't know that they were buying illegal songs. They expected, due to the distribution mechanism, legal downloads.

What about people on p2p? They tend to expect illegal downloads, but some bands such as NIN have released music on these networks. How can anyone differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate downloads?

Re:Seriously,

[Stormwatch]

The band absolutely deserves every cent that EMI made selling their music. They might even deserve a bit extra.

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?

Re:Seriously,

[cheater512]

If it was a mistake then they would be trying to prevent the sale of the music now that its been brought to their attention dont you think?

Instead they are still selling it. That means that its willful.

Re:Seriously,

[Danse]

What about people on p2p? They tend to expect illegal downloads, but some bands such as NIN have released music on these networks. How can anyone differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate downloads?

You don't see the RIAA suing people for downloading, do you? Because it's not illegal. It's the uploading (distribution) that is illegal.

Re:Seriously,

[RobertM1968]

You don't see the RIAA suing people for downloading, do you? Because it's not illegal. It's the uploading (distribution) that is illegal.

Wrong. You DO see the RIAA suing people for just downloading - by claiming they are uploading (distributing) by equating "making available" the same thing as "actually doing" - for instance in the lawsuit they recently won (as reported on /.)

They are trying to convince judges that one is the other (and suceeded in at least that one case) when the facts are to the contrary.

For instance, should every one of us who has a car and drives it be convicted of vehicular manslaughter because our cars can be used to do so? Or if you forget to lock your house door, and a burglar walks in and steals everything, should they be allowed to walk because you were "making available" the contents of your home?

Re:Anything is okay if the "Decider" says it's oka

[Torvaun]

If I can find Iraq on a map, will you stop lumping all Americans together as morons? If I send video of a protest, will you stop lumping us all together as murderers?

Re:Seriously,

[Kingrames]

"Never attribute to malice that which is easily attributed to stupidity."
I'm becoming more and more convinced that it was Satan himself who was quoted saying this.

But you don't understand

[lelitsch]

RIAA is the Recording Industry Association of America, so why should they give a hoot about band copyrights. Their job is to defend the rights and further the goals of the recording industry. This is like expecting the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to defend the rights of cows.

Re:Seriously,

[Courageous]

The band absolutely deserves every cent that EMI made selling their music.

Ah, they deserve a bit more than that, as the law provides for certain punishments for this sort
of thing, including substantial fines. An "accident" is simply no good excuse for a company
of this sort, where due dilligence in their actions is especially important.

C//

Re:Good for King Crimson.

[ScrewMaster]

I would think they probably don't. Isn't it a trade secret, much like the formula for Coca Cola?