Karma's a bitch or how the Canadian RIA is on the hook for $6 billion

[Malthus]

Heh, there is a difference between claims made in a class-action lawsuit and an actual award of damages. Class action claims are notorious for exaggerated damages claims based on highly tenuous liability theories.

The article is written by someone working for a co-counsel in the case, and so very naturally it is quite optomistic about the chances of success.

I'd save the victory jig until the trial concludes. 

[Admiral Yi]

But you're not ripping off artists.  You're ripping of the labels.

If you think the artists are owed by the Canadian recorders then you're ripping off the artists.  If you think they're not owed then you don't need justification for pirating.

[Neil]

But you're not ripping off artists.  You're ripping of the labels.

If you think the artists are owed by the Canadian recorders then you're ripping off the artists.  If you think they're not owed then you don't need justification for pirating.

Not really.  If CdM owes you five bucks, but Jaron steals his car, Jaron has robbed CdM, not you.

[Admiral Yi]

Not really.  If CdM owes you five bucks, but Jaron steals his car, Jaron has robbed CdM, not you.

If CdM took my car and put me on a list of people he is thinking about paying in 50 years, and Jaron steals the car, I want my car back from Jaron.

[Martinus]

Not really.  If CdM owes you five bucks, but Jaron steals his car, Jaron has robbed CdM, not you.

If CdM took my car and put me on a list of people he is thinking about paying in 50 years, and Jaron steals the car, I want my car back from Jaron.

It depends when the title passes.

[Neil]

Not really.  If CdM owes you five bucks, but Jaron steals his car, Jaron has robbed CdM, not you.

If CdM took my car and put me on a list of people he is thinking about paying in 50 years, and Jaron steals the car, I want my car back from Jaron.

You sold your car to CdM, in exchange for a series of payments according to the mileage on the car.  He might try and stiff you on some money owed you, but it doesn't make it your car.

[Admiral Yi]

You sold your car to CdM, in exchange for a series of payments according to the mileage on the car.  He might try and stiff you on some money owed you, but it doesn't make it your car.

Reread the article.  Performing artists never sold their music to the record labels.

[Neil]

You sold your car to CdM, in exchange for a series of payments according to the mileage on the car.  He might try and stiff you on some money owed you, but it doesn't make it your car.

Reread the article.  Performing artists never sold their music to the record labels.

It seems like they did.

[Admiral Yi]

It seems like they did.

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.

I blame your Frenchified single payer socialis public education system.

[Neil]

Yeah.  For the purposes of our analogy, that's sold.

[Admiral Yi]

   You're joking, right?

[Neil]

  You're joking, right?

Of course not.

[Camerus]

I will use this story to justify my illegal downloads.   

That makes no sense.  Canadian recording labels are ripping off artists so you can too?

I was being sarcastic.   

[Admiral Yi]

Oh.  OK.

[Ideologue]

Why not?

Against the law or just previous ruling by courts.

"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."

Said a judge in 2004

Sometimes I wonder if US would've been better off developing into a British Dominion rather than revolting.

Failed litigants have to pay their opponent's fees, no spendthrift trusts, you have to call the judge "Mr. Justice"...

Anyway, I don't have much more patience for copyright law when it's directed against its biggest proponents.  Hopefully the amount of money they do wind up getting represents actual damages and not the bullshit fairyland damages provided for by statute like in the U.S.