Rupert Murdoch, Pirate? Gave Away Jimi Hendrix CD Without Clearing The Rights

from the oops dept

Rupert Murdoch has been one of the more outspoken media industry folks about how evil "piracy" is in destroying his newspaper industry, usually pointing his anger towards Google, which almost certainly doesn't infringe on Murdoch's copyrights. So, it's interesting to find out that the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times in the UK has apparently been found guilty of pretty widespread copyright infringement, in distributing a Jimi Hendrix live CD to readers without first obtaining the requisite rights from the Hendrix estate (thanks to PeteProdge for sending this over). There's been an ongoing legal fight about this, and the Sunday Times has now lost. The article suggests that the paper may be facing damages of about $250,000, which seems pretty low, considering that we're used to seeing numbers like that thrown around for sharing just a few songs online, and in this case, over 1.3 million copies of the CD were given away.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 7:06am

    The media companies..

    define piracy as anyone else using their work. To them it is NOT piracy for them to copy or redistribute anyone else's work, regardless of copyright or IP rules. Why is anyone surprised they would do this? And of course they won't pay a realistic fine since they have the judges on their gift list. If an individual did what they are doing, they would be demanding multi-million dollar penalties and jail time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 7:08am

    PYRATE

    We hang stinkin pyrates!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    William Dodder, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 7:28am

    Did they buy the CD's

    Did they purchase the CD's? If so my feeling is that they can do pretty much anything they want with the physical medium.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 7:30am

    1.3 Million copies? The damages from that are at least 4 times the global economy!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 7:38am

    Seems fair...

    Hmmm, if each CD had, say, 10 tracks then that's 13 million instances of infringement (per the calculations made against P2P users), and at a minimum of $750 per instance, they "should" owe at least $9.75 billion... and as much as $1.95 trillion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 7:43am

    Well, you have to understand that Murdoch isn't like, rich like Jammie Thomas and can't afford billions of dollars in damages.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    AdamBv1 (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 7:43am

    This makes my head hurt.

    So wait, a person shares 2 dozen songs and gets whacked with $80 thousand in damages per song (yes later reduced to $2250) where the Sunday Times get off with just $0.19 PER CD?!? What kind of sense does this make?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Don (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 7:46am

    I think the Hendrix estate is smart in going for what they know they can safely get without going through the courts. But then again, only in the US are these cases absurdly in the millions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 7:47am

    Simple math, 250000 divided by 1.3 million gives a little less than 20 cents per violation. That's ludicrous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 7:57am

    How is it that if you download a dozen songs, you get charged 8 grand for each. Give away 1.3million CDs and you get charged 20 pence each?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    interval (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:01am

    Re:

    What a country, huh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:03am

    Re: Did they buy the CD's

    I am with William on this, if they distributed CD's they purchased, than where is the infringement? If they burned their own CD's, then it is a different story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:03am

    Re:

    The sad part is Jammie Thomas got smacked for unauthorized distribution for a few thousand times. The Sunday Times got smacked for 13 million unauthorized distributions and got smacked for less then $0.02 per song.

    The Sunday Times gets punished by paying 2 cents per song and we get the privilege of paying 99 cents per song.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Bas Grasmayer, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:03am

    eh

    Actually, that's a lot more reasonable.

    Let's hope lawyers of filesharers can make use of the verdict.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    robphelan (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: Did they buy the CD's

    yes, i agree. the article doesn't make it clear if the newspaper bought 1.3 million CDs and handed them out. If so, I don't see a problem with that & the estate should be happy someone bought so many CDs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:23am

    You're blatantly wrong, Mike. Was not

    "pretty widespread copyright infringement", but "did not obtain the proper copyright clearance for the giveaway".

    And an oblique damage:
    "In May 2008 the claimants chose to pursue a claim for damages relating to loss of earnings from the delay to the concert film project."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    PeteProdge (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:26am

    Re: Did they buy the CD's

    In that case, I'd like to sell some CD-Rs I've made of Beatles songs. You can distribute them how you like. I'm sure there won't be a problem at all with that...

    ...*cough*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:36am

    Anybody else will to pay about $0.20 for a CD? I'm all for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    duffmeister (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:47am

    Re: Seems fair...

    Doesn't commercial infringement multiply the penalty?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:53am

    Re:

    But the courts are the ones awarding absurd damages. It is exactly the courts and not arbitration or settling where they can reap the benefits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:57am

    Co$t of piracy

    Let's see, 1.3M copies @ $15USD (about 10 UK quid) ~= $150M USD. That seems about right... Rupert can afford that out of pocket change.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Pitabred (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 8:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Did they buy the CD's

    Do you honestly think that they'd have lost a court case if that were the situation?

    Seriously... I'm sure you probably work for the RIAA or something, but do try to not be so stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 9:27am

    Re: You're blatantly wrong, Mike. Was not

    So, you're saying that due to the giveaway in 2006 the claimants had to delay a film project in 2008 causing 150 thousand euros damage that the Sunday Times is liable for.

    Someone may need to explain that one to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Seems fair...

    IANAL but, in the US, it doesn't look like it. There's actual damages, or statutory damages, which are either $750-$30,000 each or $750-$150,000 each for "willful infringement." There's a line about criminal infringment, which this might fall under, but it doesn't look like that raises the damages any.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 10:10am

    Sunday Times didn't do their fact checking

    The Times did license the music....from a company (Charly) who didn't own the rights.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/10/sunday_times_hendrix_ruling/

    but of course this should never happen because it is incredibly simple to determine who owns the rights to piece of work which is why google should be responsible for stopping infringement, right Rupert?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    DH's Love Child (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 11:04am

    Re: This makes my head hurt.

    IANAL, but this may end up killing damage awards in the future as defendants can now point to this as a benchmark.

    And if that's the case, 'pre-settlement' (aka extortion) letters will be worthless as it would be considerably less expensive to go to court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 11:20am

    Re: Re:

    The point you're missing is that it's only U.S. courts who are awarding damages beyond the GNP of, say, Rhode Island, for minor infringement.

    Courts in Canada, the UK, Australia etc wouldn't dream of those kind of damages simply because the punishment doesn't fit the "crime". That and the plantiff hasn't a hope in hell of ever collecting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    ofb2632 (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 11:54am

    Re: This makes my head hurt.

    That is once again showing that Corporations get away with everything while sticking it to the private citizen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 12:14pm

    Re: You're blatantly wrong, Mike. Was not

    I don't understand either. How does that make it not "pretty widespread copyright infringement"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Aug 10th, 2010 @ 1:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Did they buy the CD's

    Even if they did buy them, it was 1.3 million lost sales. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 5:02pm

    Re: Sunday Times didn't do their fact checking

    The Times did license the music....from a company (Charly) who didn't own the rights.

    Then they didn't have a license. Open and shut case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 5:04pm

    Laws weren't made...

    for people like Rupert Murdoch. Laws are for the little people. But if we just have to, we'll give Rupert a little (very little) slap on the wrist in order to keep up appearances.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 9:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Did they buy the CD's

    I highly doubt they bout 1.3 million CD's. Wouldn't that bankrupt them or something? It seems like attaching a bought CD to each Sunday Times paper will substantially increase the cost of each paper or make them sell those papers at a loss.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 9:09pm

    Re: Sunday Times didn't do their fact checking

    "The Times did license the music....from a company (Charly) who didn't own the rights."

    Charly should be punished for pretending to have privileges that it does not have.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 11:51pm

    Re: Re: Sunday Times didn't do their fact checking

    Charly should be punished for pretending to have privileges that it does not have.

    I imagine they will be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Maigrir Vite, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 11:13am

    As the saying goes...

    The shoemaker's son always goes barefoot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    jimi, Aug 31st, 2010 @ 3:11pm

    http://jimi-hendrix-fanclub.blogspot.com/

    Hello!Very good blog!
    We can send people from oficial blog of Jimi Hendrix's Fanclub
    http://jimi-hendrix-fanclub.blogspot.com/
    to your blog?
    Leave your link on my blog

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    slaslaslash, Oct 5th, 2010 @ 4:32am

    Hellow!

    I love your site, It is a pleasure to visit.

    I have added your site to my site.

    Please link my site to your site.

    Thank you!

    http://musicspecialgolf.blogspot.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This