I agree completely here with shep's assessment, so do a large majority of indie labels and artists I deal with as a DJ. Many are getting offers through P2P with respect to gigs all over the planet, thanks in part to P2P. I have had offers come in from all over the world to attend events all expenses paid, with pay on top of that, because I embedded an announcement on e-mail in one of my sets I shared online.

Interest in tracks and the actual artist themselves can be successfully achieved through P2P, if done properly. There are parts of the music industry that are doing this effectively.

The problem with this debate is the social conditioning around how evil P2P networks are as is ever present indirectly in a lot of responses I've seen in this discussion thus far, rather than actually looking at the facts of the situation and how many in all industries actually are benefiting from it. We need to look at utilizing those benefits, while monetizing the networks.

Part of all industries use P2P directly or indirectly. It's now an integrated part of the music industry, which is recognized by some of our major talent. P2P networks have pushed Canadian talent to a more global audience.

If we criminalize this behavior through law it will have a very big impact on Canadian Content consumption globally. Monetize the networks, and the Canadian Consumption and global interest and investment in talent will bring in some pretty substantial money for everyone.

You too seemed to have missed the point of the article. This song benefit wasn't about the artist's AS SUCH, it was about the victims of the earthquake …

Well if the point was to generate income for the victims of the earthquake, then maybe the appropriate response would to expect the file be shared online, and to either release it on the torrents with a link to a website asking for donations, or better yet have the actual artists in the production itself to ask for donations and provide a way for them with a link to do so.

I truely believe that had this particular case that was for a good cause, used P2P to further that cause, the amount of money that would have been generated would be substantially more then just throwing out a track on Itunes or a digital store.

Also we here in North America are used to paying $1 per track. 2 or 5 Euro's is equal to 3.5 - 7 CDN for this track, and that could also be the contributing factor as well.

The benefit was ORGANIZED and PROMOTED as a FUNDRAISER.

Downloads that did not respond to that appeal were thefts.

"The benefit was ORGANIZED and PROMOTED as a FUNDRAISER."

According to what you have written not within P2P, they were looking for track sales with a set price to fund raise. It wasn't promoted to utilize and capitalize on the 2 million downloads through P2P globally. Had they used those downloads to their advantage and spread the word, they would have made more money.

Gee, I get it now.

Those silly ol' organizers were REALLY dumb cuz they didn't set up their marketing & p.r. to attract thieves.

Canadada, I think you missed the point of our comments. There is no evidence that the cause somehow made less in donations because of P2P downloading. A download does not equal a lost donation. By spreading awareness of the song, perhaps more donations were made overall. Maybe some of those downloaders chose to donate directly, instead of through buying CDs. Perhaps some of those people downloaded the song, then went out and bought the CD as well. Perhaps even songs were downloaded by people whom chose not to pay anything, but then shared the song with a friend whom did! There is no way to track these metrics, so pronouncing these downloaders as "self-centred" and "self-serving" is short sighted at best.

The organizing intent of the benefit was to aid the victims. "56 popular local artists and musicians recorded a six-minute song to raise reconstruction funds."

THE INTENT was to RAISE MONEY for the victims.

For 2 million to download the song gratis did nothing to DIRECTLY SUPPORT the OBJECTIVE and INTENT of the FUNDRAISER. They just stole the song.

"For 2 million to download the song gratis did nothing to DIRECTLY SUPPORT the OBJECTIVE and INTENT of the FUNDRAISER. They just stole the song."

You have no way of knowing that. Noone does. That's my point. You're wrong here to make that assumption. Those 2 million P2P downloads probably DID directly raise money for the fundraiser! A download does not equal lost sales/donations, and downloading is no more 'theft' than having heard the song on the radio. In most countries, playing a song on the radio would not require any royalties or payments to be made to the fundraiser.

How is hearing a song on the radio different than hearing it via a P2P download? P2P downloading and buying a track off itunes or a CD are NOT mutually exclusive, rather it's often mutually inclusive! Noone doubts these days that hearing songs on the radio promotes sales. Why should downloading be any different? It's simply the method of choice for most people today. Nothing more.

Demonizing downloading by pretending it's detrimental (it's not!) and calling it 'theft' is dishonest and short sighted.

I am not 'pretending' anything.
I make my living as an artist.
My bet is you do not.

In that case as an artist it is your choice to implement digital rights management (DRM) software or other content control systems into your intellectual works.

Some artists like the free exposure. If you don't that's your personal decision.

This post is about 'downloaders' who took advantage of artists collaboating to raise funds for victims of the earthquake.

It is not about DRM.

Afterthought: I will concede that it would likely have made sense if the organizers HAD ANTICIPATED the P2P scammers, and applied DRM to the tune, or some other kind of 'access control'. Though, from what seems increasingly apparent, any 'control' would have been hacked and the tune 'stolen' anyway.

It remains reprehensible behaviour from my p.o.v. The victims - who needed, and still do need, the assistance - did not benefit.

There seems to be no 'conscience' to these 'sharing' hackers. There seems no sense of 'any greater issue' other than their own. These 'downloaders' aren't any kind of 'Masters of the Universe', they're really just kinda sad & pathetic.

If the organizers had anticipated the current state of technology, and how the internet actually works, they could have applied an appropriate business model.

The organizers get no sympathy from me for closing their eyes real hard and pretending P2P does not exist. Or perhaps simply being ignorant of it. There are many examples of modern business models which do very well, many of which embrace P2P. Ignoring the current state of global distribution, and then relying on that for your income, will always have predictable results. It's basic economics; when the cost to reproduce something approaches zero, the fair market value of a copy will also approach zero.

In short; P2P was not the problem. A business plan based on a distribution model from the 70's was the problem.

There is an entire generation of kids now who have never paid for music, and probably never will. They are not 'sharing hackers' or 'masters of the universe' whom have no conscience. They are not evil. They are just kids, clicking a mouse, wanting to participate in culture.

Remember what you learned in Kindergarten; Sharing is Caring!

… wow, nice 'double-speak' …

Two million downloads were not made by a P2P savvy kids in Kindergarten.

The Fundraiser was promoted as a BENEFIT for VICTIMS of a LOCAL EARTHQUAKE.

'Sharing' as 'Caring' would mean helping the VICTIMS - not themselves.

It should be noted that the number of illegal downloads is really unimportant. What is important is how successful the fundraiser is in generating money for their cause. Would they have been more or less successful without this combined exposure / leaching? Well you simply can't tell by saying "2 million p2p downloads" over and over. Even if you believe the statistics the record labels put out (which you definately should not do; they are not reliable sources in the least), we have no numbers on the revenue generated by those downloads for the fundraiser. Claiming this revenue is not there or not significant is just ridiculous. Many will have purchased the music that probably wouldn't even know it existed otherwise. Would the fundraiser have been better off without the p2p downloads? How much harm or good did they do? I don't think we really have sufficient data provided to answer that. Again, I don't advocate illegal file sharing. It is already illegal anyway, so no change in law is neccessary, but there is evidence that the amount of damage it causes is being largely falsified by the labels in order to gain support for the laws they want. Don't buy it.

Not only are you trying to falsify a fact, you're attempting to perpetuating the 'myth' that 'hi-jacking' is somehow 'acceptable' … that's so weird.

I don't believe the organizers (or the record label) under these DIRE & very PUBLIC TRAGIC circumstances would 'pump up' their numbers. To do so, would be a 'public relations' disaster for ALL parties involved …

Anyway, I have no interest in 'arguing' this further, cuz clearly you think THEY - the musicians, the concert organizers, the record label & the intended recipients of the AID, ie. the VICTIMS of the EARTHQUAKER - were somehow culpable & 'in the wrong', and that the 2 millions P2P file-sharers are in the 'right'.

Talk about 'ridiculous'.
You're right, I sure don't buy it.

Umm.. yeah, sure thats what I was trying to say, earthquake victims are bad bad people… thanks for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

'Sharing' is
'caring'…

Note: TWO MILLION.

… ah, excuse me, but I think you missed the point of the article. The song was to primarily BENEFIT the VICTIMS of the earthquake, not the contributing artists or the producer/distributor …

This laudable fund-raising effort was side-swiped by those who don't give a f***. They just shoot the finger at 'good will' - and it is THAT self-centred, self-serving 'attitude' that I object to …

Copyists are not artists.

This is an interesting question because I suspect that a lot of "professional songwriters" will die off as label-driven fluff acts (hopefully) die off as well.

I honestly don't think it's viable, going forward, to expect to make a career simply by selling your lyrics. When the entire world is your oyster, why listen to some boring pop-star who isn't even in touch enough with the music to have written it herself?

On the other hand, Bob Dylan and Jacques Brel, for example, are both spectacular songwriters who have written for others who were more than just "pop crap". I think they should not only be rewarded for their solo performances, but for their contributions to other talented artists.

Also, as the world opens up to 6 billion competitors, it also opens up to new listeners and new artists. Perhaps this will allow for adjustment, but I suspect it will result in some songwriters falling by the wayside as others "aggregate" more talent.

I generally don't believe in complete abolition of creator's rights, but I vehemently oppose the criminalisation of nearly half of internet users (surveys show mp3 downloading, without paying, is nearing the 50% mark). I believe this is something that should be hammer out, not hammered on.

ps: I flat out don't believe that art and culture will stop simply because SOCAN isn't giving you that $50 cheque once a year.

you know, Johnny Cash used professional songwriters ALL THE TIME. I don't think you can blow off performers if they don't exclusively write there own stuff. Performers can grow artistically when they co-write with pros - the music just gets better and better - and how does the non-singer-but-fabulous-musician-and-songwriter make a living?

Oh, I understand what you're saying. It was many of Cash's covers towards the end of his career that actually made me a fan. (And the American IV, as a whole.) I simply don't think the songwriter+performer paradigm from earlier in the music industry is going to be anywhere near as viable in the future. I also don't have an immediate answer to how to setup a mechanism by which they are adequately rewarded. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious to most people that criminalising half of the internet's users is probably not the right method.

"I simply don't think the songwriter+performer paradigm from earlier in the music industry is going to be anywhere near as viable in the future"

well, i guess that is one of the points of this exercise - to determine if there is a way for copyright to allow music creators to be compensated in this digital era. I am certainly not ready to give up on music creators only getting paid if they perform their own tunes at a concert.

I am interested in some of the suggestions being put forward to allow that to happen (like using the radio model for Internet Service Providers). Yeah, the ISPs won't want to do it, but I imagine that radio had the same objections to paying for content 'back in the day'.

Well, I should probably have been more clear, since your replies were to the fellow above. I don't particularly think the "performance only" model is sensible. I think it's been used frequently as a suggestion to punish labels but continue to support artists.

That said, some models are going to crash and burn, and some people who would previously have had viable careers will no longer be able to support themselves on outdated methods. It works that way in any system. That sucks, but that's what a robust social support system is for, to help people adapt and cope without suffering. I'm not particularly sympathetic to executives who can no longer wrangle their riches from the music industry.

I am also more inclined to back an ISP tariff method than prosecution of a near majority of the internet population for being criminals.

To wit:
1 in 3 Pirates Music: http://torrentfreak.com/one-in-three-is-a-music-pirate-090724/

P2P Users Buy More Music: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/03/6418.ars

Looks to me like P2P is the future, not the problem.

I agree. P2P is the genie that cannot be put back in the bottle and the creative world must adjust to the new reality. The convenience of P2P is overwhelming and needs to be embraced in a manner that still allows content creators to be compensated. Adding more law/penalties would be like the old prohibition against alcohol. It WON'T WORK. Like alcohol, P2P needs regulartion.

I'd just like to make clear that I don't intend to imply that artists would only make money through performances only in a "performance only model", since there would still be CDs and other media for consumers to purchase (if they wish to have a 'hard' copy).

What I'm trying to point out is that most musicians don't make much of their money from selling CDs - they have many revenue streams available and free sharing would act as a form of advertising for their other sources of income and that people should not be punished for making a digital copy of a media file.

I believe that copyright (specifically for the music industry in this case), should be working for the benefit of musicians and not for the corporations trying to control consumer's actions.

professional writers are leaving the field because the artists cant afford to pay them anything…even "successful" bands cant make a living touring…because the labels used to pay the bands "tour support" in anticipation of selling cd's. now the bands are on their own, and with the high expense of touring and promoting concerts, it's only viable for the huge artists like U2, Madonna

A couple of things. CD's are the 8 tracks of today's media, and not every label offered "tour support" with respect to providing the bands money needed to tour.

In fact there is empirical evidence to suggest quite the opposite of what you have stated here:

http://tinyurl.com/m4n4b5

As a representative in the music industry I don't see professional writers leaving, in fact, I've seen a huge boom in amateur songwriters becoming professional due to the exposure of the current environment. It's now not just Madonna and U2 how can tour, but some guy from Zimbabwe playing a guitar or drum set that can now tour as well.

The money is still there, it's just shifted to other area's. The creative industries have gone through a cycle of "Creative Destruction" which is present throughout history in capitalist markets. What this means is a huge wave of innovation makes the old system obsolete. The old system cannot be applied to the new system. It will fail. Imagine what the world would look like today if the blacksmiths put up arms against the market as media industries have done here, and tried to force through law a system where everyone that owned a car, would also have to own a horse just to keep the blacksmiths working. The invention of the automobile put blacksmiths out of work for a little bit, but those blacksmiths upgraded their skills to work in the auto plants. Basically the same thing is going on here, you can not go back:

http://www.dime-eu.org/node/477#comment-1

In music it's the labels that need to adapt more to creative talents needs in the paradigm shift:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA9SQZOq0nc

Bands are not "on their own" at all with respect to decisions made when leaving major labels. The vast majority of our top talent is with Nettwerk Music Group now that have fled the major 4 labels.

Madonna left Warner in 2007 for a company that specializes in promotions and funding tour events "Live Nation" which many have also fled to.

There's no doubt that money has dropped off through physical and digital sales. That won't change no matter what law is put into place. You can't put horse shoes on cars, just as you can't rely on the law to force the consumer into a market they don't want to participate in:

http://tinyurl.com/pp9hf2

So the question than becomes, how do we follow the market and get paid? Several have already studied this issue and there are solutions to this. The overall theme is to monetize the networks, and legalize file sharing so that content and rights holders get paid.

http://tinyurl.com/prwz2r

http://www.songwriters.ca/studio/proposal.php

http://blip.tv/file/818159

Fleeing the major labels makes complete sense for musicians since the major labels have been abusing them for years and they aren't needed to publish music anymore. This is why we see the "sky is falling" stats from the labels, but I'm not sure it is true that the sky actually is falling (except for the labels). There is a significant emerging market for musicians that are selling their music on the internet in a manner that people want (without DRM). They seem to be doing quite well at it just by respecting their fans and customers and not treating them all like criminals despite the fact that they can't keep it under lock and key at all times.

The sales of "tracks" isn't going to be a sustainable source of income for musicians, and that was in some of the links I posted. That's not going to change.

Basically what we need to do, is pay musicians for the consumption of the work, rather than a copy of it. Very similar to the models both Radio and TV are using right now. That's where monetizing the networks will help.

The problem is that major labels don't want to give up the pay per copy method, and are fighting to get it back. But as I stated before, you can't put horse shoes on a car, or force people to buy a horse with the purchase of a new car. The market has already changed to a pay per consumption model, and it won't go back.

Major labels need to switch up they business models, you are very correct on that. It's no longer about them, it's about the relationship between the artist and consumer. Those that put that relationship at the forefront, will ultimately be our next major labels, those that try and treat the main source of income for creators as criminals, won't have very much talent left, let alone capitol for their businesses. Let the major labels fail. They need to, in order to re-invent themselves.

"The sales of "tracks" isn't going to be a sustainable source of income for musicians, and that was in some of the links I posted. That's not going to change."

Well I guess this is where we have a difference of opinion. I do not find convincing evidence that this "sale of tracks" method is not sustainable (although I'l admit I didn't read everything in every link you posted).
In fact this link that you post:
http://www.dime-eu.org/node/477#comment-1
suggests a positive link between file sharing and cd sales, particularly for the "rising middle class" musicians.
Can you elaborate on how a pay for consumption model could be applied to internet music and point me more specifically to which link / section suggests that it is not possible that the sale of tracks model would not be sustainable for musicians?

"http://www.dime-eu.org/node/477#comment-1"

in the personal comment made by a member of the UNCTAD it stated:

"Our own research would support the arguments made in the Andersen and Frenz Study , 2007, that indeed there may be a significant positive relationship between file sharing and purchase or greater use of various other formats containing music content (although not necessarily record sales per se)"

There is a coalition between file sharing and greater consumption of music related products, but not necessarily "track sales". The UK's PRS for Music released last month a report that basically backs up the UNCTAD's findings.

"Consumers spent less on recorded music, down 6% since 2007, but concert ticket sales have grown by some 13% as the industry as whole slowly evolves and adapts to digital distribution."

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86724/uk-music-economist-says-music-industry-revenue-up-4-7/

Total revenue for the industry as a whole is up 4.7% in the UK. Concert tickets and other area's of the industry are actually making up for the difference in lost sales. The money has just shifted to other areas of the industry.

To use the UK as an example, there's now a lot of polling going on to find out exactly what consumers want (which should have been done 10 years ago by the industry). They are finding that consumers don't want to pay for media "per copy", they want to download it for free, and will continue to do so even if laws are put into place to try and stop them (the past 10 years is also evidence of this):

http://tinyurl.com/pp9hf2

So we really can't use the "pay per copy" method anymore, because that's not what the market wants. We have to come up with other solutions with respect to engaging the consumer in the market, and the only real viable solution is to switch this market over to a pay per consumption model, in which all media will feel like free, but you are paying for it in many different ways, as you do with respect to your cable TV bill.

Here's and example of how that can be done in Music:

http://blip.tv/file/818159

For TV + Film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIqG7WgqQ-w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XftaEUYLz4

Industry has to be less concerned on the copying part of the market and more concerned about how media is consumed, and learn to make money from that consumption, rather than from the copy.

First, thank you for your informative reply!
…
"http://blip.tv/file/818159"
I agree with the what they are saying in this video. However, I do not think this means the death of sell by track, in fact cd's, or online sales is one of the easiest things to advertize with free music. Just as television and radio have been in support of cd and dvd sales, so could free music be (in some cases) be in support of "sell by track" as well as in support of other things such as ticket sales, etc.

I am always a little leery of polls because they always change the question on you when they post the results for some stupid reason but anyway:
"only 20% of online users would pay for online content."
Now then, this stat doesn't surprise me at all. I believe DRMed content is probably most responsible for this attitude. Anyone who has ever paid for DRMed content will swear they will never buy any online content again… My wife was in tears when she last tried to pay for online content, and I know several people who have this attitude. They tried to "do the right thing" and got the middle finger. I'm not sure this is a mistake, the major labels really do have a vested interest in keeping music off the internet regardless of it being legal or not. If music was sold decently online, I think this stat would probably change relatively quickly.

As for the past 10 years, we have seen that people "pirate" (arr!) music and we have seen that the major music labels are declining. Neither of these things mean that people are not willing to buy music anymore and I don't see evidence of that in my daily life. From personal experience, those I know that pirate music are willing, and do buy plenty of "by track" music (not online, in CD form because of bad experience with DRM, and often not from the major labels simply because they have a broader net to pull their music from now)

funny how you decide what is a "fluff act" and deserves to die and what is not. I love Dylan but I know other who consider his stuff crap. And I don't listen to "top 40" but there seems to be a large number of people who do and like it. I can't stand 90% of RAP that I hear yet I will be among those to defend thier right to be heard.
The point is whether or not WE decide something is of value. I think if it's worth our taking the time to download it that very act indicates a level of value.
"I vehemently oppose the criminalisation of nearly half of internet users" This seems like a weak attempt to justify and rationalize a greed driven perspective. it's not like you're getting it from a friend you actually know and they are making you a copy. If that were the case we would not be having this discussion.
Greed is the culprit here. If you don't want the product enough to pay for it do with out it. What's so hard to figure out about that?

I would imagine that songwriters would get paid by the artists performing the songs (or the people representing them).

I'm not entirely sure how songwriters get paid right now, but I imagine that the company representing the artist pays the songwriter for the rights to the song (or perhaps the rights to perform the song) so the performer can sing it.

I don't see how free sharing of music would have an impact on this, the middle-man (the company representing the artist) would still be there to serve the same purpose. Perhaps the middle-man would be replaced from a large corporation to a small group of people to represent an artist, but don't see a whole lot different.

I'd be happy to give it more consideration and reply again if you point out something that I'm missing in my analysis.

Songwriters are paid whenever their song is performed live OR a recording played. Whoever puts on the concert, runs the radio station, or uses a recording of a song in a movie, mall, etc. pays an organization according to the size of the audience at the event. That organization (SOCAN in Canada) does all the administrative tracking and pays the songwriter.

The current problem is, with filesharing, the songs are being heard without any $$$ going back to the writer. If Internet Service Providers had a tracking mechanism (like radio), then songwriters could get paid.

Hmm… Okay, I've thought things over (a lot!) and have tried to write this post to address what you're pointing out.

To use the quote from SOCAN's website, songwriters are payed for performances, "This performance may be a live performance, a recording or any other type of performance" ( SOCAN ).

From my understanding of that wording (which might not be what they are actually trying to say), I would agree with it (and you), since it sounds fair to me. Songwriters deserve to be paid and I had no intent of implying otherwise. Currently I don't see much need for the system to be changed for commercial music use; concerts, radio stations, movies, and malls would all operate in similar ways as they do now, paying the appropriate copyright holders for use of their song in a *commercial* situation.

To me it sounds like SOCAN is referring to commercial use of music, largely in-line with what I've been saying. We currently don't pay every time we want to listen to a CD, when we play a song to our friends, or even if we sing it in the car. Why not? I don't know SOCAN's reasoning (maybe they would like to track and charge all of those examples), but my reasoning is because its for personal use. I see file-sharing related to the same examples as I just mentioned; its for personal use.

Wanting to track file-sharing should not be necessary since it is for personal use. If a company wants to use file-sharing to obtain music, that would be legal, but they wouldn't be able to use that song (to "perform" it) legally without paying the appropriate copyright holders (since it becomes commercial use at that point).

Thoughts?

SOCAN wants a piece of the pie every time something is played publicly, whether or not it is for-profit.

If they could think of a way to charge you every time you listened, I suspect they probably would. Similar rights organisations internationally have demonstrated a similar mindset, in putting forth tariffs and charges for the most inane things such as playing the radio in a taxi, or humming lullabies to children if you are a paid nanny. (Both are clearly hideous abuses of musicians' rights in order to make a profit!)

SOCAN is not as malignant as some of the others (internationally), so perhaps I am being overly harsh based on its peers. On the other hand, there are rights organisations in Canada that want to charge not-for-profit campus and community radio stations for such things as archiving music they *already have* and were given *for free* in order to promote the artists.

I have to agree, a lot of the things that these corporations have been asking for recently have been outrageous.
I wont get into the examples, as there are already many examples on this site, but I think we should be going in the opposite direction that most of these companies want; we should be allowing more freedoms, rather than less.

I agree. This isn't really about performance rights - this is about COPY- right. I shouldn't have brought up SOCAN in this debate, except as a side discussion.

I guess the big loss in revenue for songwriters is the 9 cents (or whatever it is now) per copy of the song that is distributed. Digitial distribution thru P2P eliminates that income.

So the performance revenue ends up being pursued more aggressively. Any time music is played somewhere that money is being made there is supposed to be a performance fee paid. I suspect that hair salons and dentists are, generally, not doing that, but they should, OR they should turn off the music.

Keeping paid nannies (see below) from singing lullabies is being a bit crazy, in my opinion

It may be possible that songwriters would lose some revenue from a decrease in CD sales (there will continue to be revenue though, as I've stated in my original comment - people will still buy CDs), but what is stopping songwriters from getting a higher percentage from other revenue streams (specifically from the artists who perform their songs)? I don't see any issues relating to that, if the songs are really worth the amount of money they are making now.

The performance revenue stream (for dentist offices as example) probably needs adjustments too (probably to a lesser degree than the adjustments needed for personal usage) - but I feel that I don't have enough details on that topic at this time, so I wont start arguing against it just yet ;)

As a side note, I know my dentist office plays the local radio station, it seems like an easy and acceptable way to follow laws and still provide entertainment (since then the radio station is paying for the fee).

I appreciate such a well thought-out reply to my initial post. I believe that you have made some valid points, but it seems that I may have left out some details that could better explain some points that you mentioned.

I think you may have focused too much on when I mentioned 'music being given away for free', which I was using as an example that some bands *already* take to get exposure. I did not intend to imply that "musicians should give away thier work without permission". I was only giving this example of how performers/bands benefit from getting exposure, which happens with the sharing of music. It seems that sharing (copying) music provides benefits for musicians by giving exposure, why make something beneficial illegal?

I unfortunately did not mention the role of songwriters in this post, which some people seem to be focusing a lot on. I never purposed any changes for the way songwriters are compensated because I don't see any need to change how compensation for songwriters works already; bands would still have to pay songwriters for the privilege to perform the songs at concerts, for sales (CD or otherwise), etc in the same way they have to right now. I can not think of how anything would be different between current copyright and what I have purposed in respect to compensation. (Perhaps contracts would be written differently?)

I hope the extra information I have provided clears up some of your misconceptions of what I was trying to say. I respectfully await to hear any opinions you might have on any flaws you still find.

Yes, I am suggesting that the impact of personal computers to facilitate digital transfer of goods is less harmful to the environment than physical distribution of those same goods.

The personal computer isn't quite the "energy-sucker" you would make it out to be. In fact, by their very nature they are designed to be as energy efficient as possible as heat is the bane of a computer and more electricity generates more heat.

I fail to see what memory upgrades have to do with anything to be honest. I upgrade my computer every five years and run the latest applications, including games, with no problems. It is a people problem that they feel compelled to have the "latest and greatest" and upgrade so frequently, it isn't necessary.

As a parent, I cannot so easily dismiss the dire state of our planet seeing as how my children will be inheriting it. I do what I can for my part in being as environmentally responsible as I can be. Digital distribution, to me, represents an alternative that I feel harms the planet less.

It would also present a counter-argument to you that we can just as easily forget that the public domain is in the sorry state that it is today. It is the "limitless realm of the human imagination" via the internet that is making this more apparent to a younger generation.

I also feel a legacy obligation in that I would not want a future where subsequent generations are not able to enjoy the freedom of creative expression due to the inaction of this generation to speak out on unreasonable copyright control.

Noble sentiments.
However, here are some figures you might want to consider.

1)The twentieth century saw a rapid twenty-fold increase in the use of fossil fuels over the previous century. Today, fossil fuels — mostly oil & coal - supply 86% of the world's energy supply. And yet, fossil fuels, as we all now know, are a LIMITED natural resource, not a "limitless energy supply… Consider all the time, effort & money that has gone into their RAPID extraction from the planet over the past 20 years. And FOR WHAT? What are we DOING with this ENERGY?

2) In 2005/6, the United States of America, having only one quarter of the total population of China, CONSUMED 1/3 MORE electricity. Consider that. [Canada ranks 6th in terms of global consumption.]

3) In 2005/6, global IT production, including electronic equipment, components and devices and IT totaled $1.67 TRILLION. Global electronics equipment production totaled $818 billion, and production of electronic components and devices reached $457 billion. Meanwhile, electronics hardware production totaled $1.27 TRILLION in 2005 while global IT solution services reached $400 billion. [Please note, these are 2005-2006 figures. It's easy to speculate how this EXPANSION has continued apace over the past 4-5 years …Consider you own use.]

Does it not strike you that something will have to 'give' in this above equation?

Meaning, current electronic consumption, especially by those within the 'developed' world, will soon outstrip current planetary energy CAPACITY. In simple terms, the planet just does not have it to give anymore. So, what's going to happen when it hits 'critical mass'?

In a word, catastrophy. Hoarding, scarcity, diminished opportunity for the less 'powerful', and severely regulated 'access' to HIGHLY regulated 'power sources', likely DECIDED by 'industry/corporate specialists' tied into governing bodies who have hefty military muscle. The 'shut offs' aka 'power outages' will be abrupt, and they'll be brutal. And it will all be COMPOUNDED by the trauma & hysteria of 'electronic addicts' suddenly losing their 'life-lines'. Poof.

So, yes, on surface your sentiments are laudable - EVERYONE - including future generations - SHOULD have access to the benefits & pleasures of the 'limitless realm of the imagination'. But surely not solely via planet-sucking energy-consuming ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS!

A better strategy for future SURVIVAL would be to cultivate an 'UNPLUGGED' imagination, no?

We'd be doing our kids a BIG Favour if we did …

I understand your point :)

The idea of a "digital media" tax is perhaps only one solution.

The fact remains though, trying to control the content in order to give the respective owners their dues is impossible without a change in our societys way of functioning.

Canadians are not likly to give up their freedoms and their democracy (however broken they are) for a socialist mentality just for the digital future.

Wether we like it or not, letting the content be freely distributed is the ONLY way that piracy is going to end. Figuring out how the copyright owners get paid is the hard part.

This is not to say that people will just stop buying media such as blurays or CD's. I'm not saying everything has to be given away for free and then figured out later. But rather, once the content has been purchased, let it circulate freely!

Those of us who support the copyright owners already are STILL going to support them. The content still has to be sold and can still be sold in both physical and digital forms.

I think the vast majority of Canadians would prefer to own the Bluray disc of a movie rather than download a cheap low(er) quality version online.

Just my 2cents

Just a counter point to the last comment.

Bluray is actually what drove me away from plastic media forever. DVD was/is great quality for the average person.

While it's true that most people wouldn't want to download an inferior lower quality copy, that is not what the reality is.

Often the "free" online version is as good as the DVD version (or as close to that most people don't really care about the difference). The fact that they would like me to re-buy (again) my movies in a new media that will probably effectively be obsolete in 5-10 years is not something I am willing to do. Especially because there isn't a convenient way of transferring older to newer format without a lot of work around and time.

The addition of decent quality fairly price non-device limited digital versions is what I would like to see.

TV's are coming that have USB/Ethernet/SD ports and Divx/Xvid built right into them, why fumble with a plastic disc at all when your TV can play the file right there for you.

I doubt book-readings will ever be as interesting as live music. Sorry, just being honest ;)

As such, being an author, as you state, you can't do the much-touted concerts that people keep mentioning for bands. I also don't think people are going to line up to buy t-shirts with an author's logo on it. Selling digital copies of a author's stories doesn't work, and I doubt it ever really will…judging by the number of books on file-sharing sites. So, how will people like authors earn a living?

Well, the obvious answer is that they should get fully paid up front, before the story is released in the first place. That's a no-brainer. The issue is how to convince lots of people to give the author money before getting the story. That's the hard part.

Sooner or later, there will be a system in place to facilitate this. It is inevitable. I've designed a system, so it can't be that hard (Keliso… I'm just waiting for the right people to come along). It doesn't really matter which system takes off, mine or someone else's, there will eventually be a viable system for collecting pre-release" revenue. It has to happen. It's not just story writers, it's poets, photographers, composers, journalists, programmers, inventors, and the list goes on. There are a lot of people that can't just throw a live-gig for cash. There are so many creative people waiting for the right way to start earning money for their work… it has to happen. The web can make it happen.

As soon as we have a viable system that allows creative people to earn a living within a system where digital work can be freely copied, well, this whole copyright nonsense will just go away. It will be irrelevant.