EMI Caught Offering Illegal Downloads 182
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.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anything is okay if the "Decider" says it's oka (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for King Crimson. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't they heard that we're now an ownership society?
Stuff like this is supposed to be owned by publishers!
Re:Good for King Crimson. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good for King Crimson. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good, they can keep it.
That stuff is nasty. It's like olestra meets chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good for King Crimson. (Score:5, Informative)
"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: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But since (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:But since (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Infringement by an individual: $150,000 per infringement
Infringement by a corporation: $750 per infringement
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of criminal penalties are actually applicable to "corporate people" either on paper or in practice. e.g. anyone ever seen (or heard of) a corporation even being arrested and taken to a police station for "questioning".
Re:But since (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But since (Score:5, Informative)
Shit like this happens all the time. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shit like this happens all the time. (Score:4, Informative)
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 books-support@google.com [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 books-support@google.com [mailto] with this information.
HTH.
Re: (Score:2)
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. [...] To begin this process, please start here to identify yourself as the owner.
According to Google, though, they'd had permission to include the book from its publisher, so wouldn't remove it in this case. Despite the fact that the publisher didn't have lawful authority to grant that permission
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Both publisher and Google would end up caring when they wind up having to shell out a metric ton of cash (assuming she had full distribution rights and say-so over same), no?
Hell, the number of lawyers dying to get a 30% cut of the resulting judgment would for a really long line to her door...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Depending on how the laws are interpreted in the future, Google didn't have to ask permission to archive, index and present excerpts of her book for search purposes as it is generally accepted to fall within research based fair use rights. It's a huge deal in the book industry and library industry but legally it's mostly going in Googles favor. Should it become possible to take more then small excerpts then Google might be in trouble but generally Google attract business so your friend may want to investig
Re: (Score:2)
They weren't presenting excerpts; they were providing large sections of the book for online reading (i.e., the "opt-in" option).
Re: (Score:2)
Right. And being an author who has other books in the Baen free library [baen.com], there are probably few people more aware of this than she is. But that doesn't mean that her publishers should get a free pass to do what they want with her book.
Looks like EMI will be eating... (Score:3, Funny)
it seems to be hypocrisy, but it's not (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany, too (Score:5, Interesting)
sex pistols (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't judge a book by the cover
Unless you cover just another
And blind acceptance is a sign
Of stupid fools who stand in line
Like
E.m.i
Own medicine! (Score:2)
Re:Own medicine! - double dose! (Score:2)
Maybe someone can summon the Friendly Neighborhood New York Lawyer for his take.
If this can stick, I want to see the sub-companies of the RIAA absolutely crushed by this and the other not-yet-found examples.
As a friend of mine in the biz says... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Empathy for EMI? (Score:2)
So try to hate EMI a little less than the rest. Thanks.
I hope existing laws and court precident... (Score:2)
You Don't Understand (Score:3)
You simply don't understand. Only We can own music. You can create it, and we'll pay you a pittance, but We actually own it. We own the whole Concept of music.
We used to own you as well, but some troublemakers and something about a fracas in 1860 changed too much of that. Oh, for the good old days.
Sounds like.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I Talk to the Wind... (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA:
Get thy bearings, practice some discipline, or you're in for one more red nightmare. Learn to eat your own cat food, great deceiver, before your coda is a requiem for a fallen angel. We'll let you know if we lament your passing in an epitaph. You may be walking on air now, but soon you'll have only the sheltering sky to protect your easy money, you dinosaur. One big happy family? It is for you, but not for us. If you think the fracture you get when Neal and Jack and me beat you with no warning will leave us sleepless, well, we'll let you know. You should be happy with what you have to be happy with.
Re: (Score:2)
That's Okay (Score:2, Funny)
lameness filter prevents repetition...damn...this is a dangerous place...
whoa (Score:2, Funny)
Re:whoa (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
King Crimson have consisted of a core of players Robert Fripp, Adrian Belew, Tony Levin and Bill Bruford (Bill from 1974) since 1980, and later joined by Pat Mastelotto and Trey Gunn in the early '90s 'Power Trio' configuration. Several of these members have not been present for some albums during that period until present, and the current line-up is Fripp, Belew (whose has been on ev
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Goose? Gander? (Score:2)
A jury trial should be demanded and I want to be on it!
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't want you on any jury if I was on trial.
qz
But you don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the value of the songs made available? (Score:2)
The solution is simple (Score:2)
Does this mean EMI gets the boot from the RIAA? (Score:2)
Difference between Paid and Unpaid Downloads? (Score:2)
If EMI is offering to give the entire revenue from online downloads available as restitution for their theft, should not consumers caught up in the Kazaa lawsuits be able to make the same restitution offer?
From what I've seen of the RIAA lawsuits, the targetted tracks se
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly because very few of these cases ever get near a court.
1) MAYBE the IP Address belonged to the user. Say a 90% chance.
2) MAYBE an unauthorized individual downloaded the music. Say a 90% chance.
3) MAYBE the RIAA owns the rights to the music. Again, say a 90% chance.
4) MAYBE the RIAA was right and there was no router involved. Say a 90%
what to do with the download (Score:2)
If one were to follow one's moral principles to a T, what should happen to everyone who bought an illegal copy of these songs?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if you end up with stolen goods, the moral thing to do is to turn it into the police so it can be given back to the original owner. Yes, you end up losing over this --- as if the thief stole from you.
Now in this case, since copying is not the same thing as stealing, what is the right thing to do?
Bring i
Re:Seriously, (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Seriously, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, (Score:5, Insightful)
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, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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):
Re:Seriously, (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead they are still selling it. That means that its willful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 contr
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seriously, (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm becoming more and more convinced that it was Satan himself who was quoted saying this.
Re:Seriously, (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Seriously, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In which case the proper response would have been "Oh SHIT!", not "Deal with it".
This is definitely EMI showing it's true colors regarding copyright - it's not about the law, it's not about the integrity of the business, and it's certainly not about the artists, it is all about how much money they can stuff in their pockets. Did the music get included in a license by accident, possibly. I can certainly understand how the music got on the list, what I can't understa
Re:Seriously, (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Puhleez!
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?
There have already been artists out there who have garnered those certified sales level by the RIAA's associated company, and then been dropped by their labels because ACTUAL sales were abysmally lower than their gold or platinum certification actually claimed. Probably because on bands they are trying to heavily promote, those numbers are more akin to copies sold (to retailers) as opposed to copies purchased by consumers (much like Vista numbers during its initial weeks - where CompUSA sold a f
Re:Seriously, (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
This story actually comes from Robert Fripp's diary. [dgmlive.com], "On this day, specifically, the EMI audit."
The entire story is about accounting "chicanery" at EMI. Unsigned artists need to be aware of this more than the signed artists, who already know but it was too late when they found out. They had already signed.
What is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there's a special version of Godwin's Law that only applies when Mussolini's name [snopes.com] comes up.
I'm not sure which one applies here. Perhaps I should just apply Godwin's Law but credit it to someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
In english, it means 'Real fucking funny, putz. I'm calling Godwin on you anyway."
Utter fiction (mods please note) (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
...what was deluxe becomes debris, I never questioned royalties,
But this dead end demolishes the dream of an open information highway...
Dig me...but dont...steal from me
Re:Seriously, (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Seriously, (Score:4, Funny)
So what you're saying is that no one gets sued by the RIAA, they just get RIMmed?
Re: (Score:2)
However, I do believe that all 5 were involved to some extent.
Re:fail - "Google's hard" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We all knew this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what happens when the accountants and lawyers seize complete control, and the old-fashioned A&R guys are basically put in the position of the quickest bang for the buck. The record companies, by and large, are parts of big vast corporate machines owned by shareholders that could care less whether they made records, washing machines or F14 landing gear. Some guy up on the nine-millionth floor Big Bloated Monster Corp. says "the unit that owns recording and condom manufacturering isn't performing well this quarter, what's the explanation?" "Well, Mr. President of Big Bloated Monster Corp., people seem to be fucking less and there's this Internet download thing." "Get the lawyers. Sue everyone who downloads music and doesn't fuck."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)