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."
Re:51576? (Score:3, Interesting)
The law is reasonable. Applying it to non-commercial infringement isn't.
Re:Some counterpoints (Score:0, Interesting)
It's a standard clause in an employment contract that anything produced whilst under that contract is owned by the employer.
Unless Sony's lawyers are utterly stupid there will be a similar clause in the recording contract and this won't go anywhere.
Re:Corruption is good when it works in our favor (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: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:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? (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: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:Precedent from Jammie Thomas? (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 safest option for them, damn.
It's also worth pointing out that they have an obvious intent to distribute for commercial gain... CD prices have been a crime for the better part of a decade, it's about time it made it to court! :P
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.
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:If only... (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:If only... (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 term is "Live by the sword, die by the sword"
See Matthew 26:52
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.)