Is Sony No Better Than Pirates It Goes After?
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: Sony, album, Fernandez, Pirates, Illegal | Themes: Digital Entertainment, Business
Sony compiled a new album without establishing a new contract. Artist calls in raid.
Is Sony Music no better than the music pirates it seeks to demolish? According to a report from The Guardian, Sony Music's offices in Mexico City were raided by the local police based on reports that the company was selling or planning to sell an "illegal" album. The police broke in and seized 6,397 CDs, master recordings of unpublished music, and cover art for two-time Latin Grammy winner Alejandro Fernández.
Fernández, now signed on with Universal Music as of last year, originally had a contract with Sony Music from 1998 to 2008 that only spanned seven albums. However, Sony decided to compile a new album without his permission and without a new contract, using previously unreleased material. Jose Luis Caballero, Fernández's attorney, said that he issued a case and desist order to the label two weeks ago, but did not receive a response.
"Sony assumed that they could take tracks that weren't part of previous albums and release them as an eighth album, as if it were new material, over which they had rights," Caballero said. "It's perfectly clear that the company's contract is limited to seven albums."
Naturally, Sony denies any illegal activities, and even said that it was "surprised and disappointed" by the raid. The company also said that it's authorized to use the recordings, and hopes that the Mexican courts will quickly confirm its rights. Based on Caballero's comment, the rights to the material are not in question, but rather selling a complete, eighth album without consent or a new contract with the artist.
-
Previous News Article
Report: Camera-equipped iPods... -
Next News Article
Report: Palm Pre Price to Drop...
Since its in Mexico.. I really hope they dont screw up the artist since Sony can afford at least THAT much to pay this one off.
If Sony is contributing against piracy then I dont think they should tolate this crap and make Sony pay big time if indeed its clear the 7Album limitation they had. I REALLY have no tolerance for hypocrits and BS.
lol... the music industry is pretty sleazy, for decades they profited by leeching as much money out of bands as their monopolistic policies allowed. Now they cry poor and expect us all to feel sorry for them, but they really have not changed one bit since the bad old days.
All hail Internet distribution and self marketed albums... put the profits in the hands of the artists instead of a million middlemen hangers on.
It would be a grand Irony if Sony lost this one. Along the Lines of the willful copyright infringement decision against Microsoft Office recently.
Well this is a start.Curious about the outcome.
Fuck Sony. The artist told you "NO." Is our system so screwed up that these fat ass record labels get control over the music even though it's the damn artist writing the music. If he doesn't want to release it then it shouldn't be released!
Poorly worded title. Sony OWNs the songs. Pirates own no part of the stuff they pirate.
Sleazy move by Sony? Yeah it is. The court (assuming the judge isn't bought out and the artist didn't get trapped in a legal loophole) will probably come to the artist side.
@Honis - You're wrong, buddy:
Sony owns the tapes... but they don't own the MAGIC on those tapes...
Another quality article from Kevin Parrish...
The rich gets richer and pirates, the poor, well the poor just pirates.
So SONY can do whatever they want with Fernández's albums because they "OWN" it, but when we buy a CD we can't do as we please with it because what we don't "OWN" it???
If Sony can get an $81,000 per track fine against a normal person, I dont think an $8.1m per track against Sony is out of line.
"case and desist order"
did you mean "cease and desist order"?
This is the 3rd article from today that nobody bothered to proofread...
There is no honor among theives
Well there 's an aspect that will affect the outcome. First off, Sony decides to release a NEW ALBUM (count as 8th) with previously unreleases material. This means that in every Alejandro's releases ( and like other artists) there are songs that never make it to the final production. Sony decided to those remaining songs of each release, compile them and make a brand new album. All with lefover songs Alejandro Fernanadez left in each album.
In my opinion ( since I don't know how this will turn out) Sony should only make new albums based on officially released material, NOT UNRELEASED material. Still, it would be interesting to see the contract terms ( eg..does the contract states that every song are owned by Sony, even if they are not released?).
Come on, those are songs that were left out, that maybe Alejandro Fernandez could use later ( with his newer universal contract).
In my opinion, I think Sony is screwing this one.
Well there 's an aspect that will affect the outcome of this case. First off, Sony decides to release a NEW ALBUM (count as 8th) with previously unreleases material. This means that in every Alejandro's releases ( and like other artists) there are songs that never make it to the final production. Sony decided to those remaining songs of each release, compile them and make a brand new album. All with lefover songs Alejandro Fernanadez left in each album.
In my opinion ( since I don't know how this will turn out) Sony should only make new albums based on officially released material, NOT UNRELEASED material. Still, it would be interesting to see the contract terms ( eg..does the contract states that every song are owned by Sony, even if they are not released?).
Come on, those are songs that were left out, that maybe Alejandro Fernandez could use later ( with his newer universal contract).
In my opinion, I think Sony is screwing this one.
The shoe is on the other foot.
I'm going to download his albums via BiTorrent just to piss Sony off.
I'm with Athreex. I'd like to see what both parties agreed to in the contract.
If Sony can get an $81,000 per track fine against a normal person, I dont think an $8.1m per track against Sony is out of line.
They can penalize us for more than we'll EVER make in a lifetime...so why can't we fine them say...a couple trillion? Sounds about right on a percentage basis.
Sony, Intel, M$, various banks and other large institutions are busy making us grab our ankles because of the rule. Don't forget the Golden Rule. There is nothing you or I can do about it. Sorry for the downer.
Since the scandal with the Rootkit/DRM uncovered by Russinovich I stopped buying ANYTHING from Sony. For me, they don't exist as a company....
sony owns columbia pictures which sent out a round of letters to ISP's who sent them to people who dl'ed a cam copy of District 9. Not to the person who created it and posted it. But to people who are
accessing free information. Sony blows.
The rich gets richer and pirates, the poor, well the poor just pirates.
I'm fine with pirating. =D
FUCK YOU !!!! Now the whole world can see what i have known since the 1970's.I am a musician and have numerous records out.my website for music is www.bigmeathammer.com and since the 1970's i have known bands who were screwed over by the folks who are trying to screw us over.
And see how they are still up to their knees in poop.
BOYCOTT ALL CORPORATE MUSIC !!!!
PLEASE STOP BUYING RIAA AND/OR LARGE LABEL STUFF
BRING DOWN THEIR INDUSTRY !!!!
If the artist still owns the rights to these songs he should release them under creative commons and give Sony the finger.