Comments on: Major bands sue Sony Music http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683 p2pnet.net - reader powered Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:47:13 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: xavier o trejo http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-954671 xavier o trejo Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:31:57 +0000 #comment-954671 I have not recieved any royalties for triple xxx polka I have not recieved any royalties for triple xxx polka

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-50837 Reader's Write Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:04:49 +0000 #comment-50837 Update on the case 01cv1216. Recently, on June 16, 2005, five years after the filing of the lawsuit, Sony has filed a thir party complaint against the phony music publisher, for falsely representing themselves as owners of our songs. Says Sony in the complaint: "Third Party Defendants are liable for all of Plaintiffs claims against Sony Discos. Consequently, should this Court find against Sony Discos on any or all of the claims asserted against it, Third Party Defendants should be held responsible for any amount of damages that may be imposed, including the statutory award of attorneys fees, if any." Meanig: The wait for payment of royalties and whatever damages we deserve will continue. The production of the infringing CDs started about 10 years ago and to date we have not seen a single cent of the over 5 million records sold. Thank you very much Sony, for being so considerate towards songwriters and their heirs. Rafael Venegas http://www.venegas.com Update on the case 01cv1216.

Recently, on June 16, 2005, five years after the filing of the lawsuit, Sony has filed a thir party complaint against the phony music publisher, for falsely representing themselves as owners of our songs.

Says Sony in the complaint:
“Third Party Defendants are liable for all of Plaintiffs claims against
Sony Discos. Consequently, should this Court find against Sony Discos on any or all of the claims asserted against it, Third Party Defendants should be held responsible for any amount of damages that may be imposed, including the statutory award of attorneys fees, if any.”

Meanig: The wait for payment of royalties and whatever damages we deserve will continue. The production of the infringing CDs started about 10 years ago and to date we have not seen a single cent of the over 5 million records sold. Thank you very much Sony, for being so considerate towards songwriters and their heirs.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.venegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-40028 Reader's Write Thu, 04 May 2006 17:06:29 +0000 #comment-40028 Does the DRM restriction in the Apple or Windows format come free to the Publisher? I'm wondering if the record label pays a fee to use the DRM, or if the vendor (ITUNES) is responsible for encoding/drming. In some of our stuff, we pay a liscensing fee on every unit we sell. Don't know, just curious. B Does the DRM restriction in the Apple or Windows format come free to the Publisher? I’m wondering if the record label pays a fee to use the DRM, or if the vendor (ITUNES) is responsible for encoding/drming. In some of our stuff, we pay a liscensing fee on every unit we sell.

Don’t know, just curious.

B

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-39864 Reader's Write Tue, 02 May 2006 00:52:09 +0000 #comment-39864 I can imagin the RIAA's reply: Well, they use the n=best 1's and 0's to make the digital bit's and that of course costs money. And every now and then a 2 slips in making a defective bit, and you can't sell a defective bit. I can imagin the RIAA’s reply:
Well, they use the n=best 1’s and 0’s to make the digital bit’s and that of course costs money. And every now and then a 2 slips in making a defective bit, and you can’t sell a defective bit.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-39617 Reader's Write Sat, 29 Apr 2006 22:28:50 +0000 #comment-39617 OK let me get this straight. Sony chases kids for this nonlaw called dwnloading files but when it comes to paying artists these files are called something else akin to a busted up cd. Oh my, are we not trying to screw the world. However the world is still asleep. If you see a boycotting of all this "music" coming from these creeps you will know the world awakes. Boycotting will hurt the RIAA mafia, chase away the artists supporting them and bring in new art. It is happening and the big corps and their idiot suits are going to lose big time. Boycott the lot of them now. OK let me get this straight. Sony chases kids for this nonlaw called dwnloading files but when it comes to paying artists these files are called something else akin to a busted up cd. Oh my, are we not trying to screw the world.

However the world is still asleep. If you see a boycotting of all this “music” coming from these creeps you will know the world awakes. Boycotting will hurt the RIAA mafia, chase away the artists supporting them and bring in new art. It is happening and the big corps and their idiot suits are going to lose big time.

Boycott the lot of them now.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-39589 Reader's Write Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:22:29 +0000 #comment-39589 Agh but I recall somewhere that you do need a record label in order to be on the iTunes website - I'm pretty sure Apple is refusing to deal with the artists one on one. Its the same with Napster2 - they only accept signed artists - its all part of the greater - plan to ensure artists are dependent on record lables ! Agh but I recall somewhere that you do need a record label in order to be on the iTunes website – I’m pretty sure Apple is refusing to deal with the artists one on one. Its the same with Napster2 – they only accept signed artists – its all part of the greater – plan to ensure artists are dependent on record lables !

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-39479 Reader's Write Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:15:45 +0000 #comment-39479 And they expected to get away with that on digital downloads? And they expected to get away with that on digital downloads?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-39456 Reader's Write Sat, 29 Apr 2006 04:19:30 +0000 #comment-39456 Sony has produced 16 or more CD with songs we own, starting on 1997. They staetred out without any licenses to use our songs. We asked proposed a sttlement with Sony, while warning them that a music publisher was falsely representing to own the songs. Sony went and made a deal with the phony owner of the songs. We sued Sony in 2001. Last week at a hearing Sony claimed it acted in good faith because it had obtained licenses from the phony owner (after selling records without any licenses, including a phony one for a while). That was good faith? Sony now wants to bring in the phony owner into the lawsuit so that (I guess) they are the ones made responsible for the making of unlicensed CD or at leas pay Sony whatever damages Sony has to pay us. Sony claims it acted in good faith because they were licensed by the (known to Sony) phony owner of our songs. We should have been as lucy as the Allman Brothers and Cheap Trick who are receiving 30 percent of what is due them, if that is the case. We got nothing, for 16 records. One of these records sold over five million copies. The case is 01cv1216 (Jaime Pieras, Judge) at Puerto Rico federal court. BTW, on another lawsuit we sued the phony owner music publisher and the judge did not find their unlawful action of licensing our songs as infringement and gave us no damages as a result. How do you like them apples! We should be so lucky. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com Sony is still making/selling the recordd Sony has produced 16 or more CD with songs we own, starting on 1997. They staetred out without any licenses to use our songs. We asked proposed a sttlement with Sony, while warning them that a music publisher was falsely representing to own the songs. Sony went and made a deal with the phony owner of the songs.

We sued Sony in 2001. Last week at a hearing Sony claimed it acted in good faith because it had obtained licenses from the phony owner (after selling records without any licenses, including a phony one for a while). That was good faith?

Sony now wants to bring in the phony owner into the lawsuit so that (I guess) they are the ones made responsible for the making of unlicensed CD or at leas pay Sony whatever damages Sony has to pay us. Sony claims it acted in good faith because they were licensed by the (known to Sony) phony owner of our songs.

We should have been as lucy as the Allman Brothers and Cheap Trick who are receiving 30 percent of what is due them, if that is the case. We got nothing, for 16 records. One of these records sold over five million copies. The case is 01cv1216 (Jaime Pieras, Judge) at Puerto Rico federal court.

BTW, on another lawsuit we sued the phony owner music publisher and the judge did not find their unlawful action of licensing our songs as infringement and gave us no damages as a result. How do you like them apples!

We should be so lucky.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Sony is still making/selling the recordd

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-39435 Reader's Write Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:14:12 +0000 #comment-39435 are NOT enough. ALL musicians should be in on this. Not until then will the RIAA go down in the flames it should be burning in, I.E.: HELL! That goes for the MPAA, also, for that matter. are NOT enough. ALL musicians should be in on this. Not until then will the RIAA go down in the flames it should be burning in, I.E.: HELL!

That goes for the MPAA, also, for that matter.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-39432 Reader's Write Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:07:21 +0000 #comment-39432 Sadly this isn't anything new. As the RIAA logo says, Screwing artists over for over 50 years. Sadly this isn’t anything new. As the RIAA logo says, Screwing artists over for over 50 years.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8683/comment-page-1#comment-39429 Reader's Write Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:53:47 +0000 #comment-39429 I see the end of the RIAA and the likes who profit off the hard work of creative people. Artist can at last do without them. The current model is Jurasic. Artist can now be their own recording studio and their own publishers thanks to the internet and software specifically created for artists. I don't think you'd need to have a contract with any of the big four thugs in order to be able to publish your own catalogue on iTunes. I see the end of the RIAA and the likes who profit off the hard work of creative people. Artist can at last do without them. The current model is Jurasic. Artist can now be their own recording studio and their own publishers thanks to the internet and software specifically created for artists. I don’t think you’d need to have a contract with any of the big four thugs in order to be able to publish your own catalogue on iTunes.

]]>