CRIA Faces $50m Lawsuit

  • Thread starter Slicks
  • 16 comments
  • 1,613 views

Slicks

TSI AWD
Premium
3,603
http://www.thestar.com/business/art...rd-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement

Chet Baker was a leading jazz musician in the 1950s, playing trumpet and providing vocals. Baker died in 1988, yet he is about to add a new claim to fame as the lead plaintiff in possibly the largest copyright infringement case in Canadian history. His estate, which still owns the copyright in more than 50 of his works, is part of a massive class-action lawsuit that has been underway for the past year.

The infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $60 billion. If the dollars don't shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association.

The CRIA members were hit with the lawsuit in October 2008 after artists decided to turn to the courts following decades of frustration with the rampant infringement (I am adviser to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, which is co-counsel, but have had no involvement in the case).

The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences.

Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list," which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use. It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee.

Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing more than 300,000 songs.

From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment.

It is difficult to understand why the industry has been so reluctant to pay its bills. Some works may be in the public domain or belong to a copyright owner difficult to ascertain or locate, yet the likes of Sarah McLachlan, Bruce Cockburn, Sloan, or the Watchmen are not hidden from view.

The more likely reason is that the record labels have had little motivation to pay up. As the balance has grown, David Basskin, the president and CEO of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd., notes in his affidavit that "the record labels have devoted insufficient resources for identifying and paying the owners of musical works on the pending lists." The CRIA members now face the prospect of far greater liability.

The class action seeks the option of statutory damages for each infringement. At $20,000 per infringement, potential liability exceeds $60 billion.

These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that led the recording industry to claim a single file sharer is liable for millions in damages.

After years of claiming Canadian consumers disrespect copyright, the irony of having the recording industry face a massive lawsuit will not be lost on anyone, least of all the artists still waiting to be paid. Indeed, they are also seeking punitive damages, arguing "the conduct of the defendant record companies is aggravated by their strict and unremitting approach to the enforcement of their copyright interests against consumers."


While the CRIA has not been as aggressive as the RIAA in pursuing infringement claims (In fact, I have yet to hear of any), I find it quite satisfying to hear that the recording industry is getting a taste of its' own medicine.
It's not a one-way street, and if the CRIA, RIAA, et al are going to [attempt to] enforce the rules, then they should be the very first to obey them...
 
I love this.

I've been following this Copyright infringement nonsense for a few years now, and it's nice to see Canada is still a leader in the battle. (The failure of Bill C-61, the upholding of private right-to-copy, and this case among others which I can't list off the top of my head.)
 
He'll think that thieves are thieves, whether they are private citizens or recording industry executives.
 
Personally, I've always wondered about how royalties are paid for some of these compilation albums... It's a damn crime if the musicians and their estates aren't getting paid anything for their songs' use...
 
Hopefully she gets out of that. Isn't there something like we have in the criminal code that says you must have intended to commit the crime?

No, intent is usually established during the trial.

And even then, nobody cares if you didn't intend to park in the handicap zone, or intend to speed—you did it.

People intend not to do a great many of the things they do, and if we paid attention to what everybody says they didn't intend to do, there would be no justice for those actions.
 
No, intent is usually established during the trial.

And even then, nobody cares if you didn't intend to park in the handicap zone, or intend to speed—you did it.

People intend not to do a great many of the things they do, and if we paid attention to what everybody says they didn't intend to do, there would be no justice for those actions.

Well, I think those examples are a far cry from what's been described in the article.
 
Who video tapes in a movie theater? It's dark and you can't see anything except the screen(which is the purpose of having it dark). Whether or not she intended to tape it(you're in a movie theater, taping while the movie is playing. What exactly are you intending on doing?) will be discussed in court. I'm guessing she will be found guilty though.
 
Durh... there's a great big reflector lamp right in front of the audience... it's called the movie screen. Never see audience panning shots in movie commercials and features? It's those shots that actually make people think it's okay to film inside.

Actually... Public's Twin has it right... what's illegal is not changed by whether the person is doing it for fun or not.

It's more of a case of the law being behind the times. For goodness' sakes... nobody pirates movies five seconds at a time from a handheld camcorder. The pirates get their copies from digital previews sent out to test markets, so they're already DVD quality when they hit the streets. Arresting every person with a total lack of common sense who turns on their camcorder or cameraphone during a movie isn't going to solve the problem or scare the real pirates.

Still... utterly stupid thing to do, if the theater had a sign outside that said "no filming in the theater".

Not the most bizarre thing to happen, though... a colleague was invited to a press screening for a movie, along with other media representatives. He was part of a TV crew, and took a panning shot of the screen and the audience.

The movie company representative their went ape-censored nuts, had him detained by security, asked for him to be brought to the police station and threatened to file charges... even after inviting the guy there to specifically cover the event.

Some PR people don't know squat. :lol:
 
Pardon me—it also applies to:

-internet piracy
-murder
-animal abuse
-treason
-copyright infringement

Again, examples are a far cry from what's being discussed.I have to agree with niky about the law being behind the times. Although I know they can't, it would be nice if they posted the videos in question.
 
Last edited:
Again, examples are a far cry from what's being discussed.I have to agree with niky about the law being behind the times. It would be nice if they posted the videos in question.

They might after the case is over but can't legally until than.
 
They might after the case is over but can't legally until than.

I know, I'm just saying it would be nice. It would clear up some confusion regarding what exactly was filmed. I'm guessing that considering that the director of the flippin movie thinks it's ridiculous, it's ridiculous.
 
Back