Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EMI Caught Offering Illegal Downloads

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the dirty-dealings dept.

Music 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."

cancel ×

182 comments

Seriously, (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203459)

If the MAFIAA actually went after this, they would actually get some respect from me. Not much, but some.

Come on, do it, or we will use it in our defenses!

Re:Seriously, (5, Funny)

lawrenlives (991376) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203639)

Actually, this looks like a case for the Court of the Crimson King. Yeah, I said it.

Re:Seriously, (1)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204193)

Yeah, they need to proteKct Fripp's copyrights. Otherwise, he won't have money to have sex, sleep, eat, drink, dream.

Re:Seriously, (2, Informative)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203673)

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:Seriously, (4, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203903)

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, (2, Insightful)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204057)

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, (5, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204297)

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, (5, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204441)

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?

No, that's not the way the justice system works (1)

boombaard (1001577) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204709)

Seriously. the RIAA (or mediadefender) generally has hardly any evidence at all when they push their 'claims', and are only accepted, well, probably because they've got expensive tweed jackets to wear (or isn't this britain? well, some silly fabric anyway)
Assuming the same thing would happen when a single band sues for something that could be (argued to be, anyway) a 'mistake' would be well, a mistake.
EMI *might* be forced to make reparations, but that won't cost them more than a few mil at most, and i doubt it'll be even that much.
assuming malicious intent from something as friendly and emotion-free as a 'corporation' would be a pragmatic CiT, after all

Re:Seriously, (1)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204469)

TFA:

The bad news, he writes, is that it's not in the record companies' interests to sort it out. In this case: "Efficiency is not seen as being in the direct interest of the record company - because it profits from its carelessness."

It's like an insurance company accidently losing claims you file - it's egregious because they benefit from their own incompetence.

Re:Seriously, (4, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204521)

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, (2, Insightful)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204739)

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, (1, Insightful)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205085)

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:Seriously, (2, Funny)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205203)

I agree with your platform of cutting off criminal's legs to prevent them from walking into your house and stealing everything. Only problem with it is, the lefties will force us to make our houses wheelchair accessible. That is why I'm making the suggestion that you edit your presidential platform to include banning of all imported wheelchairs, just to be safe.

Re:Seriously, (4, Insightful)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205223)

"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.

Re:Seriously, (4, Insightful)

Courageous (228506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205765)

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:Seriously, (4, Informative)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204071)

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, (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204535)

I don't see them doing much of importance anymore.....ever

Re:Seriously, (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205169)

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 few HUNDRED copies to consumers on the release night NATIONWIDE, but MS was claiming a few hundred THOUSAND because thats how many CompUSA bought nationwide).

If you trust any of their numbers, you are being idiotic... they've proven (in many areas) they'll play with any number whatsoever if they think it will further whatever cause suits them [sales numbers, $$$ lost to piracy, % of music pirated online, # of CD sales (you add up their artist claims to their total sales figures and see), amount of damages (umm... irreperable? c'mon! Really?) for distributing a few songs... on and on]

Please feel free to believe them as much as you want. While they make many claims in areas they say are improved, reality is a different thing.

Re:Seriously, (4, Informative)

shark72 (702619) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205777)

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.

Glory Be Unto Godwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21206127)

And the Nazis made the trains on time.

WOO-HOO!! Go Go Gadget Godwin!

Re:Seriously, (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 6 years ago | (#21206195)

That was yesterday. Today's RIAA is all about making money - period. They don't care how they make it, who they make it off of, or who they have to screw over to make it. They screw over their bands, their customers, the government and think they can get away with it. So far, they have gotten away with it, although it's the little people (consumers) that are finally standing up to them in the court rooms. Now the band needs to take them on and go for the max penalty for each and every download and song of their's that they offered. Now, where are those sales figures?

ROFL - confirmation image was "thieve" how appropriate.

Utter fiction (mods please note) (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21204299)

(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:Seriously, (1, Funny)

antek9 (305362) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203851)

Come on, it's not a crime, it's a 21st century schizoid business scheme!

Re:Seriously, (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204431)

...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, (4, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204211)

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.

Re:Seriously, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21204503)

So who sued the woman and won 220k? was it the RIAA or the 'collection of record lables that make up the RIAA AKA the RIAA' And which one of those do you work for? :-)

Re:Seriously, (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205895)

It was originally Virgin v. Jammie Thomas, but later changed to Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas.

However, I do believe that all 5 were involved to some extent.

Re:Seriously, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21204555)

Wow you're an idiot. The RIAA (Recording Industry Association) does hire people to monitor illegal downloads. They weigh the evidence, then turn it over to the proper Recording Industry Member (RIM). If Universal holds more of the rights, they give it to Universal.

The key here is that the RIAA polices things and arranges for lawsuits to happen. That's one of the benefits pf being a member of the Association.

In your terms, the RIAA does "go after" people - but the actual lawsuit comes from the copyright owners.

I see your point, but you have made it poorly.

Re:Seriously, (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21204735)

"The RIAA (Recording Industry Association) does hire people to monitor illegal downloads. They weigh the evidence, then turn it over to the proper Recording Industry Member (RIM). If Universal holds more of the rights, they give it to Universal."

So what you're saying is that no one gets sued by the RIAA, they just get RIMmed?

TFA proceeds on a false assumption.... (5, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203463)

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.

Anything is okay if the "Decider" says it's okay? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203607)

TROLL? No, close to reality.

If you pay taxes to kill people in a country you can't find on a map so that oil and weapons investors can make more money, and you make no protest, you are a murderer. The President, backed by corporations, arranged that.

Re:Anything is okay if the "Decider" says it's oka (5, Insightful)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205179)

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?

Wasn't "lumping". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21205377)

Strategy? 1) Imagine that you are the target of something that doesn't involve you. 2) Be angry about the fact that you ran in front of your imagined arrow.

Troll??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203665)

It appears one of the corporate variety is using his mod points to grind his axe. Don't worry, little troll, others will come along and reverse your abuse of the moderation system.

Re:TFA proceeds on a false assumption.... (1)

lpevey (115393) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203747)

I wish I could meta-mod this. This post is not a troll. It's funny. Laugh.

Re:TFA proceeds on a false assumption.... (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205905)

Try dipping in [slashdot.org] a dozen times over the next few weeks. You just might get your wish, as there seems to be a lack of users willing to metamod.

Good for King Crimson. (5, Interesting)

The Iso (1088207) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203471)

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

Re:Good for King Crimson. (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203685)

Well this has simply got to be stopped!

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. (4, Funny)

ehaggis (879721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204001)

and KFC owns the rights to their 11 herbs and spices secret formula.

Re:Good for King Crimson. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21204509)

Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but what about The Sunshine Band?

Re:Good for King Crimson. (2, Funny)

xPsi (851544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205983)

Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but what about The Sunshine Band?
That finally explains the hits "That's the Way (I Like It in the Court of the Crimson King)" and "I'm Your 21st Century Boogie Man."

Well...yes, but not quite (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204757)

KC owns the copyright BUT I'm sure they don't have the distribution rights. Often when a band or solo artist (even big ones like Metallica or Madonna) are under some label, say Sony, EMI, Music for NAtions (RIP), etc, they are giving the distribution rights to those companies, effectively losing the right to publish, sell or market the albums themselves. Yes, they own the copyright, but that's all. And if some band tries to get out that format, the consequences ARE often very bad. Just ask Prince.

Re:Well...yes, but not quite (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21205925)

I'll bet if you had actually read the article you wouldn't have written that post.

Re:Good for King Crimson. (1)

Sleepy (4551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205301)

Ah. Perhaps that explains EMI's actions then. Punishment.

Re:Good for King Crimson. (4, Informative)

shark72 (702619) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205989)

"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.

Bring on the prison terms. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203481)

Commercial piracy?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But since (5, Insightful)

JamesP (688957) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203487)

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.

Re:But since (5, Funny)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203657)

They need to reassemble the court/jury that convicted that woman and fined her a gazillion dollars. See whether they'd have the parts to go after somebody who can fight back.

Re:But since (1)

YukonTech (841015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204533)

I think KC sue them, and get 18k for each download that was stolen from them by EMI. Wow even in a sarcastic tone I have a hard time calling copying an mp3 file stealing..

Re:But since (3, Informative)

Quantam (870027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205139)

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:But since (1)

rabiddeity (941737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205603)

So you're saying if I incorporate MYSELF, I'm less liable for potential infringement? Well, that's a bizarre twist of the law books.

Re:But since (1)

Astro Dr Dave (787433) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205933)

Wouldn't the criminal penalties for commercial copyright infringement apply here?

Re:But since (4, Informative)

cfulmer (3166) | more than 6 years ago | (#21206025)

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 (4, Informative)

Quantam (870027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21206093)

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.

Shit like this happens all the time. (4, Informative)

julesh (229690) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203501)

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:Shit like this happens all the time. (4, Informative)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203837)

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 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:Shit like this happens all the time. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203875)

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...

/P

Re:Shit like this happens all the time. (2, Interesting)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203965)

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 investigate how Google effects her fortunes.

Not to say the issue has been decided. I think litigation is ongoing.

Re:Shit like this happens all the time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21206029)

And exactly how is she damaged by this? It can only help to increase exposure of her book.

Looks like EMI will be eating... (2, Funny)

msauve (701917) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203511)

some Crow's Tongue in Aspic.

it seems to be hypocrisy, but it's not (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203547)

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

In Germany, too (4, Interesting)

saibot834 (1061528) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203581)

The GVU [wikipedia.org] (The German Federation against Copyright Theft) actively used and supported illegal Filesharing by setting up their own servers from which users could download copyrighted stuff. Of course they didn't bother asking the copyright owner if this was ok, they just did it, until Heise.de revealed the story [heise.de] (German Site) and the Office of Public Prosecutor came...

sex pistols (3, Interesting)

xPsi (851544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203585)

would be happy with the (apparent?) hypocrisy of EMI [lyricsfreak.com] :
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! (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203593)

If they can't find a way out of it, they should be liable for the exact same amounts they try to charge regular people, only more, because they profited directly from the sale.

Re:Own medicine! - double dose! (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203679)

No, this goes far beyond "exact same penalties".

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... (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203705)

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.

fri5t sTop.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203733)

happiness Another laaged brehind,

fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21203801)

I fail to see what this has to do with the RIAA

What does the last A stand for again?

Re:fail - "Google's hard" (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203945)

You might want to check this link [riaa.com] . Unless, of course, you know of another company that goes by the name of "EMI Records."

Re:fail - "Google's hard" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21204165)

you might want to do a google on King Crimson

Re:fail - "Google's hard" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21205535)

Okay. [google.ca] What's your point?

Re:fail - "Google's hard" (1)

stainlesssteelpat (905359) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205815)

Hey wow this is cool, they even offer a report piracy servicehttp://www.riaa.com/reportpiracy.php [riaa.com] . So if anybody finds any KC on a commercial music website they know who tell. Wonder what would happen if they got a couple hundred reports, can the RIAA actually sue it's own board for infringement?

How much (1)

pinguwin (807635) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203839)

Ok, $9250 times....add the six...carry the four. Wow, that's a lot of money. Well, should be a lot of money they should be fined...I doubt it will happen.

Quoth the Sex Pistols (1)

UbuntuniX (1126607) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203869)

I can't stand those useless fools (EMI)

Empathy for EMI? (1)

DTemp (1086779) | more than 6 years ago | (#21203895)

Hey, I give EMI a little more leeway than the others. EMI is the one that has been speaking about having to change their business model, and is the one offering DRM-free music on iTunes, etc. There were a couple more recent factoids that were slashdotted that showed they were different than the rest of the RIAA.

So try to hate EMI a little less than the rest. Thanks.

I hope existing laws and court precident... (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204007)

Will be strictly followed in this case, and EMI will pay at least $10K for each count of offering a song for download, that is a visit to their website when the user had an opportunity to search and buy songs.

Re:I hope existing laws and court precident... (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204079)

or each of the upper management involved can call up the "settlement" center and have all charges dropped for a lenient 1/6th of their yearly income.

Isn't 'the act of making available' a crime? (1)

VorlonFog (948943) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204053)

If the simple act of making files available for download constitutes sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict against the common man, it should be more than enough to rip EMI a new arsehole.

Re:Isn't 'the act of making available' a crime? (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204391)

But we are not talking about the common man, we are talking about the 21st century schizoid man.

You Don't Understand (2)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204209)

EMI offered their music for sale even after their contract ended entirely.

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.

We all knew this.. (1)

eniac42 (1144799) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204275)

But thanks to Mr Fripp for restating it. Back in his day, people could record the odd bit of music they liked from radio/LP onto tape, and if they *really* liked it, and had a bit of cash, you would go out and buy the LPs - which many of us did, and the record companies & artists made cash. The record companies did not go around with lawyers beating up on Joe Public, because they wanted Joe to keep liking both the labels & the artists, and keep buying the LPs. (I did buy some Fripp LPs).

By the way, whilst not wanting to turn this into Digg, Fripp is an awesome guitarist and musician..

Re:We all knew this.. (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205099)

To paraphrase Joni Mitchell, the record companies used to be owned by greedy bastards who liked music, now they're just owned by greedy bastards.

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."

Sounds like.... (1)

jejones (115979) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204293)

...there's a vampiric relationship between record labels and artists.

Re:Sounds like.... (1)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 6 years ago | (#21206199)

"I'm a dinosaur...Somebody's been diggin' my bones..."

I Talk to the Wind... (5, Funny)

jumperboy (1054800) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204409)

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:I Talk to the Wind... (1)

Naurgrim (516378) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204693)

Wow! Good one! I've no mod points to give you, but here's hoping you dine on lark's tongues.

Re:I Talk to the Wind... (1)

44BSD (701309) | more than 6 years ago | (#21206249)

A waiting man would need two hands, or at least a heartbeat, to understand what sort of red trio of indiscipline could allow such elephant talk. One time, EMI were walking on air, but now they can only get their easy money from this slaughter of the innocents. Peace -- A theme ladies of the road to Asbury Park might tell as a Sailor's Tale to this moonchild -- will now have its cadence and cascade replaced by B'boom. THRAK!

whoa (2, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204545)

King Crimson is still around??

Re:whoa (3, Funny)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205749)

If we define King Crimson as "some band Robert Fripp plays in", then yes.

OK... (4, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204581)

When asked about the incident, and EMI executive reportedly said "what's the big deal? Everybody does it! I mean, if the bands just charged reasonable prices, we wouldn't have to steal their suff, would we? I mean, come on!"

-jcr

Re:OK... (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21206091)

"...And besides, maybe my dog did it!"

Who is the bad? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21204677)

So EMI and RIAA bad, but the guy is the composer of Vista's sound so he is bad too. Who should i support?... ahhhhgg!!

** head explodes**

This is out of scope for the RIAA (1)

redcaboodle (622288) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204753)

or whatever Ass.'s terrortory this was in. Since the rights to the music obviously did not belong to a member (EMI) why should any Ass. get involved. Those rights were the property of indiviudals which no Ass. cares about.

EMI was looking for Easy Money (1)

progprog (1016317) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204813)

But they'll have to be happy with what they have to be happy with, instead of walking on air. That's just the facts of life. Remember, they're dealing with 21st century schizoid men who talk to the wind here. Let's hope this entire affair is one more red nightmare for the RIAA.

Goose? Gander? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#21204875)

I say the offended party should should make a HUGE example of them. "Making available doesn't constitute piracy" right? EMI is responsible not only for their direct sales (which is a LOT more obvious piracy than P2P and certainly more accountable) but for every conceivable incarnation of copying that may have occured by the purchasers.

A jury trial should be demanded and I want to be on it!

mod 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21205357)

But you don't understand (4, Insightful)

lelitsch (31136) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205549)

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.

Wow..... (1)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205615)

Who wrote this article?! A third grader??

What is the value of the songs made available? (1)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 6 years ago | (#21205617)

KC should sue them in court. They should use the same legal practices as the RIAA (no evidence required etc). The suspected value for one tune should be, well, approximately 4 billion dollars. Now, multiply that by the number of times that song could have been downloaded...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...