Law, court, legal system, proof, ... let's stop considering law as the ultimate Gospel of what can be proven right or wrong. The Court will never be perfect no matter the amount of arguments or counter-arguments we provide.
I really don't know why you are sticking all the time to what the Law and the Court would say. I don't think that anyone denies what the Court would say.
All these arguments are not sufficient in Court, yet all these things are present in those songs and no Court can deny it.
There are two types of evidence: the court one and what you see, hear, taste, feel and smell one. If you can't prove the second type of evidence, it means that the Court wins and is right, but it does not mean that the Court holds the truth, because one day the second one could be proven as it often happens. And all the Court could do is rule again. Oops too late, the damage has already been done.
Well Stella seems to refuse what court would say and/or how the system works. That was the reason for my posts. For the record I
never claimed any court decision to be the absolute truth but without a verdict it's not an established fact. It's not even a reported complaint btw.
For example: Majority of the US people believe Casey Antony killed her daughter, prosecution showed a decent amount of evidence about this but at the end of the day she's "not guilty".
I don't think this is true. If Sony were to admit that they were duped by the Cascios, it would be a financial disater for them.
I don't think "not knowing it before release" would make them any vulnerable at least legal wise. It makes them an innocent bystander that is fooled - even the experts would be fooled. and from fans perspective if someone uncovered the "fraud" I guess they'll be happy and build positive rapport.
"Knowing before release but still releasing it" makes them a co-conspirator.
I respectfully disagree with you. If Sony is duped and didn't have any prior knowledge about the scheme, Sony would still rather takes the route that they are taking now - keep a low profile and ignore the dissenting voice. The reputational damage and negative goodwill are much worse than refunds to customers who bought the CD and the overheads related to album production.
the problem with that what if someone else finds out? Then Sony would be in trouble for not telling the fraud that they discovered.
When I spoke to my friend who is an attorney, she said the first thing wouls tell Sony, if they were to find out they were fake, is to admit to nothing, because it leaves them vulnerable. unfortunately, that is the way the law works. Once you admit to something, what you say becomes part of record and can be used against you. To Sony, all of that may be too mych of a headache and they just would not want to risk it. Hence, why even is they were duped, why they would not only remain quiet, but deny everything.
I personally think if they were duped and found out it later , coming out with it and denying any prior knowledge would be the best choice and keep them all protected.
Example: they bought the songs, released them, 4 months later they found out that they were fake , they were duped. they kept silent. sometime later someone else finds out and makes it public that Sony knew it for a while and did nothing to make it right. How would they get out of it?
Think of it like this. Car manufacturers do not set out to make faulty cars and when they start selling the cars they believe they did the best job. Later they start to get reports of problems with the cars, they recall them and make it right to the consumer. That way they reduce any past and future liability. they can't get away with knowing a problem and not fixing it.
Do you mean they can say it because it is in court of law?
I say that it's the difference between publishing your own allegations versus publishing a criminal complaint/charge/allegation?
So why are jason malachi/cascio track comparisons removed from youtube? I'm not talking about UNRELEASED cascio tracks, or youtube videos that are just the song all the way through or anything, i'm talking about comparisons for BN, KYHU, and monster. why do these not fall under "fair use"? why are they immediately taken down? why wouldn't someone be able to post a mashup of let me let go and monster on youtube, for example?
1. what falls under fair use is actually determined in the case of a lawsuit / in a court of law. I can assure you that youtube isn't looking to videos and saying "oh they only used 3seconds it's okay". In other words I don't think youtube etc is spending any time to determine what is okay or not under the fair use rule. As any organization I think they are playing safe and removing any and all materials for which they received a complaint.
2. malice. in addition to copyright claims , those videos can also be subject to defamation claims as they make the allegation of fraud.
however I'm sure that they do simple copyright claims and relying on youtube etc to remove it without asking questions. The only way to be against it is a)dispute the removal to youtube etc and b) go to court and establish that it falls under "fair use".
Korgnex was right.
