Canadian record company backs teenager *AGAINST* RIAA lawsuit

[Roj]

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13003

OMG!

An ETHICAL record company. And one that actually has good sense too!

Only in Canada, eh?

Makes me damned proud to be Canadian.

[acushla]

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13003

OMG!

An ETHICAL record company. And one that actually has good sense too!

Only in Canada, eh?

Makes me damned proud to be Canadian.


Hmmm...the RIAA suing a teenager in Texas. A small independent record company from Canada 'to the rescue'.

Good sense you say?

Well...good luck with that.

If I held any stock in the company I'd be selling it right about now.

Can you say bankruptcy?

I knew you could.:foureyes:

[Roj]

Hmmm...the RIAA suing a teenager in Texas. A small independent record company from Canada 'to the rescue'.

Good sense you say?

Well...good luck with that.

If I held any stock in the company I'd be selling it right about now.

Can you say bankruptcy?

I knew you could.:foureyes:
Nettwerk records as anyone in the biz knows has been around for a good 16 years or so.

They ain't going away any time soon.

This also means that any hope the CRIA had of getting Draconian American bullshit passed in this country just evaporated like February snow under Jamaican noonday sun.

They have zero credibility now - they're done. The Canadian music industry itself has just nailed them right in the 'nads.

"Goodbye and thanks for coming out".

[acushla]

Nettwerk records as anyone in the biz knows has been around for a good 16 years or so.

They ain't going away any time soon.

This also means that any hope the CRIA had of getting Draconian American bullshit passed in this country just evaporated like February snow under Jamaican noonday sun.

They have zero credibility now - they're done. The Canadian music industry itself has just nailed them right in the 'nads.

"Goodbye and thanks for coming out".

Do not make the mistake of confusing one's perception of reality as it stands with that of personal beliefs. You would be wrong.:)

Currently, to the best of my knowledge there are over 10,000 lawsuits initiated by the RIAA against individuals. The majority of these people settle out of court. My understanding (based on nothing) is that until the Supreme Court make a ruling, the bullshit will just continue. I don't see the Supreme Court making that ruling anytime soon.

Nettwerk may well in deed be Canada's largest privately owned record company...but as Studio 123 discovered in their court appearances...nothing is a match for the deep pockets of the RIAA.

Considering how many stays and appeals etc. etc. etc. experienced lawyers are able to squeeze out of court appearances, we would be lucky to be alive by the time they sort all of this out.

The last year has shown us that the music industry is doing very well, thank you very much, when it comes to court rulings. Here's an example of the latest:

Two citizens of the United Kingdom have been successfully prosecuted by the British Phonographic Industry.

High Court judges ordered two men to pay the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) between £1,500 and £5,000 for making thousands of songs for download.
One of the men said he did not know he was acting illegally, the other said there was no evidence against him.

The BPI is similar in function to the RIAA, as it aims to protect the intellectual property of its member companies. Like the RIAA, it has conducted a enforcement campaign against those making files available online. Albeit half-hearted compared to the American effort, it has sought damages against just under 150 alleged P2P pirates.

Believe me when I tell you that I wish Nettwerk Music Group well...I just wouldn't bet any money on it. :foureyes:

[acushla]

TEXAS COPYRIGHT LAW

HomeFederal StatutesCopyrightMusic Piracy

It is a violation for anyone to upload or download full-length sound recordings or DVDs without permission of the copyright owners. While it may seem similar to making a cassette from a friend's CD for your own use (which the law does allow), it is not. The law does not allow copying of recordings onto a computer hard drive or server.

Copyright infringement of musical compositions and performances (piracy, counterfeiting, or bootlegging) violates:
Texas Tech University policies (30.22.4 and 30.22.5, which relate to guidelines for audiovisual materials and music use)

federal laws (Title 17--Section 101 and Title 18--Section 2319, which protect copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction or distribution of sound recordings, as well as certain digital performances to the public, and Title 18--Section 2319A, which criminalizes the unauthorized recording, manufacture, distribution or trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of "live" musical performances--the anti-bootleg statute)

The copying of digital media (e.g., CDs and DVDs) onto a computer hard drive or server is not allowed.

On-line piracy is increasing as people use the Internet to distribute digital audio files illegally (e.g., using MP3 or WAV format). The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) monitors the Internet daily and scans for sites that contain music. They have been successful in getting the sound recordings removed from sites infringing on copyright law. You can report violations to the RIAA directly (through the Web, by e-mailing--badbeat@riaa.com; or by calling 1-800-BAD-BEAT).
Note: The RIAA is a private, not-for-profit corporation whose member companies produce, manufacture, and distribute approximately 90% of all legitimately recorded music in the U.S.

The federal copyright law grants the copyright owner of a sound recording (usually, the record company) the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, distribute and, in some cases, digitally transmit their sound recordings. There are at the least two copyrighted works involved.
The copyright for the musical composition (i.e., the lyrics and musical notes as they are put down on paper)

The copyright for the sound recording, which is the performer singing or playing the particular song. This copyright is usually owned by the record company.

The only legal way to reproduce and transmit a piece of recorded music by uploading or downloading is to get permission from the owners of these different copyrights, which is termed obtaining a "license" for the recording.

For the copyright in the musical composition (the performance), you need to contact one of three music licensing organizations created to represent composers and songwriters:
ASCAPOne Lincoln Plaza, New York, NY 10023Phone: (212) 621-6000E-mail: info@ascap.com

BMIPhone: 1-800-925-8451E-mail: genlic@bmi.com

SESACPhone: Nashville office,1-800-826-9996; New York office, (212) 586-3450E-mail: license@sesac.com or see their employee listing on the Web

However, remember, that only covers the performance of a musical composition. The Harry Fox Agency coordinates licenses to reproduce and distribute a musical composition.

For the copyright covering the sound recording, you must have permission from the record company, which owns the recording itself and issued the CD, cassette, or LP. In order to perform, reproduce, or distribute a sound recording on your Web site, you must get a license from the record company directly.

'Nuff said.

[Roj]

Currently, to the best of my knowledge there are over 10,000 lawsuits initiated by the RIAA against individuals. The majority of these people settle out of court.

Yes, the little often bows to extortion.

My understanding (based on nothing) is that until the Supreme Court make a ruling, the bullshit will just continue. I don't see the Supreme Court making that ruling anytime soon.

The Supreme Court of the United States is bought and paid for by special interest lobbies. End of discussion.

Nettwerk may well in deed be Canada's largest privately owned record company...but as Studio 123 discovered in their court appearances...nothing is a match for the deep pockets of the RIAA.

Well and good - but this is still a PR kick in the teeth, the value of which far transcends the initial montary value. This calls the validity of the entire process into question.

Considering how many stays and appeals etc. etc. etc. experienced lawyers are able to squeeze out of court appearances, we would be lucky to be alive by the time they sort all of this out.

Doesn't matter - see above. And read Sun Tzu. :)

Believe me when I tell you that I wish Nettwerk Music Group well...I just wouldn't bet any money on it.

Public opinion is can achieve many things when sufficiently aorused. And they pay for, er, elect the judges south of the border.

[Roj]

'Nuff said.
You're missing the obvious - this is a PR war, not a court case.

And that battle, by virtue of Nettwerk siding with the teenager, is already well into awarding points AGAINST the RIAA.

The RIAA has been big on grandstanding. Two can play that game.

[acushla]

You're missing the obvious - this is a PR war, not a court case.

And that battle, by virtue of Nettwerk siding with the teenager, is already well into awarding points AGAINST the RIAA.

The RIAA has been big on grandstanding. Two can play that game.

Well...I am definitely confused...thought you said it was a court case...perhaps two court cases. One is to defend the boy in Texas which if I read you correctly we shouldn't hold our breath on anything being ruled against the RIAA. The second lawsuit could be Nettwerk taking the RIAA to court...although even if this is true I don't know whether that will be heard in a Canadian court or an American court.

You think/say it is a PR exercise and that well may be true. After the complete lack of interest by the public at large over the SONY 'incidence' (which I view as being a far greater issue) and the fact that SONY's 'fine' was to give 2 downloads and a replacement CD (or whatever) I don't see a whole lot happening here that is going to interest anyone outside of a small group of people who become extremely defensive when anyone points out that as owner of the product perhaps the Corporation has a legitimate claim when they liken downloading of music to 'shoplifting'.

"Stealing another person's property is theft, it's against the law and breaking the law must carry consequences or no one will think twice," said RIAA spokesperson Jonathan Lamy. "Theft undermines the ability of the music companies to invest in the new bands of tomorrow and deprives labels, songwriters and musicians of their hard-earned royalties."

See...I told you you wouldn't agree with their view. For one thing there's no advantage to agree with them. But it is ther view...and believe me...they are sticking to it.

You can spin it anyway you want to...the people who need to see it your way the most aren't buying it. Just like you're not buying their arguments.

It seems fairly obvious to me that as far as any lawsuit involving courts in Texas are concerned...there is no question in my mind that the courts have no choice but to rule in favour of the RIAA because that is what the law says. When the law changes then the ruling can change to reflect that change.

I strongly suspect that the RIAA pursue this course, not because they think it will end downloading, but it will instill fear in enough people who will stop downloading to make it worth their while. Is this considered reverse PR?

I fail to understand why we are so concerned with this issue...it's going to be with us for a long long time for the very reasons you have pointed out.

I would like to be wrong...but I so seldom is.:)

EDIT: The company got involved after Greubel sent an e-mail to another one of its artists, self-described "post-punk laptop rapper" MC Lars, who has a track on his upcoming album called "Download This Song."

The track, from The Graduate (which comes out March 22), finds Lars castigating the music industry for suing fans and features Jaret Reddick of Bowling for Soup singing the refrain, "Hey mister record man, the joke's on you/ Running your label like it was 1992/ Hey mister record man, your system can't compete/ It's the new artist model, file transfer complete."

A label representative denied that its actions are at all intended to promote MC Lars' album.

Well of course not...why would they even issue a disclaimer?

[Roj]

Well...I am definitely confused...
Then why don't you simply read the news item first before your typical spew? It's really not hard to understand.

"After the complete lack of interest by the public at large over the SONY 'incidence' "

You really need to get out more. had a look at holiday season sales? Checked out blogs? Hell, I take the bus and hear people talking about it. Sony is synonymous with anti-christ today, assuming there could be one.

You honestly believe the intimidation factor could possibly work on a widespread basis? Your age is definitely showing - the internet and its culture is FAR outside your realm of understanding.

What planet have you chosen to live on of late - it surely isn't this one. But then again I note that this is pretty typical of your offerings of late - they seem to be missing that vital component of reality.

[acushla]

Then why don't you simply read the news item first before your typical spew? It's really not hard to understand.

Actually I do read the news and what I read was that the RIAA is taking David Greubel to courst because his 14 year old son had over 600 downloaded music tracks on his harddrive. I then read that Nettwerk were going to defend the family.

Somehow I gathered from you that Nettwerk were taking the RIAA to court...which is when I became confused and thought there must be two lawsuits going on..even though I hadn't come across anything stating that.

You then proceeded to tell me it's not courts...it's PR...which I since know is not entirely supported by facts. The facts are this is a court matter. Always had been.

...to show how strongly Nettwerk is against the RIAA's activity, they will help the family fight the case and should the family lose the case, Nettwerk will pay off all legal fees and fines such that the family will have nothing to lose.

"After the complete lack of interest by the public at large over the SONY 'incidence' "

You really need to get out more. had a look at holiday season sales? Checked out blogs? Hell, I take the bus and hear people talking about it. Sony is synonymous with anti-christ today, assuming there could be one.

Roj. I can tell you honestly that not one person I know in Toronto or people like the former head of CSIS and a Harvard graduate lawyer who I was fortunate enough to have two separate dinners with during the Christmas stay in Manotick....not one person knew anything about it. On the CTV National News it was all of a 20 second story on one night.

I am certainly aware that there are many sites on the Internet that have devoted time and space and there have been 'lots' of people expressing their concern and outrage...but I see that as a very select group and a drop in the bucket when you consider the population at large.

As far as sales being down...good...but I admit, I am surprised. Lets talk again in the spring after they release their gaming box. I am most interested in the Texas and New York et al. lawsuits...but again...given what SONY had to do as 'penalty' for the class action suits... it's a goddamn joke.

They have zero credibility now - they're done. The Canadian music industry itself has just nailed them right in the 'nads.

I have to tell you friend, this qualifies as the most ridiculous statement I have come across in a long, long time. You are certainly entitled to it as your opinion...or wishful thinking if you will...but it has nothing at all to do with reality. You think it all ends with file sharing? I suggest you start looking at your TV and Radio, learn them well...so you can remember the 'good old days' if the RIAA and MPAA have their way. Finished? Not in your lifetime.

You honestly believe the intimidation factor could possibly work on a widespread basis? Your age is definitely showing - the internet and its culture is FAR outside your realm of understanding.

I did not mean to imply that the intimidation would work on a widespread basis...just enough to make a lot of people nervous, a percentage of which will cease to download. They purposely include a young teenager in this suit because they know it sends a message to every family household where the mother or father will restrict their child's Internet habits in fear that they will be next. It may not be widespread...but it certainly acts a a deterrent that without the lawsuits would not exist. The RIAA knows it needs to make this an issue otherwise a retreat would send the message that it is okay to download...something they don't seem to be willing to do right now. (or ever). They are in total disarray and panic mode, devoid of creative solutions. The RIAA suing people is a direct result of them not having any other approaches that they can live with. Assuming they even know of any other path to take. All of this is some sort of desperate ploy because they can't stand the thought of facing reality and understanding that their business will never be as it was. There is no viable alternative that will put them back on the financial footing they feel entitled to. That is the problem. Unable to admit that times have changed and unable to change with it.

My cynicism to-wards any proclamation that the 'RIAA is done' etc. is based on the fact that all of the laws as they are written are squarely on the side of the RIAA.No court is likely to rule against them until those laws are changed. Any ruling in a lower court that would find in favour of the defendant would immediately be appealed and taken to the next higher court and that scenario would play itself out until it reached the Supreme Court. When that happens history could well in deed be made. Not before.

As for my contributions to the forum, I'm disappointed that you find them not to your liking. I always strive to present thoughtful perspectives that are generally well researched before being committed to paper. I know that you find issue with just about everything I write, I know that as I write...and that's part of the fun of it...I learn from your posts..but as you can tell by this I don't agree with everything you write. I find it interesting and all the topics provide an opportunity to clarify one's own thought and then consider the response. That which I recognize as being valid I incorporate into my own perspective...because now it is my perspective. Where I don't agree I will clearly state why. My 'golden rule' is to allow to agree to disagree. I try not to make anything personal out of it...I mean really...it's just an exchange of ideas....at least there is something of a dialogue going on. How boring if we all just sat around agreeing with each other. At the very least you should be grateful that I provide an outlet for you to express all that disdain you feel to-wards people who don't agre...um...people who are too stupid to know that you are always right.:) :) :)

[acushla]

Interesting findings while surfing around attempting to get deeper into this story.

RIAA WILL TAKE 2191.78 YEARS TO SUE EVERYONE

16,000 people to date.

In response to the RIAA's suits, users who want to share music files are adopting tools like WINW (http://www.winw.org/) and BadBlue (http://www.badblue.com/), that allow them to create encrypted spaces where they can share files and converse with one another. As a result, all their communications in these spaces, even messages with no more commercial content than "BRITN3Y SUX!!!1!" are hidden from prying eyes. This is not because such messages are sensitive, but rather because once a user starts encrypting messages and files, it's often easier to encrypt everything than to pick and choose. Note that the broadening adoption of encryption is not because users have become libertarians, but because they have become criminals; to a first approximation, every PC owner under the age of 35 is now a felon.

Of course one needs to be aware that if one side can use encryption there is nothing preventing the other side from using encryption as well...which is exactly what the industry will do on signals broadcast from satellites

RIAA sees digital radio as a potentially greater threat than P2P services because digital radio “will offer pristine copies of songs without the threat of viruses and spyware,” Bainwol said. “The ubiquity and ease of use of radios outstrips that of computers, and the one-way method of communication allows individuals to boldly engage in piracy with little fear of detection.”

The RIAA is looking to Congress to draft new guidelines to the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992. A key issue will revolve around how the record labels should be compensated when ever their music is broadcasted. Up until 1998, the Congress allowed songwriters and publishers the right to be paid a small royalty for a right to broadcast the song on the radio, however the music industry did not get anything out of this. Worse still, home taping was also generally considered to be fair use, something the music industry was strongly against with its "Home Taping is Killing Music" slogan. In 1998, the Congress changed the rules such that record labels have the right to collect royalties for satellite & radio broadcasts.

In order to avoid legal issues, XM Satellite radio discontinued its PC-based receiver such that consumers can no longer digitally record its content to a PC with what ever equipment remains available. When Sirius launched the S50 last year which has the ability to record songs, the RIAA had started negotiations with them over this device and in December, the device’s features were crippled to make it as difficult as possible to record individual songs and schedules were limited to 2 hours.

Through all of this one aspect is crystal clear...as long as there is music and a music 'business' , in the constant evolution different sides will clash with each other as to the direction 'fair use' should take.

[Roj]

Through all of this one aspect is crystal clear...as long as there is music and a music 'business' , in the constant evolution different sides will clash with each other as to the direction 'fair use' should take.

Now that's a return on investment - one line of text from me, three hundred of flowing prose from you. Maybe one day I'll get enough time to read it all (um, no). ;)

Given that I tend to cut to the chase, I read the above quote and left it at that. In response, I have the following:

There will indeed always be greedy record and entertainment companies trying to futilely grab everything in the way of a dollar, real or imagined (and in their case mostly imagined since their concept of buying habits is complete self-invented fiction).

Why is it futile?

Because the old days are gone. The Internet is God. And because of that one simple fact, those companies cannot ever "win". Too many of us, too smart, too maneuverable and too untrackable. Sue one, lose ten thousand more. The courts in Italy already are throwing their cases out Because They Can't Be Bothered (I posted that article back in the old year). Their own have turned against them (the subject of this thread). Public opinion has shifted and sooner or later that will shift the politicians, the ass-kissers that they are.

Now, don't bother with another ten pages of flowing rhetoric that means nothing in the grand scheme of things (never mind the fact that I won't read it any more than I read the last ten missives). The facts are there for anyone to read on blogs everywhere - those bulletin boards are the real pulse of what's happening.

Just accept it, Don't Comment (spare your poor beleaguered keyboard) and move along. :) :) ;)

There - short and sweet. I'm leading by example.

[acushla]

Maybe one day I'll get enough time to read it all (um, no). ;)



Too bad...you won't see what the teacher has taught his student. I consider the last post to usher in a new era for me...attempts to examine the larger issues.

(Uh...just to let you know...you're not the boss of me.:) )

[Neo]

GO RIAA GO!!! Get this punk, stealing is against the law. If I walk into Future Shop and walk out with a 50 inch widescreen Samsung without paying, how is this any different?

[rorythedog]

GO RIAA GO!!! Get this punk, stealing is against the law. If I walk into Future Shop and walk out with a 50 inch widescreen Samsung without paying, how is this any different? :kiss: :smirk:


Moron!

[Neo]

That's all you can come up with? Explain... :bandit:

[jawpr]

GO RIAA GO!!! Get this punk, stealing is against the law. If I walk into Future Shop and walk out with a 50 inch widescreen Samsung without paying, how is this any different?


About as much differance as Day and Night.:laugh:

[jawpr]

GO RIAA GO!!! Get this punk, stealing is against the law. If I walk into Future Shop and walk out with a 50 inch widescreen Samsung without paying, how is this any different?


Now if you and I walked into Future Shop and each of us BOUGHT a 50 inch widescreen Samsung and we later decided to SWAP tv's, then there is nothing wrong with that as I can see. When I buy something, be it a car, tv, or any other thing, it is mine to share with others, give to someone else, or use in any way I see fit. I look at file swapping the same way.

DOWN WITH THE RIAA!!!:gasmask:

[acushla]

Now if you and I walked into Future Shop and each of us BOUGHT a 50 inch widescreen Samsung and we later decided to SWAP tv's, then there is nothing wrong with that as I can see. When I buy something, be it a car, tv, or any other thing, it is mine to share with others, give to someone else, or use in any way I see fit. I look at file swapping the same way.

DOWN WITH THE RIAA!!!:gasmask:

This is about as basic as it gets...and is so true. It's funny how often the obvious sometimes gets lost in all the passion and debate.

...good explanation jawpr.:)

Now if you could just solve this one for me...I'm dating 3 women right now (comparison shopping if you will) and one of them I really .....oh...forget about it. It's about women...nobody is going to solve that one (apologies to Shewolf.):normal:

[Neo]

I agree! I was only ruffling feathers, yankin' chains, provoking debate and comments like "moron" ... etc. I wanted to be the Black Sheep of the forum, even if for just a few minutes. :silly:

The RIAA sucks ass. :grin:

[WHAT?]

... now, commenting on Jawpr's comparison.... I don't see what you mean!
Are you saying then that one would be giving up his/her CD (or song) in an even swap? I always kept my songs. (noticed the word kept, and not keep?).
For I no longer do this.. swapping thing. So, I guess I'm one of those whom D1 says the crack-down will cause fear!

Or a different angle... will the guys with the TVs somehow be cloning the TVs?
If so then yes, technically there are patent rights that are being violated! :pirate: :bandit:

If I buy a Celine Dion CD, and you had a Megadeath CD, Yes, we can swap! But just can't keep the old one too!
In my case I come out ahead of course!!hehehe!
Sucka.. you gotta keep Celine!:laugh: :cheeky: :cross-eye

[acushla]

... now, commenting on Jawpr's comparison....


... will the guys with the TVs somehow be cloning the TVs?
If so then yes, technically there are patent rights that are being violated! :pirate: :bandit:



I got to thinking about jawpr's analogy a little deeper and thought to myself well, sure, if my friend comes over with a new disc and he borrows one of mine...no problem. However, I think that reasoning does begin to lose weight if I consider having 10 friends who come over with nothing...see my 50 inch TV and ask me to make a copy and give it to them. I anticipate that someone might claim that this is ridiculous example because you can't just make a copy of a 50 inch TV and then give it away. So then the question becomes: 'Is the fact that you are able to make a copy of a DVD/CD reason enough to make it acceptable?'

One last comment...earlier I spoke about how the RIAA is looking to Congress to draft new guidelines to the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA). Well...one of those amendments would forbid any 'new' technology that changed the production or transmission of electronic media that the RIAA didn't approve of!

Now it's getting weird.

[BALTY]

I got to thinking about jawpr's analogy a little deeper and thought to myself well, sure, if my friend comes over with a new disc and he borrows one of mine...no problem. However, I think that reasoning does begin to lose weight if I consider having 10 friends who come over with nothing...see my 50 inch TV and ask me to make a copy and give it to them. I anticipate that someone might claim that this is ridiculous example because you can't just make a copy of a 50 inch TV and then give it away. So then the question becomes: 'Is the fact that you are able to make a copy of a DVD/CD reason enough to make it acceptable?'

One last comment...earlier I spoke about how the RIAA is looking to Congress to draft new guidelines to the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA). Well...one of those amendments would forbid any 'new' technology that changed the production or transmission of electronic media that the RIAA didn't approve of!
Now it's getting weird.

Oh!... I see you did get in line:ponder: :rolleyes: , cause What? said who, I mean Who said What?
OOOOOOooooh!.... You are being redundant with What? 'cause I think that is What? Who... What? he said too, or Was getting at also.. too!