Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Canada News

Universal Music Demands Insurer Pay For Infringement Damages 165

An anonymous reader writes with a new twist in the recently resolved Canadian music label infringement lawsuit. From the article: "Earlier this year, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association (now Music Canada) — Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada — settled the largest copyright class action lawsuit in Canadian history by agreeing to pay over $50 million to compensate for hundreds of thousands of infringing uses of sound recordings. While the record labels did not admit liability, the massive settlement spoke for itself. While the Canadian case has now settled, Universal Music has filed its own lawsuit, this time against its insurer, who it expects to pay the costs of the settlement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Universal Music Demands Insurer Pay For Infringement Damages

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @07:20AM (#38071858) Journal

    I always have heard that CEO's and other directors gets higher pay because they do job of many

    Nope, they get higher pay because their actions make more of a difference to the overall profitability of a company. Look at what Carly Fiorina did to HP or Steve Jobs did to Apple to see how much of a difference a CEO can make in either direction. The difference between a good engineer and a bad engineer is a lot less to a typical company's bottom line. The problem is that Carly got paid over $20m for almost destroying the company, so the incentives are completely wrong. Do a bad job and you make a lot of money, do a good job and you make a crazy amount of money.

  • by James McGuigan ( 852772 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @07:32AM (#38071894) Homepage

    $50,000,000 / $80,000 * 0.98 USD/CAD = 612 MP3s
    612 MP3s * 6Mb = 3.675 Gb

    In other words, this is the price of a single pirated iPod shuffle.

  • Hammer Clause? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @08:38AM (#38072208) Homepage Journal

    It seems to me some interpretation of the Hammer Clause [] probably applies here. Basically, if an Insured makes a settlement without the consent of the Insurer, then the Insurer is only on the hook for the amount that THEY WOULD HAVE AGREED TO SETTLE FOR. This is usually used to discourage a company from fighting a case on principle and losing more than they would have by settling. In this case, it would seem that the CRIA members might have paid LESS if they had gone to trial -- but in any event, if the Insurer did not authorize the settlement, then they aren't going to pony up for it above and beyond what they would willingly have settled for, nor will they pay for legal fees beyond the point at which they would have settled. The law probably is different in Canada, as I know it varies in other significant aspects from U.S. law. (For example, the law says policies sold to the public must be written in plain English/French and not legalese -- or at least the legalese has to be explained in plain language, and in the case of a conflict, the plain language prevails.)

  • Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ATMAvatar ( 648864 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @09:45AM (#38072650) Journal
    If you want to be cynical, CEO's and directors get higher pay because they hold the purse strings. It is pretty rare to see a CEO who's a visionary leader and single-handedly drives a company to fame and fortune. It is nearly always a team effort, even when you *do* have visionary leadership. The CEO and board merely get to claim credit for all successes (and "trim the fat", blame the market, etc. for failures).
  • Re:Hmmm. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @10:19AM (#38072934)
    Where does copyright fit into that? You can have all of that, not be immoral, and not use copyright at all. Of course, if you actually read the parent's post, he said "Copyright law (as it stands) is immoral," not the idea of copyright in and of itself.
  • Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @12:55PM (#38074792) Homepage Journal

    I've realized that sadly the world doesn't beat a path to the door of the better mousetrap builder.

    The mousetrap fallacy is a very popular one. However --

    the sad truth is that they're vital to the industry and always will be.

    Sorry, that's a fallacy as well. Thirty (or even fewer) years ago it was in fact true -- the costs of recording and marketing an album was prohibitive for the average person, but these days the most expensive part of making an album is the musical instruments and amps; studio time is dirt cheap. Duplication is dirt cheap. And there's the internet for it to be heard. What use are the record labels to anyone these days? Their purpose for existance is obsolete.

    And in my opinion, culture would be far better off without the likes of Britney Spears or NSync. I hear far better, more original music played by far better musicians in the local bars. Musicians are a dime a dozen, songs should be as well.

To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift. -- Shelley