Head Of Spanish Music Collection Society Facing Corruption Charges

from the well-look-at-that dept

Spain is one of a few countries that actually has had pretty sane copyright laws lately. Unlike other places, it has generally felt that private, non-commercial copying of content is legal, and has also rejected the idea of placing liability on third parties. And, despite claims to the contrary from the legacy entertainment industry, there's still great content coming out of Spain (I keep getting great, new music from Spanish bands which, yes, I do pay for). However, it's been interesting to watch the big Spanish music collection agency SGAE, flail around in this environment. In its effort to go after some file sharing sites, it actually pretended two of its employees worked for the courts, and "raided" the homes of people who worked on file sharing programs. As you can imagine, that's a big no-no, and SGAE was fined. It also tried to take legal action against a competing upstart group, that was pushing for more open/copyleft/Creative Commons licensing of music.

And now comes the news that the head of SGAE, Teddy Bautista, is being sought on corruption charges (Google translation from the original Spanish), as a part of a massive investigation into corruption (original Spanish) in the very setup of SGAE.

Maybe, instead of trying to use questionable legal means to attack everyone else, SGAE should have been focusing on getting its own house in order.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    jimbo, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 6:25pm

    head of a music industry body accused of corruption? naw. cant be right,surely!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 6:34pm

    "Spain is one of a few countries that actually has had pretty sane copyright laws lately."


    Incidentally, they have seen the financial success of their local music and movies tank at a rate far in excess of any other developed nation, while piracy has soared unchecked.

    Mike Masnick in favor of policies that promote piracy at the detriment of IP business?

    I'm shocked.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      harbingerofdoom (profile), Jul 1st, 2011 @ 6:37pm

      Re:

      [citation needed]

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 7:06pm

        Re: Re:

         

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

        •  
          icon
          cc (profile), Jul 1st, 2011 @ 7:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah, citations are for losers. And since I'm one of those losers, I'll still ask you for citations when you pull "facts" out of your asses.

          And if you link me to a report published by the SGAE or their close circle of friends, I may link you back to this article that shows exactly how corrupt and full of shit they are and ask for a more impartial source.

          Citations are the foundation of academia, believe it or not. No citations in your work will cost you your reputation, bad citations will probably cost you your job. I only wish lawyers had to play by those rules.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            btr1701, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 11:28pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > I only wish lawyers had to play by those rules.

            They do. Go into court without citations to back up your position and it won't be pretty.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              cc (profile), Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 9:38am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I'm sure they do, but what about fake facts, as in bad citations, which is probably relevant to the discussion linked to by the coward?

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 2:11pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I'm sure they do, but what about fake facts, as in bad citations, which is probably relevant to the discussion linked to by the coward?

                That's their specialty!

                 

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

        •  
          icon
          DannyB (profile), Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 9:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Proof is required of the one making the assertion, not by someone refuting it.

          A: aliens live on one of Jupiter's moons.
          B: [citation needed]
          A: the fact that you can't disprove it, proves it.

          It is not up to B to disprove it. It is up to A to prove it. Especially since B would be trying to prove a negative.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 12:01am

        Re: Re:

        [citation needed]? As if you care about any reference contrary to your pro-piracy belief system?

        Spain in particular came under fire for a "culture of state-tolerated apathy towards illegal file-sharing".

        "Spain has the worst piracy problem of any major market in Europe. In 2009, no new Spanish artists featured in the top 50 album charts, compared to 10 in 2003," said Kennedy. "It's getting to the stage where it is nearly irreversible."

        The IFPI said investment was drying up in new artists in Spain, and that sales of Spanish artists' albums fell by two-thirds over the last five years.

        "Spain runs the risk of turning into a cultural desert," [Wells] said. "I think it's a real shame that people in authority don't see the damage being done."


        The decline of music/movie production in Spain concurrent with disproportionately elevated piracy is pretty well established.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/21/music-industry-piracy-hits-sales

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Paul`, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 12:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oh, because the CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry doesn't have any reason to fudge numbers and bullshit like the rest of them. Real credible, champ.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Jeremy2020 (profile), Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 2:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          'Albums", what about live shows? Merchandise?

          This 'investment', I assume only count major labels...?

           

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

          •  
            icon
            cc (profile), Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 9:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "This 'investment', I assume only count major labels...?"

            Precisely. If the IFPI isn't blatantly lying, and since they are a lobbying organisation they probably are, that's the only data they would have to share.

            Notice, however, that Spain is possibly the top contributor of CC-licensed music to sites like Jamendo (we're talking thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Spanish bands).

            It's not that there's no music coming out of Spain, it's just that a lot of Spanish bands have decided to drop the copyright industry and adapt. Of course they wouldn't go on the IFPI's Top50, but if they can still reach an audience outside the IFPI's reach, why shouldn't they?

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 10:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "a lot of Spanish bands have decided to drop the copyright industry and adapt"

              Are they making any money? More than they do in a nation with less piracy?

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Jay (profile), Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 11:17am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                *facepalm*

                The copyright industry are the ones that make legislation to force everyone into a collection agency, make money through PROs, and the artist has no right to their own choice, and the most important thing out of his topic is "a nation with less piracy?"

                Seriously?

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                cc (profile), Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 12:47pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Are they making any money?"

                I don't know, but if they aren't then why do they still do it in such numbers and why are they not backing the IFPI's lobby for more copyright laws?

                "More than they do in a nation with less piracy?"

                Such a comparison is impossible to make without making a lot of vacuous guesses in the process. I'll just leave it to the lobbyists.

                Also, note that your question is completely irrelevant. The purpose of copyright is to incenivise publication for the public's benefit. Copyright is NOT a race about which country can make special laws to give away more money and privileges!

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 2:41pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The purpose of copyright is to provide creators with a means for direct monetary compensation and creative control for their own works.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    The eejit (profile), Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 3:48pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    direct monetary compensation

                    [Mythbusters]Well, THERE'S your problem![/Mythbusters]

                    No-one deserves to get paid. You have to work at it.

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      cc (profile), Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 3:52pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I'm sure he already knows that's not true, in Spain or any other part of the world. Next he'll be saying copyright holders are in the public sector.

                       

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 7:28pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Copyright guarantees the exclusive right to be paid for distribution of the work in question to the creator.

                      Only the copyright holder has the right to choose whether they should be paid or not by those who choose to appropriate their works.

                      If no one wants it, no one gets paid. If everyone wants it, it's up to the creator how much to charge.

                      Not complex.

                       

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

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 8:27pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Copyright guarantees the exclusive right to be paid for distribution of the work in question to the creator.

                        Copyright guarantees the exclusive legal right to be paid for distribution of the work in question to the creator.

                        There, fixed for you. And it applies whether you deserve it or not. "Deserve" has nothing to do with it.

                         

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

                      •  
                        icon
                        cc (profile), Jul 3rd, 2011 @ 6:40am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        That's not the purpose of copyright, it's a statement of how it tries to achieve its purpose. Copyright's purpose is to incentivise artistic publication for the benefit of the public. If at any point copyright expansion starts encroaching the rights of private individuals, then copyright needs to give. End of story.

                        What terrifies you and the IFPI is that Spain's approach to non-commercial copying may actually be working. If Spanish artists can create and continue to embrace new business models, while they still make money without slaving away under greedy middlemen, the idea will eventually catch on!

                        Just imagine a world where copyright lawyers and lobbyists are no longer needed and lose their jobs! Isn't it neat? ;P

                         

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Nicedoggy, Jul 3rd, 2011 @ 12:40am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Depends on the country.

                    U.S.:
                    Quote:
                    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" was the first stated purpose of U.S. copyright. The U.S. Constitution ratified in 1788 proposed to do that "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The first U.S. copyright law, passed in 1790, protected books, maps, and charts if they were created by residents or citizens of the United States. The term of their exclusive right was a mere 14 years, with the right of renewal for 14 more.

                    Source: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA158872.html

                    Quote:
                    Understanding the root cause and the dangers of this shift requires exposing the most fundamental and most common misconception concerning the underlying purpose of the monopoly granted by our copyright law. The primary purpose of copyright is not, as many people believe, to protect authors against those who would steal the fruits of their labor. However, this misconception, repeated so often that it has become accepted among the public as true, poses serious dangers to the core purpose that copyright law is designed to serve.

                    Source:http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php
                    http://www.educause.edu/Resources/ ThePurposeofCopyright/161881

                    For the rest of the world the justification for copyright is:

                    Quote:
                    The purpose of copyright and related rights is twofold: to encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public.

                    Source: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/

                    Some people just like to divorce the second part of the purpose of international copyright apparently, most importantly it is not about control in the hands of the author but a means to get something back to live a dignified existence it doesn't say to protect profits, it doesn't say to protect revenues, it doesn't say absolute control of the works.

                    Geolocations restrictions restrict widespread use of the works and serve only to inflate the prices those not making it affordable for many.

                     

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

        •  
          identicon
          Adam, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 7:22am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Spain has the worst piracy problem of any major market in Europe. In 2009, no new Spanish artists featured in the top 50 album charts, compared to 10 in 2003," said Kennedy. "It's getting to the stage where it is nearly irreversible."


          Do remember there's plenty of bands out there that sell crap music and never make it into the charts either. Seems like a poor correlation at best.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          cc (profile), Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 9:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Did the IFPI get those numbers from the SGAE? You know, the organization being investigated for corruption? Bad citation.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Nicedoggy, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 11:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yep like you will never accept Nollywood and Bollywood as counter argument to that position where those countries rampant piracy and still have a flourishing media industry for some reason.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Jul 4th, 2011 @ 5:57am

          Re: Re: Re:

          " In 2009, no new Spanish artists featured in the top 50 album charts, compared to 10 in 2003,"

          What in blind f*ck does that prove about "piracy"? There's still a top 50, right? There's still records being sold, right? Why does the fact that there's far less homegrown bands in the chart mean it's down to piracy? As Mike said, there's a lot of good music coming out of Spain, it's apparently just not being sold as well as American/British/Latin American imports. Why do you think that's down to piracy rather than the hundreds of other possible factors?

          Either way, do you have any citations that contain actual figures, rather than the assertions of a journalist? Also, what about other types of sales - the article only refers to album sales - what about singles, concert sales, etc? We all know that album sales are dropping, but that sure as hell isn't just down to "piracy" - unbundling's the major reason for that.

          For the record, the article you cite is headed by a mention of Spotify, one of the few subscription services actually available in Spain, and to which I subscribe in Spain. It's probably the least well served major market in Western Europe, with limited overpriced digital sales, an atrocious postal service that's unreliable for physical online purchases and very few retailers that sell physical CDs (mostly supermarkets and department stores - I don't know where my nearest specialist store is, and my nearest physical outlet is about 20 miles away - i.e. not worth the effort).

          In the Spotify app, you can list the top 50 albums by country. The top 6 albums at the time of writing are by Shakira, Don Omar, Bruno Mars, Pitbull, Maldita Nerea and Rihanna. That is, half the top 6 albums are in English and there's only one homegrown Spanish artist (Maldita Nerea). Given that this is based on legal listening by subscribed users, explain again how piracy is the cause of the industry's woes?

           

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

    •  
      icon
      cc (profile), Jul 1st, 2011 @ 6:56pm

      Re:

      What harbinger said.

      Plus, if it's legal in Spain, you don't get to call it 'piracy'.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        MrWilson, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 7:05pm

        Re: Re:

        Plus, if it's legal in Spain, you don't get to call it 'piracy'.

        The problem with this perfectly logical assertion is that the typical copyright maximalist approach is to escalate rather than back down, so instead of calling it 'piracy' they'll just start using another catchphrase like 'music terrorism.'

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 7:03pm

      Re:

      "Mike Masnick in favor of policies that promote piracy at the detriment of IP business?"

      I'm in favor of abolishing IP businesses. You have a problem with that?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Jul 1st, 2011 @ 11:50pm

      Re:

      OH hey, Buck. Noice misrepresentations you have there.

      The problem with Spain is not that it favours piracy - it's that ti favours the consumer.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      bigpicture, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 9:29am

      Re: RIAA

      Work for the RIAA? Shill? They are a very sane bunch. $100K a song anyone?

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 7:02pm

    It's amazing how IP maximists always claim the moral high ground yet here they are constantly getting caught acting corrupt.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 7:02pm

    Backwards

    In its effort to go after some file sharing sites, it actually pretended two of its employees worked for the courts, and "raided" the homes of people who worked on file sharing programs.

    Usually, record industry groups think the government works for them, not the other way around.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      That Anonymous Coward, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 9:17pm

      Re: Backwards

      Maybe they took a page from the BREIN playbook.
      Its not like BREIN has done their own "investigations" then demanded the police act, only for the courts to discover that BREIN was playing very loose with the real facts. Or BREIN being handed evidence from ongoing cases, or admitting they have taken a laptop from someone merely accused of a crime. Or showing up and making demands to have servers handed to them with no court backing....

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 7:10pm

    Abolish Copyright

    Period.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    The Scrote from Lanzarote, Jul 1st, 2011 @ 9:27pm

    Kinda fitting name too, innit?

    You'll never forget an agency with an acronym (SGAE) which you pronounce in your head as "ASS-GAY"

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    European, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 5:01am

    German IFPI boss

    Apparently in Germany a similar thing is going on with the former German IFPI boss being under investigation by the German tax authorities.
    here the link to the original article: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35034/1.html

    Sorry guys its in German

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Androgynous Cowherd, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 12:47pm

    Fined??? WTF???

    In its effort to go after some file sharing sites, it actually pretended two of its employees worked for the courts, and "raided" the homes of people who worked on file sharing programs. As you can imagine, that's a big no-no, and SGAE was fined.


    What?

    Fined?

    That's it?

    From the sounds of it, some SGAE folk are guilty of, at minimum, break and enter here, and if they "seized" any "evidence" in that so-called "raid", burglary. Because that's what it is if you're not actually law enforcement acting on a valid warrant and you bust in some guy's door and remove computers from his home.

    So ...

    Fines?!

    Someone should have been facing jail time over that.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 3:01pm

    Ahh yes, because SGAE people may have been working on a scam, it makes all the file sharing and such acceptable.

    What a joke.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 3:53pm

      Re:

      No, but it puts a huge dent in the so-called transparency at woik in the "collecting of monies owed for performances, in public, of copyrighted music".

      Note that Mike at no point in this article said what you're claiming. Impersonating Law Enforcement is a BAAAAAD idea, akin to trying to smoke whilst covered in napalm.

      These shitheels should have been behind bars for 5 years - but apparently predenting to be coppers gets less of a rap than smoking the ganja. Nice justice.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 2nd, 2011 @ 5:52pm

        Re: Re:

        These shitheels should have been behind bars for 5 years - but apparently predenting to be coppers gets less of a rap than smoking the ganja. Nice justice.

        Laws are for the little people.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Nicedoggy, Jul 3rd, 2011 @ 1:24am

    About ignoring copyrights and other IP laws here is one good quote.
    Quote:
    “The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.”

    Source: Ayn Rand

    Of course she was talking about something else but still, if someone wants to really do something, then is not who is going to let him but who is going to stop him, and when it comes to copyright I'm afraid the answer is no one, because no one has that kind of power anywhere in the world.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2011 @ 2:30pm

      Re:

      “The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.” Source: Ayn Rand

      Notice the "me" part of that quote. For other people, her attitude was more along the lines of “The question isn't who is going to stop you; it's who is going to let you.”

      Ayn Rand is a good example of the hypocrisy of the IP world. She liked to talk the talk about individual freedoms, but when it came to benefiting herself she was a BIG believer in government granted IP monopolies.

       

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


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