There is a major difference between a practice agreed to by users ( the labels) and rights holders (the publishers and songwriters) that permits distribution under a contract to pay royalties to the person entitled, and users who of p2p systems simply decide that they can copy when it is obvious there is no consent.

It is no 20k (max) per infringement. If you look at the wording quoted by you above, you will see it says “an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the proceedings, with respect
to any one work or other subject-matter”. So if there are 100 copies made of the same sound recording, each is an infringement. But, the most that can be recovered for all such infringements in one proceeding is 20k.

There is a major difference between a practice agreed to by users ( the labels) and rights holders (the publishers and songwriters) that permits distribution under a contract to pay royalties to the person entitled, and users who simply decide that they can copy when it is obvious there is no consent.

In the meantime, we will continue the normal citizen practice of not caring so much about the letter of the copyright law, but rather give our custom to companies that do not chronically screw both artists and creative fans, and instead promote culture both in action (free sharing) and politics.

Oh, and in the meantime, we will also rewrite the letter of the copyright law to put the first kind behind bars rather than just suing them.

Cheers,
Rick Falkvinge,
The Pirate Party (lawmakers)

Well, excuse me, but how is that ANY different from P2P? What you’re saying is that it’s a system where you commit copyright infringement, and later decide on honoring copyright. To blatantly disregard copyright, when it’s deemed ‘inefficient’ is highly hypocritical and ethically suspect, especially when stronger penalties are being pushed for.

If I want to use a copyrighted work, I have to go get a license first. if I don’t, I get sued for infringement. Why is it one rule for us, and another for the industry?

Let’s boil it down to bare facts. This list is nothing more than a documented list of works used without licenses found. It is a list of copyright infringements. As the people behind the list are those that have pushed for the heavier punishments, ethically, they should face the strongest (after all, you’re the ones crying you need the penalties, but you’re also the heaviest infringers)

” Further, as Prof. Geist must know, Canadian courts cannot award statutory damages of $20,000 “per infringement” under the Copyright Act, as he claims.”
Except, I just looked at the law. Page 60 of the copyright law states
“38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright
owner may elect, at any time before final judgment
is rendered, to recover, instead of damages
and profits referred to in subsection 35(1) [actual damages],
an award of statutory damages for all infringements
involved in the proceedings, with respect
to any one work or other subject-matter, for
which any one infringer is liable individually,
or for which any two or more infringers are liable
jointly and severally, in a sum of not less
than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court
considers just.” That looks like $20,000 per infringement to me.
Also, 38(7) says
“(7) An election under subsection (1) [above] does
not affect any right that the copyright owner
may have to exemplary or punitive damages”

Basically, the law says that it CAN be $20,000 per infringement (contrary to your claim) and that more damages can be awarded as well.

At the end of the day, the law is the law. It trumps any agreement you’ve made, especially as it’s a law you’ve been lobbying for, and wanted to make stronger.

However, I think you’ve rather missed the point; the plaintiff asserts that the pending list system is being used in an unreasonable manner to defer or avoid payment of mechanical royalties.

You assert that “As soon as owners are identified, or claims resolved, the publisher gets paid and the claim is removed.” However, to my knowledge there are no searchable pending lists made available to artists, nor is this information publicly audited. It appears to be a case of the fox guarding the hen house.