Copyright Troubles For Sony 276
ljaszcza writes "Daily Tech brings us a story about Sony's run-in with the Mexican police. (Billboard picked up the story as well.) It seems that they raided Sony's offices and seized 6,397 music CDs after a protest from the artist, Alejandro Fernandez. Fernandez had signed a seven-album deal with Sony Music; he completed that commitment and then left for Universal. During the time with Sony, he recorded other songs that did not make it into the agreed-upon seven albums. Sony Music took it upon themselves to collect that material and release it as an eighth album. Fernandez claims that he fulfilled his contract with Sony, and residual material belongs to him. Hmm. Precedent from the Jammie Thomas infringement and distribution case gives us $80K per song. Sony vs. Joel Tenenbaum gives $22.5K per song. So 6,397 CDs at an average of 8 songs/CD is 51,176 infringing songs, with (IMHO) intent to distribute. The damages to Fernandez should be $1,151,460,000 using the Tenenbaum precedent or $4,094,080,000 using the Thomas precedent. Seems very straightforward to me."
If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Informative)
Why does the summary talk about "Precedent from the Jammie Thomas" when this case is in Mexico, while Jammie Thomas was in USA? Precedent's in USA aren't precedents everywhere (how many times this shit has to be told to americans?) and most of other countries actually have sane amount of compensations in copyright infringement cases, unlike USA.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA sister organizations around the world actually point to USA and screams "Be more like them!" when trying to roughshod legislation through... so it only seems fair.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be naive, here.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA sister organizations around the world actually point to USA and screams "Be more like them!"
They can scream all they like they are still only a lobby group and as yet don't have the power to pass legislation in there home countries so the GP is right in pointing out the difference between US law and that in other countries. Suffice to say this may change in due course when Corporatism becomes so embedded globally that industry pressure groups are the dudes signing off on legislation . . . ho hum . . .
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever.
We all know that Sony will wiggle out of it. Just the same as when the U.S. sued the record-companies for "forming an illegal cartel" and price-fixing CDs from 1990 onward. Although the U.S. could have won that case, the record companies negotiated a deal where they simply returned ~$20 to everyone who asked for a refund. I bet Sony will also weasel a way such that it costs them virtually nothing.
Corporations have power to make the government decide in their favor. I'm about to drive to JCPenney and demand to know "why did I never receive the 50 dollar mail-in rebate promised when I bought this appliance?" I already know the answer I will receive is "too bad, there's nothing we can do about it," and I'll never see that 50 dollars. Technically that's called illegal advertising of the price (they advertise 150 in the newspaper but I paid 200) and a criminal offense.
In reality a call to the California AG won't get me anywhere because the AG is bought-and-paid-for by the corporate dollars who put him in office. JCPenney, Sony, et cetera get away with this stuff because THEY own the governments of New York, United States, Mexico, et cetera.
Sony will weasel its way out just like it always does.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't get your rebate, you're doing it wrong. I have NEVER not gotten a rebate. There have been a few that didn't come through right so I had to call or resend copies.
Keep copies of everything.
Set an alarm on Google calendar for when the rebate should be back.
Call the number or now days check the website to see where yours is.
If you feel like that's too much work for $50, that's your decision.
Re:If only... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should I loan some retailer $50 of my money, at 0% interest, and then have to jump through hoops to get it back (including sending original copies of documents (receipt) that if *they* lose or claim they never got, then I no longer have the original to prove I have a valid claim)? If the goddamn price is $150, then you accept my $150, and *you* (retailer) fark around getting the other $50 from the manufacturer. If I have to give you $200 to get it out of the store, then as far as I'm concerned, the price is $200.
So "$175" (out the door, no hoop-jumping) is a better price than"$150 ('after $50 rebate')"
Re: (Score:2)
Also, to note, if you fail to receive your rebate and have copies of all documents you sent in, you can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.
I accidentally overpaid Comcast once. They got the payment in 2 days, cashed, and I couldn't stop payment realizing it within half a day of it being sent. I had called and called Comcast saying "Refund me, when will it arrive back?" 2 months pass and, while I'm sure the timing is 'coincidental', a day or two after I filed a complaint with the BBB, I bo
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
You need a system like ours. Here, we pay for political ads with tax money. While this may seem a bit idiotic (hey, pay to get pestered with ads?), the alternative is politicians selling out to corporations for ad money.
That, in turn, is tightly regulated here and mostly outright illegal with steep fines and a certain ejection from whatever seat you got elected into.
Personally, I prefer to buy my politicians myself instead of privatizing that.
Re:If only... (Score:4, Interesting)
That, of course, makes it quite easy for the parties in power to keep out any new comers.
Not that the US system makes starting a new party feasible. They just use different techniques.
It *might* be a trade-off worth making. But lots of parties and Condorcet or Instant-Runoff voting would seem to be a better solution. Also make lying in a campaign speech a criminal offense. (That one's tricky, though. It could so easily be misused. Maybe it isn't worth the danger.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair? We're talking copyright here, and you waltz in with some fairy-tale concept...
Trying to explain the concept of "fair" to a copyright lawyer is like explaining "deadlines" to a programmer. They may understand the theory, but they usually cringe at the idea and think "hell, that may be nice for someone else but it sure can't apply to me!"
Re: (Score:2)
Programmers will understand "deadlines" when customers/clients/bosses understand "requirements freeze". And copyright lawyers _understand_ "fair" just fine, but they don't see what's in it for them.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would really like to see what Sony would tell the Mexican court they feel copyright infringement should be worth. I doubt it will ever get that far though.
I'm sure Sony's view on infringement damages is wildy different when they are the defendants.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the police raided Sony is enough to convince me that this will not be like the USA. At least Mexico gives a shit about their artists as individuals. The suit wasn't be a Mexican RIAA but by the artist himself.
Re: (Score:2)
This will all be sorted out once Sony gives the right bribe to the right jeffe.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you've never dealt with Mexican police then.
I'll bet Sony has, that's probably who the music execs buy their blow from. I doubt either party would want to end that business arrangement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Sony corp. made an official public statement by about what they feel a stolen song is worth"
No, they never did that. They weasel out of such a statement. They just point out how much the legislation allows them. If they made such a statement the damange could be substantiated and would be more realistic ( like 6 dollar per number instead of a value thousends times higher)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, pricing is different in various countries. Unless CDs sell for the same price in Mexico, their precedents in the USA aren't even vaguely related.
Now that said, I don't know what the law is in Mexico and they should be prosecuted for Copyright violation for statutory damages, value per song notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think the point was that Sony corp. made an official public statement by about what they feel a stolen song is worth, and filed it in court. Even if the case verdict isn't a legal precedent, surely the researched market analysis filed in a foreign court can still be cited as a fair assessment that is endorsed by Sony. (Ok, IANAL, and the case in the U.S.A. was probably some legally-independent entity, completely separate from the Sony-owned company in this case, but it still has to count for something.)
On a side note, I think it's totally awesome that Sony has given us such a great example of what the difference is between infringement and theft. :D
Re: (Score:2)
Because most slashdotters aren't very knowledgeable about the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Precedent's in USA aren't precedents everywhere
Well, sometimes they are. Just as American judges can look to foreign rulings when there's little local precedent, foreign judges will often look to see what's been done in America. Foreign precedents aren't generally binding, except in the case of certain treaties, but they may be used. I agree that the summary overstates the case - it's fun to do the math based off American awards but it shouldn't imply that Mexican courts are bound to it - but use of foreign precedents is not, uh, unprecedented. I doubt
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The answer to your question is very simple:
The USA is insisting that other nations, to continue to trade with the USA, must comply with US copyright and IP laws.
As a Canadian, we see this tactic engaged regularly.
By logical extension, if other nations ( especially ones in the North American Free Trade Association, AKA "NAFTA")
are to be compliant, then the penalties for breach and theft need to be similar.
Hence the comparisons to the cases where specific fees per song were calculated.
I believe the historic t
Re: (Score:2)
Like "US law doesn't apply in Mexico"? Yeah, those sneaky bastards always think of something.
Re: (Score:2)
But Americans think that US law applies everywhere in the world.....
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, only the stupid ones.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is -- if it's YOU ripping off a corporation rather than the other way around. Oh, and if you smoke dope or have the wrong pictures in your PC.
Re: (Score:2)
Well guess who's using their way then, the next time? ^^
They can only lose. The only winning move, is to declare bankruptcy. (Winning for *us*, but *shhhh*! O:-)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because a company as small and underfunded as Sony could never afford to spend a few million dollars for a problem to go away.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet they again get to "pay" by giving away a few hundred copies of something, or some other "let's print money out of thin air" deal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Some counterpoints (Score:5, Informative)
One point regarding Jammie Thomas. She actually had 2500 illegally obtained tracks on her PC, but was only prosecuted for a handful of them so the $K22.5 I often see bandied around isn't strictly accurate.
Sony are clearly in the wrong here however. Unless the contracts says music created during those recording sessions, not the songs that reached the final albums. As we haven't seen the contracts I wouldn't like to speculate.
(Just being the Devil's Advocate, guys.)
Re:Some counterpoints (Score:4, Insightful)
Another point on the same topic. What the fuck does American precedent have to do with Mexico?
Re:Some counterpoints (Score:5, Funny)
Hush you! Quit raining on our parade!
Re:Some counterpoints (Score:4, Insightful)
If any Cd's were to be sold in the US, they are culpable here in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Another point on the same topic. What the fuck does American precedent have to do with Mexico?
I think that courts within and without the US would be aware of Sony's argument in a well publicized case. Perhaps you think "precedent" necessarily implies "legally binding", but it does not.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anything about Mexican copyright law, but it appears that Sony itself is trying to apply US copyright law to a Mexican citizen in Mexico, which is weird because Sony is a Japanese company.
In the US, phonorecords are "works for hire". If it's the same in Mexico, Sony has a point.
Holy shit, I just defended Sony*. Satan asked for a sweater.
* I was a victim of XCP. If I did to them what they did to me, I'd be in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Foreign judgments aren't irrelevant, but they're not precedent either. A precedent (despite what a poster above thinks) is a ruling by a higher court in the same jurisdiction. A foreign judgment might be followed, but it would followed as a persuasive judgment, not as a precedent. The difference is that a judge has to follow precedent, but may follow a persuasive decision.
Generally speaking, only high courts feel comfortable adopting the decisions of other countries, especially if those decisions conflict
Icorrect advocacy (Score:3, Informative)
She wasn't CHARGED with those other files.
If they were to be included in a further lawsuit (which requires the COPYRIGHT HOLDER to start a case, hence not included in this lawsuit), then 80k per track could be put forward as equitable under case law.
So your spouting is farcical.
Re: (Score:2)
One point regarding Jammie Thomas. She actually had 2500 illegally obtained tracks on her PC, but was only prosecuted for a handful of them so the $K22.5 I often see bandied around isn't strictly accurate.
It doesn't matter what she had on her PC - if she wasn't prosecuted for it, it didn't, or at the very least shouldn't have counted towards the reparations she has to pay. Otherwise an accuser could go to court on a single charge they can prove and tack on any number of charges they haven't even tried to prove, and have a person sentenced for all the charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Two objections:
1) The "illegally obtained" part for those 2500 tracks was not established
2) Mere possession of unauthorized copyrighted material is not actionable
Re:Some counterpoints (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Some counterpoints (Score:4, Informative)
Well, it doesn't actually matter that they're employees. Under US law (which we're apparently pretending applies in Mexico), any Work For Hire is generally considered the property of the party that did the hiring. The definition of a Work for Hire from the Copyright Act:
Works Made for Hire. -- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C. sec 101)
Of course it's an open question whether their contract said that their work was a work for hire, but it seems likely to me. This is generally how labels work. (That's why the label sues you for infringement, not the artist.)
No, wrong-o (Score:3, Interesting)
Musical recordings, at least up to now, haven't been accepted as belonging to the enumerated list of types of works which are automatically works for hire if produced for compensation.
In most cases the artist(s) assign their copyrights to the labels, and this means that soon, starting around 2013, there will be an interesting battle in the Federal courts whether or not the artists can terminate these assignments as stipulated in the 1976 Copyright Act [usc.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think we're both half right. Recording contracts supposedly often include language to this effect: "artists works will be considered works for hire, unless the courts don't think the works meet the criteria. In that case, the artist assigns his rights to the label."
Sometimes the labels have made the argument that recordings are collective works (and thus, for hire) depending on who hired the studio, producers, engineers, backup singers, extra band members, etc. But it's also true that these days its
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to post the same thing. Someone please mod parent "informative"; there are several comments visible that inaccurately say records aren't works for hire.
Re: (Score:2)
The article clearly says a seven-album deal.
According to what I've read, one of the nasty parts of multi-album recording contracts is that the contract gives the record company final approval about what can get put on an album. The idea that they still hold any rights beyond the contract for songs they didn't select for album publication seems to do a disservice to this particular agreement.
I hope the Mexican court sees this for the evil it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you've never seen how complex a recording contract can be :-)
Re:Some counterpoints (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's never that simple. Often (not every time...depends on how aggressive you were in negotiation, and how good your lawyer was), the contract will include clauses that say that the label owns everything you record until "x" number of albums are released, and some even say that the label gets to decide which songs are good enough for an album (meaning, if you want to leave, they can keep you tied up by saying none of your stuff is "good enough").
Re: (Score:2)
Go ask the artist formerly known as "the artist formerly known as Prince".
Re:Some counterpoints (Score:5, Interesting)
Most record contracts include a clause that you're studio time is paid for out of the money made from the albums, so Sony didn't provide facilities, they hired the facilities to the artist.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. At best, Sony loaned money to the artist to cover studio time until the albums were produced. That is one of the ways in which the labels screw the artists.
They say "We'll help you get your music going by providing everything! All you have to do is record it."
They neglect to mention that the contracts usually state that the artist will not see a penny until all investments in the artists venture are met, such as studio recording costs, advertising, promotional materials, etc.
Re:Some counterpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
Did Sony provide facilities for recording the disputed songs? Still, what's in the contract is binding...
No. Sony simply provides the artist a loan -- Sony pays all the cost of producing the album up front, but all of the costs must be recouped through album sales before the artist sees any income. Even after that, Sony will still take the vast majority of the profits (usually around 80% if you are lucky), which is why I have an aneurysm every time I hear the RIAA say they are doing something "for the artists".
As ownership of the tracks -- it is all about what is in the contract. I have a sneaking suspicion that Sony lawyers have some sort of loophole written into the contract to protect them from liability in this matter, being the bottom-feeding vermin that they are.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Once again this persistent MYTH that the labels actually provide
the artists with anything more than what amounts to a big bank
loan rears it's ugly head. Artists pay for EVERYTHING. What puny
royalties they do get when the work sells has to be used to pay
back any production costs.
This is how a multi-platinum recording can leave the band in debt to the label.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a friend who took a college course on record label contracts. His prof said that there was no way on earth a sane lawyer would recommend that a band sign the standard record deal. Of course, bands don't hire lawyers to vet them, and the record companies all use the same basic contract, so the bands often don't even realize they have a choice. Up until this proud new digital era, the bands didn't have a choice, if they wanted to make it big.
Re: (Score:2)
Except if she'd killed an old man, she probably would have got anger management counselling and community service.
When are you going to learn, USA means corporations first, citizens last ?
So how many cd's do we need to sell (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Precedent from Jammie Thomas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sweden. United States. Not the same thi... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It happened in Mexico, but does it mean they can't be sued in the US? Although not directly related, I immediately remembered this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We already did that sort of thing once.
That's where the bulk of the Western United States comes from.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Individual. Corporation. Not the same thing.
True. Multiply the figures by a factor of between 2 and 10 to match the usual ratio of "individual fine" and "company fine" for violations of civil laws. Oh look, they're still buggered. Happy days! :)
As another commenter pointed out, whatever precedent they set by weaselling out of this charge will just make it easier for the next person defending themselves against copyright infringement charges in Mexico or wherever this gets fought out. Ah, they'll probably just settle though, which would be the saf
"You woldn't steal a CD" (Score:5, Funny)
Would you, Sony?
Screw the lottery (Score:4, Funny)
The chances of being able to sue somebody over copyright infringement in the recording industry are a heck of a lot better than playing the lottery.
It's like winning 1000 lotteries at the same time! Screw the lottery!
Time for a career change? I can't sing or dance particularly well, but people can take lessons for that kind of thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
51576? (Score:3, Insightful)
at an average of 8 songs/CD is 51,176 infringing songs,
Sorry, but you fail. The big companies may be evil, but they aren't stupid. You may only count the 8 songs once. Scratch that. As those song were distributed as one unit, so you can make a good argument for a total count of 1 infringement.
The reason for the $150,000 number in the law was exactly because it was aimed against large scale infringement like the one we are talking about here, but that has just made it even more effective (cruel and unjust) against small scale distributed infringment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The law is reasonable. Applying it to non-commercial infringement isn't.
Re:51576? (Score:5, Insightful)
Counting the 8 songs as 8 units seems appropriate, since that is the precedent from other file sharing cases. Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum did not get to argue that their shared songs should be counted as a smaller number of albums.
Which leaves us with $80K per song (Thomas) times 8 or $22.5K per song (Tenenbaum) times 8. That is $640K or $180K. Looks like appropriate damages because this is large scale infringement as you wrote. In the Thomas and Tenenbaum cases I consider it excessive.
This said, Mexican law counts here and the sums may be much lower. Unless Sony also distributed that CD in the US as well, then Fernandez might want to sue in the US too ;-)
Re:51576? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you think MediaSentry wanted the connection history from ISPs so they could figure out how many potential copies were made.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:51576? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a more important matter in here. This isn't about unauthorized material reproduction, but unauthorized material reproduction with the INTENT of making a profit.
Sony's screwed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But, Sony haven't actually distributed the music. They have merely burnt 6,000 backup copies. That's probably how they will get away with it.
His contract may still include these works (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a contract to produce a certain number of albums, but you also sign over ownership of your works during the contract, then the songs you produce during your contract even if they don't make it to an album belong to Sony (or whoever).
IANAL and it depends on the fine print, but there's a good chance this guy is boned.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but have studied how record companies and recording contracts generally work. Yes, the only thing Sony would have to pay him is royalties on the copies they sold. When you sign a recording contract, you are signing over the publishing rights to anything you record while under contract, whether or not it gets published. The record company owns the recorded work as well as the right to publish the song as long as Sony filed the copyright, which they probably did, even on the stuff they didn't release.
T
Who paid the studio costs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Although what annoys me about that line of reasoning is that record companies reclaim the recording costs from the artists share of the profit, and so should forfeit any ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually whoever pays the costs of the studio owns the mechanical copyright. Although what annoys me about that line of reasoning is that record companies reclaim the recording costs from the artists share of the profit, and so should forfeit any ownership.
No recording company gives away its recording studio time. They would have billed him for it when it came time to calculate his proceeds from the record sales. Part of the "screw the artist" business model.
Where's the Torrent? (Score:2)
Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be nice if the group involved in drafting ACTA were made aware of this. After all, I'm sure Sony has been involved in "suggesting" elements of the ACTA proposal so I'm sure any punishments they've suggested they would be comfortable with paying...
Re: (Score:2)
selling pirated music = higher damages (Score:2)
Also, let's not forget how bad commercial piracy is:
Criminal IPR Infringement Commercial scale infringement is the crime of choice for many criminal syndicates, gangs, and organizations, including those in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Philippines, South Korea and the USA. Commercial copyright piracy/trademark counterfeiting is a funding source for terrorist groups, like the IRA, Hezbollah, GIA Islamic Network, and Al Qaeda. (from: http://www.aseansec.org/21385-9.pdf [google.com])
Seems pretty logical to me... (Score:2)
A pound of flesh (Score:2)
Loo[k]s to me Sony will be forced to pony up. Don't you love it when a draconian law come to bite the creators in the ass? (I do.)
As with the Merchant of Venice, if you argue for the strictest interpretation of the law when it's in your favor, then your own words should be used against you when you're on the other side.
two words (Score:2)
Totally Authorized (Score:2)
Sony says they are totally authorized and in their view, I suppose they are right.
After all, it is a strict and limited group of people who controls copyrighted material (and indeed, copyrights in general) and Sony is a proud member of the oligarchy. And what they say is authorized must be authorized since they are the ones who usually determine what is and isn't authorized.
Missing a key point (Score:3, Insightful)
You guys are missing a key point that shows that Sony is not going to be distorted but they aren't getting off the hook totally ether.
From TFA:
Sony announced it was creating an album of Fernandez' previously recorded music, which Universal protested.
The lawyers over at Universal have already read the contract and while they might know they will loose at trial they are betting Sony will settle...
Where is the corruption? (Score:2)
If the situation were reversed and Sony was bribing a corrupt police force to do their bidding, there would be widespread denounciations.
I don't see any insinuation in either story that corruption was involved. Can you provide a reference for the source of your information?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide a reference for the source of your information?
Please don't. We don't need to see any links to sites like goatse.cx [wikipedia.org]
Re:Corruption is good when it works in our favor (Score:4, Insightful)
Where did you get the idea that the Mexican Police was bribed?
There is nothing about that in TFA.
Besides, raids on suspected copyright infringers are nothing new. There have been similar raids on The Pirate Bay, and Sony certainly operates on a comparable scale. That is not some school kid who shares a few albums on his computer.
If the allegations are true, this is a case of commercial copyright infringement. A rather big fish, certainly bigger than Tenenbaum or Thomas.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, raids on suspected copyright infringers are nothing new. There have been similar raids on The Pirate Bay, and Sony certainly operates on a comparable scale. That is not some school kid who shares a few albums on his computer.
Things like that happen everywhere [google.hu]. Unfortunately Google Translate fails horribly (for example, the Hungarian word "lett" means both Latvian and was/became).
Re:Listed as "Humor?" (Score:4, Insightful)