From the U.K. Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/20/music_biz_red_cross/

Australian anti-piracy operatives are seeking a freeze on funds donated to the International Red Cross by a Vanuatu-based trust fund run by Sharman Networks - maker of Kazaa P2P software.

The recording industry is asking the Red Cross to voluntarily freeze the cash pending the outcome of an Australian court case brought against Sharman by several record companies. The suit alleges that Sharman "has directly and indirectly infringed on the recording companies' copyrights, violated Australian fair trade laws and conspired to harm the music industry", according to a Wired report.

Michael Speck of Australia’s Music Industry Piracy Investigations said: "We're preparing our approach to the International Red Cross. I believe this whole thing will come as a complete surprise to them, and we’re only approaching them to stop them disposing of any funds."

Speck expressed his hope that the Red Cross would co-operate, adding: "It would be incredibly disappointing if we had to sue them."

Sharman has responded by declaring that the music biz's approach is "quite simply staggering", as the company's lawyer Mary Still put it.

The ongoing Sharman v Recording Industry case has been adjourned until next March, when both sides can make final oral submissions. The outcome depends on the judge's opinion of the music industry's assertion that the "primary activity of Kazaa users is to infringe copyright" - something that Sharman allegedly does nothing to prevent.

DAMN
How the hell can u defent such an action?

"It would be incredibly disappointing if we had to sue them."

That's it, sue the red cross f****** moron....

Well, I think the Record Industry has good reason to gripe about this one. I mean, if Sharman donates money to the Red Cross, then that means less money for the record industry, to the point, I might add, that they would actually consider suing the Red Cross to get that money (their money) back if Sharman should lose their case.

This is the height to which they will take their greed to..

Sue the Red Cross, has your greed blinded you out of your mind? I swear these money grubbing schemes are ridiculous. Jackasses everyone of them. Plus, theres no way they can prove that that money was gotten from his p2p company. Capitalism at its finest point my friends.

Even the RIAA would hesitate before suing the Red Cross - that would be a headline-grabber. They wouldn't just make an empty threat either - if the RC calls their bluff, they just might do it.

On the other hand, the RC is likely to panic. They need donations. If they are sued about recieving money, this would not only cost them the donation and the substantial legal costs but damage their reputation and donations.

So, neither side is acting rationally - a completly unpredictable situation.

Funny that it takes a UK paper to print a story about this threat...

Bastards.

I have never hated the RIAA more then right now. As a millitary member I have seen first hand all the good the red cross has done for all people, not just millitary. I want to download Kazaa right now and see if I can give out all my music after hearing this. Bastards. I agree telsien.

"if Sharman donates money to the Red Cross, then that means less money for the record industry"

Do they get the money they spent on electricity, too? How about rent? Internet access? Lunch money? Are they going to sue the Happy Kangaroo Bar and Grill down the street for taking Sharman's money? Do they have a Pepsi machine or does theirs advertise Coke?

And where did all of Sharman's money come from? The only thing they sell is advertising and software.

If the RIAA can go after money donated to the Red Cross by a party yet to be found guilty of any crime, then each and every company which advertises on Kazaa now, in the past, and in the future (which includes a number of RIAA artists, some of which have actually sold product through Kazaa) are obviously guilty of complicity in Kazaa's actions and are therefore subject to having their assets frozen as well.

Of course, this all hinges on the ability of the record labels to EVER actually prove ANYTHING in court.

This happened in Australia, which is why the US press probably hasn't spotted it. But the UK press has certainly not bought into fabricated version of the actual war (aka Iraq) like the US press has, either.

They wonder why we have.

Checking the facts would be a good place to start before embarking on another anti-industry rant.

The trust that controls Sharman (according to Sharman itself) has a single beneficiary - the International Red Cross. Sharman claims that all the money it makes goes into the trust. Try to figure that one out.

gdZiemann I think there actually are laws on the book..not sure about Aussie land, but if a company is being sued, then those assets are suppose to be frozen, until it is all sorted out as to who is getting what..or how much...must be that way over there as well, or the greedy "so and so" record industry wouldn't be trying for it. What a sad lot they are!

Why, those dirty, evil.....

How DARE they! The greed of the recording industry is unfathomable. They will stop at nothing to destroy citizens' rights and cripple innovation. They will even go so far as to stop donations to the Red Cross. Despicable and indefensible actions.

:-:~ Phantom

"Checking the facts would be a good place to start before embarking on another anti-industry rant."

Checking the facts is why I started bitching about the industry in the first place, primarily because they seem to have an immense aversion to the truth, possibly to the degree of an adverse allergic reaction.

So excuse us if we have made a "rush to judgement" on the poor, starving studios, who are usually so trustworthy and honest.

The RIAA could very well have the legal right to freeze Red Cross funds. I do not know, I am not a lawyer and not familiar with this area. But... the red cross... even the RIAA wouldn't stoop so low. Well, they would, but reluctantly. Charities are supposed to be lawyer-resistant, if only because of the potential damage to reputation.

I would guess the RIAA is threatening the Red Cross not to recover their money, but as a warning to discourage other companies from doing business with p2p companies: "If you take money from these evil thieves, we will take it from you. Not even the Red Cross is safe." Thus, they hope that future p2p companies will have a harder time paying staff, ISPs, equipment suppliers, etc.

There was an incident some months ago here - some big-brand companies started advertising on p2p program banners. Banks, major shops. I think the BPI sent warnings to them. Every advertising company claimed ignorance, and that they were contracting out advertising to independant companies. Most people noticed that p2p advertising targets the lucrative teenager money-to-burn market segment through, so p2p advertising is here to stay for now.

While I have seen a lot of good come from the Red Cross, my personal experiences with it were not that good. During a family emergency, while I was overseas it allowed the battalion commander to override the notification that was to be sent to me till the feild excerise was over. That was a matter of two weeks. For that I have never forgiven the Red Cross and will never donate a dime to them. It is also the main reason I left the miltary instead of making a career there. Each to his own.

This is yet another demonstration of greed gone crazy. I do hope it makes it to the main stream US news and if it doesn't you will then know who in reality controls the media. These people have demonstrated no remorse in their actions and deserve none in return.

Red Cross = military charity. I do not support anything to do with the military. At least not these days when military service is voluntary. If you get your legs blown off serves you right for signing up!

Of course conscripts is another matter.

Should I have added to that I was drafted?

next they'll go after the girlscouts for campfire songs. or have they done that already

I hope they sue the hell out of the Red Cross! because it will expose thier greedy asses to even more people who are still sitting on the fence with the music industry

Now they're treating monies from P2P people as dirty money, something like drug money. But the difference is that P2P and Bit torrent the tools) is not illegal in the eyes of the law. And the court should go by that.

compmore: yes, they have. I don't know the date of this article, but I saved the text:

THE BIRDS MAY SING, BUT CAMPERS CAN'T UNLESS THEY PAY UP

By Lisa Bannon, The Wall Street Journal

Something is missing at Diablo Day Camp in Lafayette, Calif., this year.

At the 3 p.m. sing-along in a wooded canyon near Oakland, 214 Girl Scouts are learning the summer dance craze, the Macarena. Keeping time by slapping their hands across their arms and hips, they jiggle, hop and stomp. They spin, wiggle and shake. They bounce for two minutes.

In silence.

"Yesterday, I told them we could be sued if we played the music," explains Teesie King, camp co-director and a volunteer mom. "So they decided they'd learn it without the music."

Watching the campers' mute contortions, Mrs. King shakes her head. "It seems so different," she allows, "when you do the Macarena in silence."

Starting this summer, the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers has informed camps nationwide that they must pay license fees to use any of the four million copyrighted songs written or published by Ascap's 68,000 members. Those who sing or play but don't pay, Ascap warns, may be violating the law.

Like restaurants, hotels, bars, stores and clubs, which already pay fees to use copyrighted music, camps -- including non-profit ones such as those run by the Girl Scouts -- are being told to ante up. The demand covers not only recorded music but also songs around the campfire.

"They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts -- they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, Ascap's chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, "we will sue them if necessary."

No more "Edelweiss" free of charge. No more "This Land Is Your Land." An Ascap spokesman says "Kumbaya" isn't on its list, but "God Bless America" is.

Diablo, an all-volunteer day camp that charges girls $44 a week to cover expenses, would owe Ascap $591 this year, based on the camp's size and how long it runs. Another composer group, Sesac Inc., which owns copyrights to such popular tunes as Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind," says it plans to ask camps for another set of royalties this fall.

So far, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., the national organization based in New York, isn't playing along with royalty demands. But the American Camping Association, in Martinsville, Ind., which includes many Scout camps, advises members to comply. Diablo's regional Girl Scout Council in Oakland is low on cash and decided its 20 area camps can't afford the extra expense. Rather than risk a lawsuit, the council told all the camps to scratch copyrighted songs from their programs even though only a few received warning letters.

"At first I thought, 'You guys have got to be kidding,"' says Sharon Kosch, the council's director of program services. "They can't sing the songs? But it's pretty threatening. We were told the penalty can be $5,000 and six days in jail."

So, the camp's directors have scrutinized its official "Elf Manual" and, in the section headed "Favorite Songs at Diablo Day Camp," have crossed out the most popular copyrighted tunes with black Magic Marker. The Scouts know about only a few of the banned songs because Ascap hasn't mailed out a complete list; it comprises four million songs and runs 70,000 pages. Ascap says it has, however, put a list on the Internet.

After finishing off hot dogs and s'mores for lunch, the Elves -- senior Scouts charged with helping younger campers -- gather in a circle with directors to decide what they can sing.

"Is 'Row Row Row Your Boat' copyrighted?" asks Holly Foster, a 14-year-old Elf with a turquoise happy face on her cheek. "Row Row Row Your Boat" may float, the directors decide, but "Puff the Magic Dragon" definitely is out.

"How about 'Ring Around the Rosie'?" another Elf asks. The directors veto it.

"We wanted to sing 'Underwear,' but it's set to the tune of 'Battle Hymn of the Republic,"' says Mrs. King, the co-director. "We're not sure if that's copyrighted; so, we don't sing it."

"When in doubt, don't sing," advises Site Director Leslie Shanders.

Even harder than figuring out which songs are which, directors say, is explaining it all to young Brownies.
"They think copyright means the 'mean people,' " says Debby Cwalina, a 14-year-old Elf. Mr. Holly explains it to them this way: "The people who wrote it have a thing on it. A little 'c' with circles around it. There's an alarm on it. And if you sing it, BOOM!"

That explanation doesn't always sink in. Alissa Fiset, age 8, crinkles her nose when asked why she can't sing "Puff the Magic Dragon." While squirting a friend with a water bottle, she says: "They did a rewrite on it. A copy thing. But why can't they just take the 'c' away?"

Ascap, which is based in New York, defends the royalties. "Songwriters are small-business people who write songs to make a living," Mr. Lo Frumento says. "The royalties allow them to send their kids to Girl Scout camp, too."

The federal copyright act allows composers and music publishers to demand royalty payments for any public performance of copyrighted material. The law defines a public performance as "where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." Although the law has been on the books since 1909, Ascap began notifying large music users, such as hotels, only a little over a decade ago and more recently has worked its way down to small users, such as rodeos and funeral homes. This year, it negotiated a reduced annual fee of $257 with camps enrolled in the American Camping Association. For camps, such as Diablo, that aren't association members, the fees are higher, ranging from $308 to $1,439 a year. Small camps that last two weeks or less get a special rate of $77.

Penalties for noncompliance can be stiff. The law sets fines up to $25,000 or a year in prison, or both, for major infringements. Ascap, which sends monitors around the country, has successfully sued restaurants, retailers and private clubs, Mr. Lo Frumento says. While the law hasn't been tested on camps, copyright attorneys say even little girls would lose.

"If you make an exception for the Girl Scouts, you could set a practical precedent," says Russell Frackman, a Los Angeles copyright lawyer. "You give the impression that a particular use is not an infringement, and that can be used against you in the future."

Ascap contends that its members have contributed heavily to the Scouts over the years. In 1940, Irving Berlin donated all future royalties from his "God Bless America" to the New York City Boy Scout and Girl Scout councils. Although the Scouts still get royalties from it, Mr. Lo Frumento concedes that, nevertheless, they can't sing it without paying the fee.

So, it's back to black Magic Markers.

After finishing the Macarena at the Diablo sing-along, one mother whispers that today is the sixth birthday of David Warneke, a camp volunteer's son. "We're not allowed to sing 'Happy Birthday,' " warns Debi Jansen, a co-director.

Huddling with the Elves, the directors come up with a plan: Sing a modified "Happy Birthday" to the tune of "Ninety-Nine Bottles of Beer on the Wall."

But Mrs. Jansen is worried. "I hope that's not copyrighted, too," she frets

That was 1996 and here is a follow up to that article

Copyright 1996 The Washington Post

ASCAP Changes Its Tune; Never Intended to Collect Fees for Scouts' Campfire Songs, Group Says

By Ken Ringle

Reeling from the worst public relations disaster since Dan Quayle misspelled "potato," the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) now says that "ASCAP has never sought nor was it ever its intention" to make Girl Scouts pay to sing around a campfire. Other campers? Well, maybe.

Vincent Candilora, ASCAP's vice president and director of licensing, vaguely suggested that dark forces may have been behind a Wall Street Journal article last week that disclosed that the songwriters' group had sought this year for the first time in history to collect fees from children's summer camps.

Candilora conceded that ASCAP had cast a wide and nondiscriminating net in notifying the nation's 8,000-odd summer camps that federal copyright law requires them to fork over fees to ASCAP for any songs they use.

But he said Lo Frumento had been quoted out of context when he promised to "sue them if necessary" if they didn't pay for their campfire songs. And he was particularly insistent that ASCAP wasn't picking on the Girl Scouts, even though it has already collected fees from 16 Girl Scout camps this year. Any fees collected from the Scouts will be returned, he said.
In the wake of news stories and editorials picturing ASCAP throttling tiny, hopeful renditions of "Puff the Magic Dragon," Candilora said the organization had been besieged with protests from both the public and its songwriter members.

Lo Frumento was reported unavailable for comment yesterday on the protests, but his son Peter, a salaried ASCAP spokesman, released a statement from ASCAP President Marilyn Bergman saying, "It has always been in the interest of our members to encourage the use of music anywhere -- particularly by young people."

Candilora said ASCAP still intends to collect what fees it can from large, profitable summer camps -- "the sort that bring in bands for square dances, have music by the pool ... and are like sending your kid to a resort." But he said he "would assume the organization has other priorities" than to crack down on mom-and-pop camps and campfire songs, regardless of what its mailings earlier this year may have implied.

"What can I say? We bought a mailing list. We should have done more research," Candilora said.

ASCAP, he emphasized, is "a nonprofit organization owned by its member songwriters and 57 composers" that returns to them 83 cents of every domestic licensing dollar it collects. Last year it collected some S 320 million in licensing fees in the United States, he said, and returned $ 254 million. The remaining $ 66 million went for operating costs, he said, heavily augmented by membership and licensing fees collected overseas.

Communications Law Homepage
_____________________________________

I can just see the riaa going around a campground with the debit machine...the day they stop me from singing around my campfire will be a day they'll not forget! I CAN get pretty fiesty!

That's sickening. The greed of these peoepl are disgusting.
Fuck the RIAA
Fuck their "infringement laws"
Fuck thewm and anyone who is blind enough to support them.
Hold a rally and play a copyrighted song in front of their building, invite the girl scouts, they've pissed us off and I think it's our turn.

Thanks, pepe. I thought I remembered there being more to the story, but I could only locate the original article.

"They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts -- they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, Ascap's chief operating officer.
---------
[Candilora] said Lo Frumento had been quoted out of context when he promised to "sue them if necessary" if they didn't pay for their campfire songs.
-----------

Maybe the Girl Scouts misunderstood the kindly 1960s Italian businessman in a pinstriped suit. Probably promised to shoot them if necessary. They're lucky they didn't have a jukebox, too.

" ASCAP, he emphasized, is "a nonprofit organization owned by its member songwriters and 57 composers" that returns to them 83 cents of every domestic licensing dollar it collects. Last year it collected some S 320 million in licensing fees in the United States, he said, and returned $ 254 million"

That's only 79 cents out of every dollar.

They've never been very good at math.

I think we need a survey--which members of ASCAP would charge children to sing their songs? Instead of hiding behind a "nonprofit organization," maybe we could ask Don if he would personally charge the Girl Scouts for singing one of his songs, or Sheryl, or Stevie--personally, not through an organization. We might see just how many of them would step forward. I would have thought that this was covered by fair use, since no one is technically making money from it. I doubt there are many kids who wouldn't go to camp if they were told they couldn't listen to the Macarena (ugh!).

"which members of ASCAP would charge children to sing their songs?"

That's easy -- the publishers and "copyright owners"

Don, Sheryl and Stevie? Well, gee. Since they don't own their copyrights, they don't have a whole lot of say in it, now do they?

At least the Girl Scouts can use "This Land is Your Land" again.

Finally. a positive by-product of the 2004 election.

That's one in a row.

George, if the artists don't have any stake in it, why do they keep coming out in support of these people?

I mean, I know they get very little from recordings, but does ASCAP do the same thing--as far as copyrighting the actual songs--to songwriters? Who owns the music itself? The writer or the association?

Only a small handfull of artists (Don, Sheryl, Stevie, etc.) make enough $$$ via the RIAA way of doing business. None of them see that only a small privileged few can sucseed in the music biz the way things are nowadays. We are about changing all that.

Its a total disgrace that these people have involved the Red ross. No not the big bag owners of the property being misappropriated, the Sharman people who thought it might be clever to avoid having to admit who owned the company by embroiling a decent organisation in this outrage.

None of you people seem in the slightest concerned by the fact that people are so confident in their product that they want to remain secret. Nor have any of you asked how much of each kazaa dsollar the RC will get after all the fees are skimmed by who...

Sherman could have used the RC donation for publicity earlier. They did not - the RIAA asking them to freeze funds is the first I have heard about the donations. If Sherman was donating for publicity, they would have tried to get some.

"George, if the artists don't have any stake in it, why do they keep coming out in support of these people?"

Well, let's see. Napster was a trade-off. Testimony against Napster in exchange for the RIAA's cooperation to remove the work for hire wording that Mitch Glazier tacked onto a law in the middle of the night.

The RIAA controls their financial future. They have little choice.

"I mean, I know they get very little from recordings, but does ASCAP do the same thing -- as far as copyrighting the actual songs -- to songwriters? Who owns the music itself? The writer or the association?"

Theoretically, songwriting royalties are divided equally between the author(s) and publisher. They pay according to the percentages provided when the song is registered.

ASCAP itself does NOT suck away people's copyrights like the labels do. But they do join the RIAA in lobbying against the artists, simply because the publishers run the store.

They're kind of like Congress for musicians. They are supposed to represent you, but will not ask your opinion. If you offer your opinion, it will be ignored. And the truth is subject to periodic editorial revision.

"None of you people seem in the slightest concerned by the fact that people are so confident in their product that they want to remain secret"

Are you talking about DRM? The new Harry Potter book? Ben & Jerry? Lieber & Stoller? The people that wrote the CIA factbook? Unnamed senior White House officials? The Unknown Comic?

Or maybe the RIAA statistician.

Michael Jackson?

When anonymous posters question secrecy, it's just a *little* difficult to take them seriously..

I agree with your take on anonymous posting gdZieman........I'm really a RIAA lawyer, how about you????

George D. Ziemann
1604 N Date Dr.
Tempe AZ 85281
480-946-2951

I'm a musician who the RIAA stopped from selling his own band's CD on eBay because we mentioned more than one influence.

You want my IP address, too? Not that it'll do you any good because you won't find a speck of RIAA dredge on it.

If you need more info, just Google my name.
Or "RIAA statistics"

Both work.

You, however, are still an anonymous coward.

George, I think I'll stick with codewarrier, goldenpi, gothic-angel, et al but you stay oujt and proud, I respect that

Whenever the recording industry sue someone (whether they are wearing their RIAA, ARIA or CRIA clothes) they fight the battle on 2 fronts - the legal battle & the PR battle. Right now things are quiet on the legal front so it's forward march on the PR front. They look for something inflamatory and beat it up until it bleeds. What could be more inflamatory than threatening to sue the Red Cross - given their current crucial role in currently helping victims of disaster. Some of the inflamatory posts in this thread go to show that this tactic has worked. Whoopee! What's next ... how about linking P2P to organised crime and terrorism ... oh hang on, the multinationals have already done that ... what about saying that P2P file sharing caused the recent tsunami - I'll look out for it in zdnet and all the other usual places.