Comments:Payment pending; Canadian recording industry set for six billion penalties

Should the court use admitted unpaid amounts, or maximum statutory damages – as the record industry normally seeks against filesharers?Edit

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


So the basic claim of this article is that the recording industry are actually the ones stealing money? Oh my god who would have suspected such a thing? *pinky to corner of mouth* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.31.21.15 (talkcontribs)

- It's not stealing if the victim allows it, why do you think it takes a family and estate of a late musician to speak up? Because they no longer need the approval of the music labels for pushing new music to the mass market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.28.24 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  • The thing is, the Baker estate suit has drawn others and exposed this. The CRIA (the lobbyist) want to shove it back under the carpet. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)