OH, I love irony

[DCsegaDH]

Doesn't that mean they don't have a mascot anymore because in 2001 the Crash games got ported to other systems. Anyway, I usually don't buy Sony products, most of their products are overpriced so I usually skip their stuff.

[BAD PIXEL]

Ha - Emotion Engine. I'd forgotten about that...

I think we're actually on the same page here about Sony. I'm not saying that the PS systems haven't provided great gaming experiences. And I agree with you, I prefer Sony consumer electronics over many other brands. But you actually make my point when you say that Sony is a great consumer electronics manufacturer.

I think Sony treats gaming like it does DVD players. Which isn't all bad. That treatment has been great for expanding the market, generating tons of cash and pushing their disc formats/platforms (DVD, BlueRay). But I feel there's a higher level of innovation and passion that happens when the hardware producer is a software developer first and foremost. Atari, Sega, Nintendo, SNK - these companies were software companies first and got into producing home hardware because they excelled at developing amazing, legendary games. Sony came into the market because it produces consumer electronics and saw an opportunity.

Everyone's entitled to their own take on this - I'm not trying to debate this, just clarifying my perspective.

[Weekend_Warrior]

This doesn't affect the RIAA, it's only the CRIA. And from the article, I think the problem is more closely related to the changes done to the Compulsory Licensing rather than whether or not a lot of the record labels there have been "infringing" on copyright and/or not paying royalties to other record labels or copyright holders. Especially when you consider that most often it's the record label's that own the artists' copyrights, not the artists themselves (after they've signed with the label and more or less bid all their rights away). So basically, record labels have been stealing each other's tracks and using them at their own discretion while they "wait for approval." lol Talk about Dog-Eat-Dog

From article:
"The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences."

"Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list," which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use. It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee."

Ok, so in other words "B Record Company" wants to use "said track" from "C Record Company." B Record Company obtains a Compulsory License to use "said track" on a compilation cd and "said track" gets placed on a "waiting list for use" yet still somehow gets released.

Wow. So that's the problem right there. Until "said track" gets final approval for use then "B Record Company" is basically clear of any royalty payments to "C Record Company". And since it says the "waiting list" dates back to the 1980's, then that means "B Record Company" may not have to pay until much later, if ever at all!

From article: "The more likely reason is that the record labels have had little motivation to pay up." haha. Well yeah, the CRIA isn't there telling them that they have to! That's crazy