Pandora Sued By Record Labels For Copyright Infringement

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'm thinking of a term for this and it rhymes with leady rastereds.

The record labels claim they lose millions of dollars yearly from Pandora, other streaming music services, and satellite radio companies for playing older songs. Many of these songs are played on streaming stations like "Golden Oldies" and "50s Rock 'n' Roll," and the labels say they should get royalties for these pre-1972 songs.
Click to expand...
 
Youtube and now Pandora... Looks like they are starting a campaign to try and end music streaming by any other company but the content owners. It starts with the pre-1972 songs, but what is there to stop them from expanding their lawsuit?
 
Why would pre-1972 be royalty free?
Not enough years as I understand it.
Of course they will kill streaming services, considering each play is actually one play, and not assumed millions, royalties will probably shrink because of this precise measurement.
Up next, streaming services counter are inaccurate, we need to sue to get more money.
 
I don't see why people are always hating on the music and movie industry. Wait - yes I do. This is why.
 
Ur_Mom said:
I don't see why people are always hating on the music and movie industry. Wait - yes I do. This is why.
Click to expand...

They actually almost have a legal obligation to aggressively pursue litigation to protect copyrights. If a rights holder elects not to push the issue for some illegal sharing and then tries to later exercise those rights for a different infringement situation, the defense can contend that the rights holder previously acted in a way that made it appear as though enforcement wasn't important to them and that can take credibility from their lawsuits.

I don't like the idea of all the legal actions either, but I can kinda understand why they get so rabid about this stuff. If the material is legally protected, they pretty much have to act to do so.
 
XvMMvX said:
They wonder why people steal their shit.
Click to expand...

You mean pirating their shit. Let's be technically correct even if we disagree with them in principle. Remember, stealing removes the original. Pirating makes a copy. Don't let them own the language.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
They actually almost have a legal obligation to aggressively pursue litigation to protect copyrights. If a rights holder elects not to push the issue for some illegal sharing and then tries to later exercise those rights for a different infringement situation, the defense can contend that the rights holder previously acted in a way that made it appear as though enforcement wasn't important to them and that can take credibility from their lawsuits.

I don't like the idea of all the legal actions either, but I can kinda understand why they get so rabid about this stuff. If the material is legally protected, they pretty much have to act to do so.
Click to expand...

I thought that's only Patents and Trademarks. I thought copyright, didn't have this or was at least more lenient on this.
 
Serpent said:
I thought that's only Patents and Trademarks. I thought copyright, didn't have this or was at least more lenient on this.
Click to expand...

You might be right. I'm not 100% on the application of litigation requirements for copyrights, but I'm _fairly_ certain it applies to them as well as patents and trademarks. I did a little poking around at copyright.gov, but I couldn't find anything supportive of either perspective.

Where's a forum attorney when you need one?
 
Phoenix333 said:
You mean pirating their shit. Let's be technically correct even if we disagree with them in principle. Remember, stealing removes the original. Pirating makes a copy. Don't let them own the language.
Click to expand...

Oh shit, you just opened up a can of worms with this one. Some people on here will fight you tooth and nail to try and convince you that piracy is the same as theft. :p :rolleyes:
 
Another thing, I thought Pandora was granted rights, like a radio station, and wasn't like Kazaa. Am I wrong? I don't use Pandora, so I never bothered to really look up anything on it. But if it is, then wtf is this lawsuit about?
 
Phoenix333 said:
You mean pirating their shit. Let's be technically correct even if we disagree with them in principle. Remember, stealing removes the original. Pirating makes a copy. Don't let them own the language.
Click to expand...

Correct, thanks for clarifying for me.:D
 
Uvaman said:
Why would pre-1972 be royalty free?
Not enough years as I understand it.
Of course they will kill streaming services, considering each play is actually one play, and not assumed millions, royalties will probably shrink because of this precise measurement.
Up next, streaming services counter are inaccurate, we need to sue to get more money.
Click to expand...

I think they're grandfathered in front when the law was last amended under federal law.

This is not the case in New York, which is how they're suing this time. If Pandora loses, I'd hope they simply say "sorry New York citizens, no golden oldies for you!" and put the reason plus a link to the RIAA contact info.
 
If the copyrights are dead, they are dead. Screw em'.
 
There needs to be a law reform on copyrights so that only the original creator (not record label or other entity) can own copyrights and those copyrights end with the death of that owner. Also the copyrights are not transferable( stupid idea that Michael Jackson could buy the rights to the Beatles music) that way the creators of the works can't get screwed out of money by record labels cutting shady deals with them.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Remember, stealing removes the original.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think they nailed me on it... Assholes. They called it "Kidnapping". Whatever. I just thought I was stealing that kid.

It's the whole patent/copyright/whatever laws (volumes upon volumes of them) that screw things up. There are some artists that say they don't care, but the lawyers still have to actively go for it to protect it. It's all or none, pretty much. Which sucks (kind of... you can be a dick to Miss Johnson, but you can be cool to Rico... You shouldn't be able to play favorites, either). It's messed up, but it makes sense to a point. It's fucked up, but it makes sense why it's fucked up, but the reasons are fucked up...
 
jedijeb said:
There needs to be a law reform on copyrights so that only the original creator (not record label or other entity) can own copyrights and those copyrights end with the death of that owner. Also the copyrights are not transferable( stupid idea that Michael Jackson could buy the rights to the Beatles music) that way the creators of the works can't get screwed out of money by record labels cutting shady deals with them.
Click to expand...

And our corporation run society will start taking hits out on artists who've produced particularly successful works and try to withhold rights :p
 
kahm said:
And our corporation run society will start taking hits out on artists who've produced particularly successful works and try to withhold rights :p
Click to expand...

Usually it isn't artists who withhold rights. It is publishers or the heirs of artists who want to ride the coattails of their relatives.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
They actually almost have a legal obligation to aggressively pursue litigation to protect copyrights. If a rights holder elects not to push the issue for some illegal sharing and then tries to later exercise those rights for a different infringement situation, the defense can contend that the rights holder previously acted in a way that made it appear as though enforcement wasn't important to them and that can take credibility from their lawsuits.

I don't like the idea of all the legal actions either, but I can kinda understand why they get so rabid about this stuff. If the material is legally protected, they pretty much have to act to do so.
Click to expand...

You are confusing copyrights with trademarks. Non-enforcement is a valid defense under the Lanham act to an infringement of trademarks.
 
damicatz said:
You are confusing copyrights with trademarks. Non-enforcement is a valid defense under the Lanham act to an infringement of trademarks.
Click to expand...

And patents too. I'm competely sure about that.

Thanks for the clearing up the copyright stuff. Still though, if someone or some organization has a legal right to collect money for something and some other person or organization is gaining some sorta benefit from that thing without obtaining a right to use it through purchase or permission, there's nothing wrong with suing them. The problem isn't really the companies or groups taking people to court as much as it is unclear or silly laws. Those laws probably won't get changed unless enough people (which is a huge lot of them) get together and get involved in politics or just stop paying money for products sold by companies that license usage in a way they don't like and none of that is probably likely to happen anytime soon.
 
You see, you do things the legal way and EVERYBODY sues because they want a piece.
The artists, the writers, the record labels, the people that actually OWN the rights......
And all these companies can do is pay and pay and pay until they can pay no more and go under.
Not to justify piracy here but really, all those greedy bastards make it hell trying to keep an outdated model of distribution afloat while ignoring digital and streaming demands are just asking for it.
 
Time to go back to the original 28 years for copyrights, before politicians were bribed into extending several times.
 
I wonder if the record labels care about how stupid this type of stuff makes them look in the eyes of the public. Probably not or they wouldn't do it.
 
There was no Federal coverage of music for copyright pre-1972. Laws and enforcement fall on state law. So the requirements for royalties were different. The Music industry wants fed law to be retroactive.
 
I think what needs to happen is a broader reform of civil law in general. It should mirror criminal law in that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, there must be assumption of innocence, reasonable doubt is enough to dismiss a case, and - here's the kicker - the loser has to pay the legal fees of the winner. In addition, a conglomerate entity, such as a corporation, that has enormous assets should be held to a higher financial burden than an individual citizen. If an individual citizen sues a corporation and loses, the citizen cannot be penalized with fees or costs that are unreasonable to repay relative to their income and assets while the corporation can be held accountable for higher damages. If a corporation sues an individual, the citizen cannot be penalized as above, but the corporation must cover 100% of the citizen's legal fees, lost time from work, etc, if the corporation loses. In this way, individual rights would be protected from predatory corporations abusing the legal system. Sadly, I think it will never happen, but if it were engineered this way so that the RIAA and MPAA could stand to lose a lot of money, copyright extortion wouldn't be going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top