|
Canadian Recording Industry Faces $6 B Lawsuit
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.
As my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes, the infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $6 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 [PDF] 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 over 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 to over $50 million (Universal alone owes more than $30 million), 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 to identifying and paying the owners of musical works on the Pending Lists." Basskin adds that some labels believe addressing the issue would be "an unproductive use of their time."
Having engaged in widespread copyright infringement for over 20 years, 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 (the amount owed on some songs exceed this amount), potential liability exceeds $6 billion. These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that has 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."
Update: An earlier version of this post noted that record label liability could exceed $60 billion in this case. A reader helpfully noted the math gremlin - the correct number is $6 billion ($20,000 per infringement X 300,000 songs).
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: December 9, 2009 @ 3:15 AM
An earlier version of this post noted that record label liability could exceed $60 billion in this case.
And every other media outlet stole Michael Geist's orignal article, copied that bad math and used it in their headline.
I'm not sure why Geist used $20,000 per song. Jammie Thomas-Rasset was fined $80,000 per song, which would add up to $24 billion.
At the $50 million estimate, the labels seem to think when they are the ones doing the infringing, it's only worth $166 per violation. |
|
CopyrightLaw...
|
Date: December 10, 2009 @ 8:14 AM
Yes they charged Jammie Thomas-Rasset $80,000 per song, but what is a download of a song really worth? Would it be the price you pay for the song on a CD, about $1.00 (which happens to be about the same charged for online purchases per song)??
I think not. Since an mp3 file is easily 1/10th of the information and data of a CD version of the same track, why isn't the value of the song more like $0.10. So that means that Jammie Thomas-Rasset was penalized $79,999.90 per song for downloading.
I think the record labels should be sued for $24 Billion, or file paperwork to reduce the fine to Jammie Thomas-Rasset to $0.10 per song. After all, since there hasn't been any case law regarding this whole situation, wouldn't it be justice to find that the case law caused by the record labels is used against them? $24 Billion sounds like a better lawsuit figure. |
|
medwardl
|
Date: December 11, 2009 @ 10:46 PM
AAHHAHAHAHAHA Suck it long, suck it hard CRIA.
Now can we get the same thing in the US please. |
|
RaidHHI
|
Date: December 13, 2009 @ 1:00 AM
Oh wait, watch something happen and this case get dismissed... Or, heh, rules in CRIA favor and they get to fuck the artist and the consumer, again...
Anybody wanna get a bet going? I bet nothing comes of this for the good guys.
|
|
medwardl
|
Date: March 3, 2010 @ 12:30 AM
anything new on this? |
|
|