Record labels sued for copyright violations by artists

Six66Mike - 12-10-2009 at 09:48 PM

This is too funny to comprehend given the constant attack on P2P piracy. Class action lawsuit covering Pending Lists where labels owe money dating back to the 80's and never pay, therefore using the music without a valid copyright license.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record...

CRIA (Canada's RIAA) admits to owing atleast $50m and if the suit is successful it will be closer to $6bn, given the "industry standard" $20,000 per infringement.

I hope the CRIA loses and these companies are forced to pay for every breach.

BDx13 - 12-10-2009 at 10:36 PM

fascinating article, thank you.
please keep us posted if you hear any updates on this.

tireironsaint - 12-10-2009 at 11:00 PM

This is really cool, I'm always glad to hear about this kind of justice finally coming around.

jonnynewbreed - 12-11-2009 at 07:23 AM

I'm following this very closely as I teach copyright and music publishing at the college in town. It all has to do with the variance between US and Canadian Copyright law.

You see, the US has what's called a compulsory mechanical license which means that I can cover a Blood for Blood song without their permission as long as I pay the prescribed rate of 8.1 cents per song per unit pressed (typically to the Harry Fox Agency). Canada had that until 1985 when the RIAA voted it out...stupid choice. What that means is that the publisher/artist must negotiate directly with the label for their rate and the label isn't allowed to simply release music if they want.

It's very interesting and will undoubtedly change Canadian copyright law forever.

Mark Lind - 12-11-2009 at 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jonnynewbreed
You see, the US has what's called a compulsory mechanical license which means that I can cover a Blood for Blood song without their permission as long as I pay the prescribed rate of 8.1 cents per song per unit pressed (typically to the Harry Fox Agency).

That actually isn't 100% true but I'm not really certain of what the rules are. An artist CAN reject you from covering their song. I know that Dropkick Murphys had to solicit the permission of the Kingston Trio in order to release "Skinhead" on their Do or Die album. If you look up the sites for some of those publishing companies they have a list of artists that you can go ahead and cover songs by without getting permission first. For example, look up the publishing company that Paul McCartney owns. It's been months since I looked at it but it says (for example) that you can go ahead and record a version of Elton John's "Crocodile Rock" but that's his only selection that he's giving the green light on. All others need to be confirmed.

Another popular myth is that you can cover any bands' song live without permission. A dude that played in Sinners & Saints left a previous band that he wrote the songs for. He got a cease and desist order that prevented them from playing his music live. The myth stems from the fact that if you get up and play a Beatles song live then there's little chance that Ringo is gonna hear about it. But they could stop you if they wanted.