It is a well documented fact that contrary to your misinformed claims files sharing promotes sales . File sharers buy more DVDs/CDs than anyone else… I prefer sticking to the facts. It works for me.

Would you mind sharing your source for this information? I'm interested in how the statistics were gathered - if misinformed, I'll be happy to withdraw my comment.

That being said, here are some questions I have regarding these "facts":

- How was the information gathered? If by survey, who responded (type of user) and how many?
- Were responses generally submitted by those who share files (and would generally have to purchase media first to do so), or was there also a large number of "freeloaders" that responded?
- How was the data broken down, statistically?

Oddly, the above post about sales is right for the wrong reasons.

Macroeconomics proves what is good for an individual is not necessarily good for society.

Physical media sales have fallen, but the market shifted into online sales such as iTunes.
Hard formats accounted for 99.3% of the market, but will drop to 72.9% in 2010.

2300% sales increase:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/feb/26/monty-python-dvd-sales-soar

23% sales increase:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dreamworks-shares-jump-as-dvd-sales-pump-earnings

396% sales increase:
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1945

There will be more barriers to market entry if people let their personal economic interests override their common sense. Note, smaller bands currently being published would simply not exsist in a consolidated monopolistic competitive market.

This is a matter of a 783 million dollar international incentive getting microeconomists to ruin 3.9 billion dollars of market growth.

Having looked over most (but admittedly, not all) of the information referenced in the previous 2 comments - I have to say that I still find myself sitting on the fence with this one. This is because there doesn't seem to be a truly accurate way of gathering the required information with regard to how P2P downloads impact sales. Though the Industry Canada report is far more thorough than any others I've seen - much of the data collected (especially in terms of P2P downloads) could be considered "non-behavioural" or "don't know" responses - requiring hypothetical post-hoc analyses (this was stated in the report itself). Therefore (for the time being), I won't withdraw my inference that P2P downloading "potentially [reduces]" a copyright owner's potential customer base. Perhaps I will once I've finished reading each of the sources quoted. However, I do admit that I am focusing on individual copyright owners - as the Act does, itself.

Regardless,
this does not change the fact that as consumers, we are not purchasing a part ownership in the copyright - we are purchasing the privilege to use it as deemed appropriate by the copyright owner. Meaning (in most cases) that we should not be copying or distributing the work unless we have been granted permission to do so. This is left to the discretion of the creator/owner. As is the pursuit of copyright infringements that relate to their work.

Furthermore, there are a number of ways for a copyright owner to distribute his/her work - whether in print, on recorded media, via the Internet or through P2P networks - to name just a few. I'd say that the market is far from "monopolistic." The choice in how their work is distributed remains in the hands of the copyright owner.

"we are purchasing the privilege to use it"
Renting is not ownership despite what the Sony backed MPAA media releases would have you believe.

"The choice in how their work is distributed remains in the hands of the copyright owner."

Negative, there are 6 majority publishers:

Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group
Columbia Pictures (Sony Corporation)
Paramount Pictures (Viacom)
20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
Warner Bros. (Time Warner)

Monopolistic competition does not infer a singular entity, but rather a behavior associated with oligopoly. Simply refer to the kinked demand curve in every single one of these entities. They have manipulated the consumer market for years, and have enough money to outlast even government litigation.

They still don't want market fragmentation, but it has already occurred.

"we are not purchasing a part ownership in the copyright - we are purchasing the privilege to use it as deemed appropriate by the copyright owner."

I agree with this statement. My concern is that, to carry this to a ridiculous extreme, should the copyright owner have the right to dictate that I must listen to their music (as an example) using only Sony audio equipment and only while wearing a red shirt?

I believe that an important issue is where the line gets drawn over what rights the copyright owner can reasonably expect to dictate.

To me, it is not reasonable that the copyright owner should be allowed to dictate that I can listen to a musical selection on my computer, but can't move it to my iPod;or that I can watch a movie on my TV via a DVD player, but not transfer it to my computer.

That's where the issue over DRM comes into play and it is a very important one. I also believe, though, that the majority of content creators (as opposed to copyright owners, which may simply be distribution companies) just want a fair compensation for their work and don't really care if I move their work to a different medium provided I don't offer it for distribution to others.

garrein, Pal is referring to an Industry Canada (our Government) Report which can be found under the Resources section of this page. Here is the direct link:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html

Media Industry tried to rebut this research, and here is the Author of the Industry Canada report with her response to the industry rebuttal:

http://www.dime-eu.org/node/477

It's also important to note that the Industry Canada report on file sharing was also personally backed up by a member of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development with applicable research quoted:

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

Since this response was backed up and submitted in 2007, the media industry has yet to respond to this, nor provide substantial research to back up their assertions with respect to P2P.

There is absolutely no credible independent evidence that rebuts the Industry Canada report as it stands.

Maybe you should engage in a little reading, and rather than condemn people using P2P understand all sides of the argument. It has been proven that not all of what you have been told by the media industries position is the truth.

There is also an interesting working paper from Harvard Business School titled "File-Sharing and Copyright" by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf which can be seen at http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf.

As to verification. You would do well to apply your question to your own earlier statements. You have failed to qualify your own statements. If you are truly open to new info and the possibility that you are mistaken. Then know this. What I stated earlier is in the public record and the facts are easy to find. All that is required is the will to do so…

Manipulation and disinformation while not exclusive, have been shown to belong to the corporate camp where their bottom line has very little to do with old fashioned honesty.

As far as I can tell this consultation is a barometer of peoples attitudes and opinions. Not so much about changing peoples minds through argument…

Oh.. Purchasing the right to use but not own is called renting… Books, Music and Software that are for sale are purchased not rented…!!! Any other description is just colorful language designed to manipulate…

Pal, your argument that P2P trading helps grow various industries is moot. Are you suggesting that the government should tell a business how to operate? These studies should be noted when growing a business but should have NO bearing on the laws that should govern copyright.

Once (hopefully) our laws are amended, companies/individuals will finally be able to CHOOSE to share their music or software if they feel it is a good business decision.
At this point, there is no choice for a creator. Once it's created, it is pretty much accessible to the general population to consume, at no cost, and without penalty.

It is clearly immoral when an individual takes something that doesn't belong to them. When did it become ok to steal?
Seems to me its suddenly ok because everyone else is doing it… That's not what Canada should be about.

Hello BillBoardproduc

Yes I am suggesting that the government on behalf of the people should tell Businesses how to operate. Absolutely…! It's about protecting the people first. In whose name the government works. Corporations exist to serve. Without people there would be no corporations.

Copyrights were invented to give an extra hand up to the original inventors and authors. The little guys. Not for the corporate monstrosities that through lawyers, wield giant hammers, to crush those that get in the way of their corporate greed culture. There have been numerous examples of the corporates collecting money in the name of musicians. Then failing, after years, to give the money to those they supposedly collected for…

As far as theft. Intellectual property rights were invented not so long ago by some corporate loving bozos who spotted a money stream and could not resist.

Once I've bought something I will do as I please with it. I'll share as I like. It's mine I bought it! I don't however approve of selling that which you did not buy. Making money off others work would indeed be wrong and that's where I draw the line…

And lets NOT forget that up till now it's the corporates through greed have created the mess.
Failing to modernize their operations. Stifling innovation to protect their dinosaur and failing…

Also people who download, have been found to buy more cd/dvds. Go ahead argue and deny but the facts are in the public domain. Don't ask me to quote the study. You know how to Google… it's all there…

In the final analysis it's the will of the people not the greed of the Corporates that counts for me.

I've read things about the corporate monstrosities, and seen first hand examples where there have been damages awarded to major record companies, and that money has not been forwarded to the Artists, or credited to their accounts.

Contractually, they generally don't have to pass this on to the Artists. I don't like this, but there is no language in most Artist contracts to cover situations like this. It just wasn't anticipated.

This though, is just an example of the kaos that exists because of weak, murky and out of date copyright laws. It's not a secret that the Music Industry is in trouble. Companies and individuals (Creators) are going out of business because there is very little protection right now and this is why there seem to be so many gorilla tactics to defend their copyrights.

And so, kaos exists in a lawless land.

If laws were clarified, revenue streams would also be clearer, and ultimately Artists would be making more money. There are many corporations, sole proprietors, partnerships and individual creators that own copyrights, and they all deserve protection.

Clearly, the major record companies have a massive PR problem on their hands which started almost 20 years ago and continues to get worse and worse. BUT -It is an extremely weak argument to say that things shouldn't be changed because they don't deserve to be helped. The creators are suffering and need help, but still copyright laws should apply to all.

As a side note -the fact that many Artists have signed poor Agreements with major record companies is really their own fault. No Artist has ever been forced to sign a deal (except perhaps the mofia style tactics rumored to have happened between Vanilla Ice and Suge Knight). In any case, these days are long behind us now.

Umm.. This is what we have now, except the organizations take everything then gives a "small portion" back to the creator instead.

Personally I would like to see the artists / creators (myself included of course) have to sue people themselves. Maybe then they would only make claims when it actually matters instead of doing it to silence a political debate or in an attempt to terrorize the general population. If the artists had to sue the thieves (who are also their fans / customers) themselves, the public could boycott them when they act in ways that their would-be customers see as intolerable and market forces could help weed them out and leave a beautiful lawn. :)

The point is that we all know that it is wrong to infringe on other peoples' copyrights and other forms of intellectual property (such as patents and trademarks). The Copyright Act itself does not need to be over-complicated by specifically addressing legal issues that can be addressed under other Acts and Codes within Canadian legislation.

For instance, Gojira54 brought up the topic of DVD Region Codes (in my opinion - a rather needless feature). If a DVD or other media format is not to be used outside a specific area - this would appear to be something that pertains to export compliance and customs laws in those nations affected. Additionally, such Region Codes generally only affect original (likely purchased legally) media - not any pirated versions. Furthermore, if it is to be deemed illegal to circumvent this technology and the act of doing so is punishable in some manner - there are other places to address such things - such as the Criminal Code. However, who is to investigate or enforce such things (if ever) - other than the creators themselves? The overhead and expenses involved with having a public institution do so would be huge.

When it comes to your intellectual property it should be your responsibility to keep it as secure as you deem appropriate. When considering the distribution/usage of such information from a business perspective, one of the most basic factors comes back to risk vs reward. If making your property available puts it at too great a risk (or if deterring/preventing and following up on potential infringement requires too many time/monetary/other resources), perhaps it is time to reconsider how it will be shared, if at all.

In response to the following comment from canadada, "Artists want and need to work on their art, … Talk about 'time wasted'" - speaking as a business owner - I also want and need to work on the services my business provides. I might not enjoy the other necessary tasks that are involved, however I must - and there aren't any government provided services that will take care of my accounting, etc for me - at least, not that I'm aware of. If artists would like to contribte to a private company/agency that can do this for them - I see nothing wrong with that.

My opinion is that the Copyright Act should follow the KISS principle to limit confusion - basically, this is how copyright works, this is what it applies to, this is what constitutes infringement (based on creator permissions, etc) don't steal or these are the fines and punishment you face (perhaps becoming subject to any area of Canadian law that applies). Getting specific about different formats and methods used to infringe isn't necessary in the Act itself. What it comes down to is whether or not someone has obtained the appropriate permission to use the property as they have. Not the methods used to do so.

The trouble is we also all (or at least those of us who have ever had to deal with it) know it's wrong to abuse a license agreement. It's wrong to block blind people from using tools to help them read. It's wrong to ransom information to public schools. It's wrong to retrofit things people already purchased in good faith with new restrictions. It's wrong to extort money out of people who rely on your software and you have their work trapped in your proprietary file formats so they have no choice to continue paying or sacrifice their work. It's wrong to try to prevent people from format shifting their media or software so you can make them pay over again for the same thing.

But there is no legal recourse, or if there is, it's completely ineffective.
We need some consumer protections in our legislation.

Perhaps we do. However, the legislation in regard to any form of intellectual property is in place to protect the rights of those who create it - not the consumer. It has often been argued that a competitive free market provides such balance. In essence, so long as there are alternative options available to the owners of such work when deciding how their property is distributed - the owner should be able to choose the approach that meets his/her needs, and hopefully their consumer base, as well - without the need for government intervention. This is because if there is a need for better products, softwares, services, etc - a competitor will most likely emerge - offering yet another choice. In addition to this, it is up to a product's creator to clarify what constitutes acceptible use of their intellectual property. As an example, how many computers a piece of software can be installed on.

In essence, by offering consumers protection under legislation by limiting the rights of the artists/creators (across the board) - the free market becomes less free.

I'm not saying that I disagree with you crade, but when it comes to moving toward a more socialist form of economics - I do not think that the Copyright Act is the place to start. Furthermore, it would probably take a far greater sampling of public opinion than this currently offers to justify it. After all, it seems that North Americans in general, have come to (needlessly) fear such socialist concepts - largely because of the American media and rhetoric.

Respectfully, I believe you are mistaken about this.

The current copyright law gives some protection to consumers, the fair dealing restrictions are an example of this. There are quite a few holes in these rights that are currently being exploited and there are some proposals that will make even more. There is no good reason to strip consumers rights out of the copyright legislation.

I also believe whoever argued that competitive free market would automatically balance out unfair copyright legislation was also mistaken. We have very recent history and our own experience to draw from on this. I'm not even sure it even applies in this case when the market is entirely fabricated out of legislated rights. The legislation they drafted to try to help creators profit from their work may be intended to simulate a free market, but if it was, it doesn't seem to be working very well.

In copyright legislation, we aren't moving towards a socialist form of economics we have been there all along. Both the rights of the creators and the rights of the consumers are fabricated by legislators trying to decide what would make a good balance and would make a good market.
Copyright legistlation, even the current copyright legislation was intended to strike a proper balance between granting creators the ability to profit from their work and granting the public access to it. It is not all about creators rights.

The "Fair Dealings" legislation still bears in mind Section 27(2)(b) of the Copyright Act which states "it is an infringement of copyright for any person to distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright." Many of the exceptions to copyright and "fair dealing" are also based on the copyright owner(s) being remunerated by way of royalties. For instance, when dealing with blank recording media such as a tape or CD - the royalties can be included as part of the purchase price - and are paid for only by those who purchase the blank media. However, the difference with today's technology is that any number of digital formats can be stored to not only one hard drive, but any number of hard drives or storage media, anywhere in the world in what amounts to an instant. Furthermore, this sort of transference can be performed with most any (if not all) work, to which, copyright applies; and, there is little that can be done to control this. Keeping this in mind - how are copyright owners to receive similar remuneration for their work? It might be possible to include royalties on all storage device purchases - but this raises the question of why someone who is not making these sorts of copies is paying royalties on behalf of those who do.

I didn't mean to imply that copyright legislation (alone) would move us toward a more socialist economy. The truth is that I agree with crade's comment that "we have been there all along." However, I still respectfully disagree that the Act was "intended to strike a proper balance between granting creators the ability to profit from their work and granting the public access to it." This is because as consumers we are not purchasing a part ownership in the copyright - we are purchasing the privilege to use it as deemed appropriate by the copyright owner. By giving all consumers legislated rights to copy any intellectual property upon its purchase - we would essentially be forcing the creators & current owners of that same material to share the rights to their creation(s). That was never the intention of the Act - and could be seen as government interference in a free market.

That being said, my earlier arguments in regard to a free market providing some balance was meant in regard to many of the "It is wrong" statements you made in your earlier post, crade.

Well, I could be wrong about the original intent of the legislators, I can only speculate based on the result, but it would seem even from the intoduction as the top of this page that they are considering consumers rights:
"Canadian copyright law needs to be updated to give Canadian creators and consumers the tools they need to engage with confidence in the digital marketplace."

"we are purchasing the privilege to use it as deemed appropriate by the copyright owner."
This is only true to the extent that the terms of the agreement abide by the law. There are some terms currently that are not allowed even though they are allowed elsewhere and there are some that I believe are harmful to competition and should not be alowed.

I certainly never suggested we should give consumers unlimited rights, or rights to "copy any intellectual property upon its purchase ". I do not believe this at all. Our current system works relatively well and I think only requires some minor repairs. The consumers rights (or limitations on owners rights if you prefer to look at it that way) I would like to see are not at all of this sort.

I would like to see owners not have legal protection on digital locks, since these locks are used to prevent fair dealing uses.
I would like to see them not have the right to dictate that the content you license can only be used in a particular format, since I believe this is harmful to innovation and takes away both from the need to create new material and the will to create new and innovative devices to view material.
These are just a couple things I personally think are important.

I do not believe these things or similar consumer protections would be seen as interference in a free market. Consumers have protections against abuse in other markets.

Your last paragraph confused me… I am aware your arguments that competition in a free market would provide balance was in response to my "it is wrong" rant, I just don't believe that is the case both because I don't believe the rules that govern free markets apply in this case when the seller has control over supply and because I can see that it is not working.

Under CIPO your rights are already explicitly protected with the (c), but you likely don't have the financial incentive or lawyers to protect your work.

Chances are like most writers you signed over these rights to one of the limited number of publishing firms.

Unless you use the web…
The real cost of the loss of net neutrality should have writers very concerned.