Is it a good thing to pirate Sony products?

[btroberts]

<deleted by moderator>

[chrisso]

Has a label stolen another's release, or have they struck a contractual agreement to re-release the track? It happens all the time.
There is a well established legal framework to protect against plagiarism, which is what you imply happened.

I don't agree with pirating anything.
I think it's a real disgrace to come on a music forum and call members to pirate music!!!

Boycott all you want. Boycotting and lobbying is the way to go if you are upset about something.
I suspect you don't have the facts in this case though.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by btroberts

As you know nothing about the case, what is your basis for suspecting I am wrong.

Err, because I understand the process of covering another artists song.

You don't actually have to get the permission of the copyright holder before recording a cover song, but you do have to (a) tell them that you plan to do it 30 days in advance, and (b) pay them royalties for each copy you distribute, whether you actually make any money from it or not.

Like I said, I have zero problem with a campaign against any entity you think is crooked, but pirating product is not the way to go.....
So you are upset about the treatment of DJ Rolando and want to right that wrong by persecuting other DJ's and musicians.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by btroberts

Nope, you can send a cheque direct to the artist.

Huh? Huh. In reality nine times out of ten that's impossible. You know it, I know it. tutt

I said don't give Sony any money. Just my view. I simply can't give them any money after what they did, that level of arrogance makes me puke.

Great. Don't consume any Sony product (aka a boycott). Don't pirate.

I'd want to see cast iron evidence Sony ripped off the artist in question with regards to laws that govern recording and releasing a cover a song. Until then you are peddling hearsay, not to mention slandering a business and inciting unlawful behaviour against them on a public website.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by btroberts

what is your basis for suspecting I am wrong. That you think Sony are good people?

Good people? No, not really. They're another big F-ing corporation.

But they are also very definitely NOT STUPID people. And to do what you have suggested would very definitely be a stupid move, as it would open them up to all manner of litigation, not to mention bad press.

I strongly suspect that you don't have all the facts here (and I'm no friend of Sony or most big corporations.)

I can see a couple of possible scenarios. One is that you're simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

UR tracks have occasionally been released on other labels (usually in what UR metaphorically describe as "reconnaissance" or "infiltration").
1998's "Interstellar Fugitives", the first full album credited to Underground Resistance, saw Mike Banks redefining the collective's sound as "High-Tech Funk", reflecting a shift in emphasis from hard, minimal club Techno to breakbeats, Electro and even occasionally Drum and Bass and down-tempo Hip-Hop. In 1999, newcomer DJ Rolando released UR's most commercially successful EP, "The Knights of The Jaguar".
In 2000, Kraftwerk released a remix single of their theme composed for the Expo 2000 in Hanover, featuring contributions from the UR artists. Their real names were not mentioned in the credits, but were hidden behind the numbers - 035, 038, 039 & 044, referring to the UR catalogue:
035 - DJ Rolando 038 - Mike Banks 039 - Andre Holland 044 - Gerald Mitchel
From 2002 onwards, Kraftwerk's live shows featured the group performing UR's remixes compiled in the song now called "Planet of Visions".

Originally Posted by chrisso

I'd want to see cast iron evidence Sony ripped off the artist in question with regards to laws that govern recording and releasing a cover a song. Until then you are peddling hearsay.

I'd say that's the case, yes.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by btroberts

Look it up yourself John its a fact.

If it's a fact, post the factual evidence here.

They couldn't give a toss about UR as UR don't have the kind of money needed to take Sony through the court for a decade, they knew what they doing and they did it.

I don't think you need to take a large corporation through the courts for a decade. There are long established rules governing recording cover songs. Writers and musicians bodies will take on any legitimate case (ASCAP, BMI, PRS, Musicians Union, music publishers). In the end Sony didn't need permission. They needed only to financially compensate the writer of the music. You have to prove they haven't done that.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by btroberts

Look it up yourself.

OK, so epic fail then.

Or if your scared of Sony, have a mod delete my post.

Dude, you are sounding desperate.
If you make huge claims, you have to back them up with strong (preferably irrefutable) evidence - simple as that.
No one is 'scared of Sony' on this board. You just have to post in a responsible manner. Calling for people to pirate music is not the right thing to do either.
It weakens your position by attempting to right an alleged crime with an actual crime.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by btroberts

You posted a wiki, I posted a wiki, you ignore my wiki. What constitutes proof in your mind?

I didn't post 'a wiki'. Wiki's are notoriously unreliable with the truth. I posted pure text that explained the international rules governing recording covers. I could have lifted the text from any one of millions of sources.

I generally don't regard much on internet forums, blogs and fansites as proof of anything. I do think RA are a reasonably reputable outfit (based on past experience), however you still haven't really proved Sony ripped off anyone.
I've been in the business 30 years, and most of what's been written about me has been wildly wrong, especially on internet sites.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by btroberts

You posted a wiki about underground resistance, where the issue wasn't mentioned, I posted one about rolando where it was..

Err, you are losing the plot.

In the end, your thread title is bad news as far as I'm concerned. The answer to your question is no.
With regards to rallying forum members to boycott (legally) Sony products...... have at it. That's your democratic right, although if you've misrepresented what actually happened regarding Rolando and Sony - look out.

[chrisso]

Please quote me using that wiki!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously dude, your adherence to actual facts is now proven to be very unreliable.

Originally Posted by btroberts

not sure whats difficult to grasp about that..

I grasp that some serious word eating is going to be in your future.

[adpz]

Wow - BT - I am not condoning anything that Sony did but your approach to this is nonsensical. I, for one, am not going to spend time re-hashing arguments but your approach breaks down as such:

1) an artist got screwed by Sony, so you go on a forum openly advocating the screwing of other artists as a way of getting back at "SONY".

2) You are upset because a UR chose, as their right, to not deal with a major label - that is, you support the right of your DJ to choose what he wanted to do with his work, but you go on a forum asking people to deny that right to all the other artists who don't want their music pirated. It's nonsensical.

All you jokers who want to change the industry need to understand that there will be no new way (without traditional labels) until you allow a viable market - an inviting market - to exist. When you run round ripping off whatever you want you are creating a situation where no businessman in their right mind wants to do business - and instead of the innovation and\or respect you crave, you get mega-corporations dominating the space because no one else can afford to do otherwise.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by btroberts

You can send sony artists a cheque. If you can't then fine, but it my opinion that no music fan should ever them money. I wasn't talking about the 'industry' I was talking about sony and what they did and their hypocrisy..And calling people jokers is just like calling people corporate butt-kissers. Not so much a point just something to say.

Music existed before these people and will exist after them.

Yeah, great,

But do understand what I wrote above?

You are not coming on here advocating writing checks directly to Sony artists are you? You are advocating the pirating of their work.

You are not a music fan if you pirate music, you are just a consumer.

[adpz]

No, I am very comfortable calling people jokers when their "solution" is another problem. What would you call them?

Piracy is for the lazy, the selfish, the cheap, and the dishonest. Shall I go on?

No thanks - I would not trust anybody like to solve any problem for me - and believe me, the world does not rely on them either . . .

[adpz]

Originally Posted by btroberts

Although they pretty much release nothing I'd like to listen to I take pride in not buying any of their goods and I'm happy that people pirate their products.

If you can buy your music please do. But please don't give these pieces of crap any money, pirate everything they do, or better still just boycott them. Music existed before these people and will do so after them.

You can change your aim freely as you please, of course. But it is hard to take you seriously when -`what - 20 posts ago you started with the above.

MOD: feel free to delete this . . .

[adpz]

[QUOTE=btroberts;5865684]

Originally Posted by adpz

You can change your aim freely as you please, of course. But it is hard to take you seriously when -`what - 20 posts ago you started with the above.[/QUOT


Perhaps in my desire to give head up on what pieces of crap sony are there could be some colateral damage, when this was pointed out to me, I took it on board and made a suggestion - This is in fact the case.
Take it how you like sunshine.

Err, yeah I will thanks. I take it that you an angry person that would rather bray about things then make sense or be consistent or logical. But that's just my opinion.

[btroberts]

As my original post explaining why I feel the way I do about sony and my belief that they are hypocrites has been removed by the mods I will now delete all of my posts in this thread as it is pointless. It seems there are several threads advocating piracy that remain, so I am not sure why mine isn't allowed as it was more to make a point than anything. But that is for the mod to decide and they don't like it which is fair enough. But my posts here are now pointless as there is no proper context. I will therefore delete them. As my suggestions obviously offended, apologies are extended.

Peace.

[btroberts]

Can I email anyone to ask specifically what was wrong with my post? It seems there are many posts advocating piracy in principle on here as part of the debate..It should have been obvious that I don't really condone piracy, but I obviously crossed the line, it would be of use to know which bit of the opening did so.

[btroberts]

oops. I genuinely didn't know that that was outlawed. Not sure how you can have a debate about it on here then. The piracy section is really an anti-piracy section then. Fair enough just not what I thought it was..Although again, I am sure there are several threads and posts saying piracy is great etc..ah well, I tried to PM the mod but it wouldn't let me..It will remain a mystery and I will refrain from using the piracy discussion section again.

[chrisso]

All I can imagine is there is a difference between advocating piracy as a general principal to live by, and actually asking forum members to pirate the product of a specific company.
If nothing else, I imagine it places a well known site like Gearslutz in legal jeopardy.
As far as a thread advocating piracy against a particular company 'fostered good conversation', again Psalad I couldn't disagree more.

[btroberts]

fair point. As I said, I'll just steer clear of this section now as much as I find the topic interesting. Safer If I just don't bother.

Take it easy.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by btroberts

As I said, I'll just steer clear of this section now as much as I find the topic interesting. Safer If I just don't bother.

You just don't incite specific illegal actions against other named individuals or businesses.
Is that too hard for you?
If so, I'd be surprised.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by btroberts

Look it up yourself John its a fact.

Well, I did look it up and according to WIKI they do in fact license their stuff to other record companies. Guess you either don't read too well or just didn't bother.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please quote it.

Or if your scared of Sony, have a mod delete my post.

Nobody's "scared of Sony" (you have no idea how amusing that idea is ) and nobody in this discussion had your post deleted as far as I know. I certainly didn't. Frankly I would rather have had it stay up, it's easier to refute your rather foolish position while it's still posted (no insult intended, just an observation, see the following).

The fact is, your post was deleted because it was an unabashed incitement to piracy, which is a HUGE violation of site rules . You're lucky you didn't get banned on the spot, denying Chrisso and myself the opportunity to tear your position to shreds.

But again, if you have factual evidence please post it. I'd love to see what you've got.

BTW, you could re-post your allegations as long as you leave out the advocating piracy bit.

Originally Posted by btroberts

You posted a wiki, I posted a wiki, you ignore my wiki. What constitutes proof in your mind?

I didn't see your wiki?

Where is it?

Oh, you deleted it.

HMMmm...... Not a very good debating tactic.

[John Eppstein]

I figured out what the wiki you referred to was and checked out one of the references. Here's an excerpt.

The Dance Division of Sony Records Germany first notified Underground Resistance of their plans for a January release date via a series of emails and faxes sent in December 1999. Sony wrote that it intended to release a "tone by tone" cover version of the underground hit smash.

Note the highlighted text. It was a COVER VERSION. It's perfectly legal to cover any song that has already been released commercially. You don't need specific permission. This is covered by a compulsory license, which is part of the copyright code.

A Sony executive said that he assumed Underground Resistance would not license the track, so instead, the decision was made to distribute the track without a license (steal it!).

This is sheer inflammatory rhetoric with no basis in legal fact. See above.

Sony acknowledged plans to eventually pay Rolando royalties,

As required by law. Sony is in compliance with the letter of the law. They don't owe UR anything because they released a cover, not the original. They only owe songwriter royalties to Rolando.

but the issue of intellectual property and copyright still remains unresolved and unanswered by Sony.

More inflammatory rhetoric. The fact is that there are no legally unresolved issues, Sony is acting within the letter of the law and has no obligation to answer to anyone.

Sony Germany actually released both remixes and a cover version of "Jaguar" in retail stores internationally in late December, containing no reference to the original recording. Sony Germany claimed to have pulled the record after a barrage of emails and phone calls protesting the release added to controversy and negative publicity for Sony.

Commentary: This was in fact a pretty sleazy move on Sony's part although not illegal. It certainly seems to have garnered them a boatload of bad publicity, especially in Europe. Sony seems to have developed a real talent for generating publicity debacles over the last 10 years or so - this little mess, the rootkit scandal, etc.


There is a huge amount of legal precedent for this going back at least to the late 1950s, when it was a common practice for record companies to try to cash in on the popularity of a hit record by releasing "sound-alike" cover versions. The most notorious examples were the covers of black artists done by squeaky clean white acts such as Pat Boone, who made a career off covering Little Richard, but it was far more widespread than that - there were numerous "Greatest Hits" compilation albums performed by "sound-alike" bands of studio musicians released under names that were often similar to but not the same as the original artists. For example an album of Beatles covers played by "The Beetles".


So Sony did nothing legally wrong. They're still a bunch of jerks.

BTW, my guess is that heads rolled at Sony over this and whoever the execs were who were responsible no longer have jobs.

[chrisso]

I agree with everything above.
Arguably not a great move by Sony, but totally legal and somewhat standard practice, anyone saying otherwise is talking BS.

Like John said, this was uber widespread in the 60's, especially in the UK.
Lot's of hit artists got their start making note for note covers of American releases, as the American records were hard to get hold of.

(By the way, in the RA story they do admit DJ Rolando received a major career boost from this whole episode).

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by btroberts

Perhaps in my desire to give head up on what pieces of crap sony are there could be some colateral damage, when this was pointed out to me, I took it on board and made a suggestion - This is in fact the case.
Take it how you like sunshine.

The fact that Sony did a somewhat sleazy but technically legal thing in releasing a sound-alike cover of one artist's song is no excuse for ripping off the work of hundreds of innocent artists that happen to be signed to the label who had nothing at all to do with the incident.

It's simply an excuse to steal.

If UR didn't want to profit from licensing the original to Sony that's their business. But after the song has been commercially released they have no legal right to prevent anyone else from covering it, even a sound alike cover. (All it requires is payment of the statutory fee to The Harry Fox Agency, which is the organization that administers songwriter royalties in the US.) Dumb move on their part IMHO - they could have funded a lot of their work with the income. But they valued their rhetoric over practicality so they cut themselves out of the equation.

From what I can see, everybody involved with this fiasco behaved like a bunch of idiots, except maybe Rolando.

[btroberts]

Hey,

Sorry it took a bit to get back. I said I wouldn't bother with this and deleted my posts as my original post was deleted without advising me on modifying it. I'll just stick to the issue of what I believe them to have done and not what response I personally think they deserve as I don't have the free speech to repeat that. I did contact UR as follows:

"Hello Guys,

I know this was a long time ago, but I personally will not give Sony
any money because of what I understand they did to you on that
occasion. I don't know if your allowed to talk about it but I have
been challenged as putting about hearsay when I gave peeps the heads
up on what kind of people Sony are.

If you are able to could you confirm for me what actually happened
back in the day.

As I understand it Sony decided to 'cover' your track without
permission knowing you would never license it to them and then also
never compensated you for this..

Are both of these factors correct?

Thanks a lot guys.

Ben

"
--------------------

Here is the response I got:

"Yes on both counts. The man who started this, Dirk Dreyer (or Drier,
can't remember the spelling) worked for Sony Germany and in the
aftermath he's gone on to obscurity somewhere out of the public eye.
The track was passed along to BMG just prior to the two companies
merging. BMG stopped after I made contact with their New York branch
who didn't believe the story themselves (at first). A Mr. Williams
there took care of getting the record out of the public eye.

I've stated in the past, I had no problem with Sony in general, and if
they were that concerned with techno and promoting it, then there were
plenty of good artists they could've worked with, developed, and it
would've been appreciated. If Detroit had that kind of major support
it would've meant a lot. But instead, they rip off the hard work of
some guys that weren't interested in working with them. So it wasn't a
case, as Dreyer has said in interviews, of wanting to bring attention
to Detroit music, but of them cashing in on someone elses work. At
least that was MY take on it"

Peace,

Cornelius "Unknown Writer" Harris
UR
-----------------

I told Cornelius I would link him to this chat, weather he needs to say anything or not I don' know. I only speak for myself here.

John> You say that UR valued their 'rhetoric' over practicality. Unless I get you wrong you are using the word rhetoric in a derogatory sense. Within the context you use the word I don't see why a group of people trying to defend their artistic integrity and protect their music as part of an organic culture they where involved in the development of, as 'rhetoric'. Especially when this culture is consciously antithetical to major labels - Although cornelius himself has said they would have considered working together with mutual respect.

Nor do I see any idiotic behaviour from anyone but the people who were trying to profit from the work of others entirely against their wishes. Well, idiotic isn't the right word as they knew what they were doing - unethical is the right word.

It was mentioned that in the 60's these kinds of companies basically used to legally rip over peoples work off all the time and this is still a practice - -How decent of them.

John, you said elsewhere that the real issue with piracy that its immoral, well the real issue with the kind of practices above are that imo they are immoral. I will shed no tears for people who practice the above having financial difficulties however they arise. and with regards to tone by tone covers, well if your accurate about the law (ill take your word on it) then the law in this case is an ass as there is nothing to stop stinking rich companies going round taking other peoples work as a business practice in some cases never even letting the original artist have a chance to get anywhere. For me thats totally wrong.

Thanks.

[rack gear]

I'm unclear on what the issue is? Is it that some rouge A&G guy for Sony in Germany had a cover made (or sound-alike) of some song, by some techno artist, who didn't want to sign with Sony? Is that the allegation?

I'm confooosed...

In the States copyright infringement is a serious issue at ANY level. So much so that No One wants any of the headaches associated with it. In my 25 years there have been a handful of high profile cases, George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord", The Verve's "Bitter Sweet Symphony", Dire Straits "Money For Nothing" (Sting stole his own melody line on the intro from "Don't Stand So Close To Me), etc... Even the most recent Men At Work thing on "Land Down Under".

Every single case I can think of is a blunder by an musician, not a act of aggression by a label.

But - I'd love to hear the back story on this situation...

[John Eppstein]

First, did you happen to ask Cornelius his views on record piracy? I seriously doubt that he would condone it under any circumstances.

Second, from what he said it would appear that I was correct - it was a "bright idea" of this Mr. Dirk Dreyer and not anything that Sony as a corporation planned and was not indicative of company policy. It also seems that Dreyer lost his job over it, which is what usually happens when somebody working for one of the majors screws up big time. My guess is that probably Dreyer was a junior A&R guy who wanted to have a big hit so he could look good and advance in the company, or at least keep his job, as guys in that position who don't come up with anything usually last about 6 months. So he came up with the brilliant idea of having some very competent but uninspired act that he knew cover a song by an obscure indie that was beginning to break big - after all it was an old record biz tactic that had worked in the past (for both large and small labels) and, as I've pointed out, is not illegal, just sleazy. In fact, it happens all the time and most of the time you don't even hear about it. Often the songwriter is just happy to get the extra royalties.

This time, however, it blew up in his face. Not because there was anything legally wrong with it but because he totally underestimated the loyalty of the fans in that genre and scene to the original underground artists.

FYI, I don't mean anything particularly derogatory by the word "rhetoric"; if I really wanted to be derogatory I'd probably say "dogma".

We all engage in a certain amount of rhetoric is this subforum - it goes with the territory.

[btroberts]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

First, did you happen to ask Cornelius his views on record piracy? I seriously doubt that he would condone it under any circumstances.

Second, from what he said it would appear that I was correct - it was a "bright idea" of this Mr. Dirk Dreyer and not anything that Sony as a corporation planned and was not indicative of company policy. It also seems that Dreyer lost his job over it, which is what usually happens when somebody working for one of the majors screws up big time. My guess is that probably Dreyer was a junior A&R guy who wanted to have a big hit so he could look good and advance in the company, or at least keep his job, as guys in that position who don't come up with anything usually last about 6 months. So he came up with the brilliant idea of having some very competent but uninspired act that he knew cover a song by an obscure indie that was beginning to break big - after all it was an old record biz tactic that had worked in the past (for both large and small labels) and, as I've pointed out, is not illegal, just sleazy. In fact, it happens all the time and most of the time you don't even hear about it. Often the songwriter is just happy to get the extra royalties.

This time, however, it blew up in his face. Not because there was anything legally wrong with it but because he totally underestimated the loyalty of the fans in that genre and scene to the original underground artists.

What cornelius thinks on that issue is not my concern tbh, I spoke to UR simply to clarify the facts that certain people were very fast to dismiss as being accurate (the facts being: They released a rippoff in the face of the artists opposition 2. They paid no financial compensation across for sales made). What they think about file-sharing in general or the correct response to rich majors trying to shaft people, and indeed this particular incident is up to them, my opinion is my own - and on the second point I am not allowed to reiterate it here as you know, so I can't discuss that further with you.

I can't say I agree that they found an 'uninspired' act, just some people equally unethical and willing to do the grubby work that no self-respecting artists within the electronic music scene would undertake.

If this happens all the time, I suppose the songwriter would take the cash, if as you say there is nothing they can do it about it anyway. Again if this goes on all the time, then the law is an ass and needs to be changed, the writer and/or rights-holders position should be the deciding factor when it comes to commercial licensing and I have no sympathy for the increasing woes of those who think it acceptable to ride roughshod over people in this way and indeed have made a practice out of it.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by btroberts

If this happens all the time, I suppose the songwriter would take the cash, if as you say there is nothing they can do it about it anyway. Again if this goes on all the time, then the law is an ass and needs to be changed, the writer and/or rights-holders position should be the deciding factor when it comes to commercial licensing and I have no sympathy for the increasing woes of those who think it acceptable to ride roughshod over people in this way and indeed have made a practice out of it.

Well most of the piracy lobby want freedom to actually sample the original recording without compensating the artist by the way, which is way worse than doing your own cover. If you think laws covering cover versions need changing, you are going to upset the apple cart for millions of musicians who record cover versions routinely without having to chase down all the original creatives involved. There is nothing 'legally ripping off' about it. In the 60's it did bring the wider public's attention to obscure artists that were hard to hear otherwise at the time.
I'm still not convinced no money was ever paid. 'Cornelius' says "yes" in answer to your question, but adds no money went to them. UR weren't due any money.