# Bands Sue Sony Over Download Royalties **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 28, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661 "2006-04-28T21:40:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/41 "2006-04-30T14:36:56Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > You’re starting to give away the fact that you have given up control of your life to The Machine, and you’re afraid to face yourself and realize that you’ve given up control. Think of it this way…when was the last time you did something _for yourself_, only because _you wanted to_, and was not asked / required / demanded by family, work, or your social circle? Doesn’t it seem like you’ve been so busy, busy lately, that you’ve forgotten how to stop and smell the roses? (Sorry for getting off topic.) Dude, you are my new favorite poster. From calling the American Revolution a bunch of “teen angst”, to portraying anyone who has the maturity level of a gnat as “corporate shrew” or part of “The Machine” to making stealing sound like MLK’s march on Washington. You’re an almost perfect cliche, and I find myself breathlessly waiting for your next foray into adult conversations. You’ve made my day. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/42 "2006-04-30T14:47:16Z")
> [@eulalia](#): > > That’s not copyright, that’s trademark. This is a perfect illustration of the confusion that comes of referring to patent violation, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement under the umbrella term of “intellectual property”. You do not lose copyright by not defending it. Also, parody has been held to be fair use repeatedly by the courts. Ahh well a little ignorance on my part fought. Though I was aware of parodies being upheld I just assumed it was a case of they thought they were crossing the line to just copying the songs not just parodying them. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/43 "2006-04-30T16:25:37Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > People download the Allman Brothers and Cheap Trick? > > Someone should tell them that the reason their royalty checks are so low is because 30% of zero is, in fact, zero. Think for a second **AD** if these bands are sucessful, that will change the royality payout for all artists. That is a metric buttload of money. This is a very important case, even if the amount for the bands is question is small. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/44 "2006-04-30T16:47:23Z")
> [@eulalia](#): > > That’s not copyright, that’s trademark. This is a perfect illustration of the confusion that comes of referring to patent violation, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement under the umbrella term of “intellectual property”. You do not lose copyright by not defending it. Also, parody has been held to be fair use repeatedly by the courts. A more fundamental problem with the term is that it attempts to appropriate the mantle of a natural right (property) and apply it to institutions that are created and granted by government (patents, copyrights, and trademarks). ---
**Author:** ![Archergal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Archergal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archergal)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/45 "2006-04-30T17:50:09Z")
Back to the original issue: Sony apparently has maintained that when you buy a song from iTunes, you’re actually buying a _license_, not ownership of a product. So now claiming that they’re selling _product_ (thus obligating Sony to lower royalty fees) is a bit like wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Asshats. [Cite1](http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/28/sony_screwing_artist.html) [Cite 2](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_en_mu/music_downloads_royalties;_ylt=AowpM.my63biaeu.FU8A_rRxFb8C;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--) ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/46 "2006-04-30T17:51:14Z")
Ethics of downloading and intellectual property aside, the major labels (and, by extension, the RIAA) are getting slammed in just about every direction. Between Eliot Spitzer’s crusade against payola and computer technology, major labels are hurting. Thanks to the Internet, you don’t need to buy a physical album anymore. You can buy many of them through iTunes or other services then do with them what you wish, or you can download them for free. Some major artists are finding distribution channels outside the established label system, and they’re taking others with them. [Myspace.com](http://Myspace.com) is giving unsigned artists the ability to find an audience without the traditional costs of marketing. Essentially what’s happening is artists are standing up for themselves against a system that made a lot of money off them for years, and this is a fight they think they can win. And major labels and the RIAA are fast approaching obsolescence because they’re resisting change. Had they been more open to the Internet and less vested in preserving the status quo, they wouldn’t be having these problems. Robin ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/47 "2006-04-30T19:06:58Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > Essentially what’s happening is artists are standing up for themselves against a system that made a lot of money off them for years, and this is a fight they think they can win. And major labels and the RIAA are fast approaching obsolescence because they’re resisting change. If only that were true…it seems to me, most entertainers & artists (especially ones that are struggling, or even unpublished) are so addicted to the corporate teat, they automatically fall in behind the RIAA’s crusade against file-sharing, without thinking what the battle’s really about. (At least, that’s the way it was five years ago…I haven’t followed this story as closely as before.) There are exceptions, however. For instance, Janis Ian has an excellent article about the nature of the music industry here: [http://www.janisian.com/article-internet\_debacle.html](http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html) > [@Hamlet](#): > > Dude, you are my new favorite poster. From calling the American Revolution a bunch of “teen angst”, to portraying anyone who has the maturity level of a gnat as “corporate shrew” or part of “The Machine” to making stealing sound like MLK’s march on Washington. You’re an almost perfect cliche, and I find myself breathlessly waiting for your next foray into adult conversations. You’ve made my day. Thank you. You’re very welcome! That’s the first step, getting people’s attention. It doesn’t matter if they agree with you or not, as long as you leave an impression. Time will do the rest of the work. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/48 "2006-04-30T22:44:19Z")
> [@Archergal](#): > > Sony apparently has maintained that when you buy a song from iTunes, you’re actually buying a _license_, not ownership of a product. So now claiming that they’re selling _product_ (thus obligating Sony to lower royalty fees) is a bit like wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Methinks that the plaintiff’s lawyers are going to eat Sony alive on the obvious “clean hands” issue this raises. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/49 "2006-04-30T23:55:47Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > If only that were true…it seems to me, most entertainers & artists (especially ones that are struggling, or even unpublished) are so addicted to the corporate teat, they automatically fall in behind the RIAA’s crusade against file-sharing, without thinking what the battle’s really about. (At least, that’s the way it was five years ago…I haven’t followed this story as closely as before.) > > There are exceptions, however. For instance, Janis Ian has an excellent article about the nature of the music industry here: [http://www.janisian.com/article-internet\_debacle.html](http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html) Thank you for the article link. I read the one you linked to and the follow-up. I disagree with you that artists are hooked to the corporate teat, or at least most artists. It’s true that a blockbuster act like Britney Spears needs the support that a conglomerate can give her, but there are a lot of very talented people out there who have found that they can get what they need on their own or through a smaller label. They may not make the megabux that Brit gets, but then they get to do what they love and enjoy some success doing it. (And, as a bonus, they get to maintain their privacy, something many major acts don’t have.) Robin ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/50 "2006-04-30T23:58:21Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Methinks that the plaintiff’s lawyers are going to eat Sony alive on the obvious “clean hands” issue this raises. The what issue? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/51 "2006-05-01T13:27:07Z")
> [@Snooooopy](#): > > The what issue? “Clean hands” is the usual legal term for acting in good faith. Switching back and forth between mutually exclusive assertions of fact (depending on which is more advantageous at the moment) is a rather obvious act of bad faith. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661/52 "2006-05-01T15:07:34Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > Sony, the RIAA, et al, already presume that every consumer is a criminal. So why should we act any different? Because we’re better than they are? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bands-sue-sony-over-download-royalties/354661.md?page=2)