Information identifiée comme étant archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’a pas été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis la date de son archivage. Les pages Web qui sont archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes applicables au Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez la demander sous d’autres formes. Ses coordonnées figurent à la page « Contactez-nous »
Pirates. Are Pirates. Are Pirates …
"In the wake of the recent earthquake, 56 popular local artists and musicians recorded a six-minute song to raise reconstruction funds. The uplifting collaboration, titled "Domani 21/4/09," features turns by top-selling Italo pop performers Jovanotti, Ligabue, Zucchero and Elisa, among others. The song was distributed online for e2 ($2.70) per download, before going out to record stores for e5.
But filesharing sites put a damper on the fund-raising, registering more than two million illegal downloads of the track.
"I feel frustrated and dismayed," lamented prominent Italo music industryite Caterina Caselli, who produced the song for free with Universal Music. "This time (the pirates) aren't going against the interests of the hated music majors, but against tens of thousands of citizens who have to start from scratch after having lost everything." - source, Variety
Note that number: 2 MILLION downloads, and counting … Is this REALLY the kind of world that we want - ? That's the question.
shep [2009-07-26 20:42] Nº du commentaire : 932 Reply to: 898
A P2P Download is not the same as a lost sale. Downloading is the new radio. How much more exposure did that song get because of the downloading? The news article you quoted alone is proof that downloading brought awareness to the song. I'm sure many of those 2 Million downloads turned into sales! Those downloads which did not turn into sales are by people who probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place!
Whats next? Should we prevent people "borrowing" cds, so people's only choice is to buy their own copy?
Jkobo [2009-07-26 22:14] Nº du commentaire : 935 Reply to: 932
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.
canadada [2009-07-27 16:34] Nº du commentaire : 982 Reply to: 935
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 …
Jkobo [2009-07-27 18:07] Nº du commentaire : 990 Reply to: 982
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.
canadada [2009-07-28 07:42] Nº du commentaire : 1040 Reply to: 990
The benefit was ORGANIZED and PROMOTED as a FUNDRAISER.
Downloads that did not respond to that appeal were thefts.
Jkobo [2009-07-28 13:23] Nº du commentaire : 1056 Reply to: 1040
"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.
rinzertanz [2009-08-11 16:37] Nº du commentaire : 1520 Reply to: 1056
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.
shep [2009-07-27 18:25] Nº du commentaire : 995 Reply to: 982
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.
canadada [2009-07-28 07:25] Nº du commentaire : 1038 Reply to: 995
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.
shep [2009-07-28 08:20] Nº du commentaire : 1041 Reply to: 1038
"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.
canadada [2009-07-28 09:25] Nº du commentaire : 1042 Reply to: 1041
I am not 'pretending' anything.
I make my living as an artist.
My bet is you do not.
J.M.T. [2009-07-28 11:40] Nº du commentaire : 1046 Reply to: 1042
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.
canadada [2009-07-31 12:20] Nº du commentaire : 1182 Reply to: 1046
This post is about 'downloaders' who took advantage of artists collaboating to raise funds for victims of the earthquake.
It is not about DRM.
canadada [2009-07-31 12:37] Nº du commentaire : 1184 Reply to: 1182
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.
shep [2009-08-13 18:51] Nº du commentaire : 1640 Reply to: 1184
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!
rinzertanz [2009-08-14 10:30] Nº du commentaire : 1653 Reply to: 1640
… 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.
crade [2009-08-14 13:55] Nº du commentaire : 1658 Reply to: 1653
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.
rinzertanz [2009-08-14 16:53] Nº du commentaire : 1660 Reply to: 1658
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.
crade [2009-08-14 17:37] Nº du commentaire : 1664 Reply to: 1660
Umm.. yeah, sure thats what I was trying to say, earthquake victims are bad bad people… thanks for clearing that up.
rinzertanz [2009-08-14 20:24] Nº du commentaire : 1668 Reply to: 1664
rinzertanz [2009-08-13 17:43] Nº du commentaire : 1636 Reply to: 995
Note: TWO MILLION.
canadada [2009-07-27 16:32] Nº du commentaire : 981 Reply to: 932
… 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 …
Chris Brand [2009-07-27 16:09] Nº du commentaire : 978 Reply to: 898
That really isn't the question. You may not like the world you describe, but that really doesn't matter, because you can't do anything about it. It's just basic economics. The marginal cost of making a copy is so close to zero that the price you can charge for a copy will be zero.
Just as you may not like gravity, but have to accept it, you have to accept that the business model of charging for copies is going to disappear.
In the context of this question, anything the government can do to encourage Canadian businesses to recognise this fact and find the business models that will work is a good thing. Conversely, anything they do to prop up the "charge for a copy" businesses is counter-productive.
canadada [2009-07-28 07:33] Nº du commentaire : 1039 Reply to: 978
Copyists are not artists.
CraigB [2009-07-27 18:25] Nº du commentaire : 994 Reply to: 898
For those artists who want exposure, I imagine two million downloads might not be that objectionable.
Certainly a world where creative people languish in frustrating obscurity is no more preferable to one where artists can't make a living.
A successful economy requires a healthy balance between the rights of the seller and the rights of the buyer. This is what is missing today. Companies with a 70 year monopoly are dictating the terms of the sale, applying non competitive practices on their hardware platforms and ignoring the rights of the consumer. They are then lobbying for tougher laws to protect them because their sales are dropping.
Any changes to the copyright laws have to be balanced with updated changes to the consumer protection laws. In my opinion this is where the previous Bill C61 failed. It contained some recognition of consumer rights but then allowed digital locks to be implemented that didn't recognize the consumer rights. We can't make criminals of consumers that are exercising their rights.
A Digital Rights Management (DRM) system must manage all rights or none. The vendors can not continue to implement digital locks that protect their goals at the expense of consumer rights. This just devalues the digital content. The laws must limit what the digital locks can and can't do. If the digital lock violates the consumers rights then the consumer requires either the legal right to break the digital lock or the ability to take legal actions against the company that implemented them including compensation.
The digital locks must not be able to lock the content beyond the copyright limit. If the copyright is for 50 years then they must not be allowed to lock the content beyond this period of time.
The digital locks require a fail safe mechanism. If a digital lock is deployed in Canada the party that implemented the lock should be required to register with a third party a utility that is proven to unlock the content. The third party firm (i.e. Accounting firm) would the be obligated to publicly release the utility if the company goes out of business or decides to exit the market. If the rights holder still requires the content to be protected they must provide replacement content.
The digital locks must not be able to limit the content to a single vendors platform. If the consumer purchases content from Vendor A they must have the ability to export the content to Vendor B's platform if the content is the same format. In other words the vendors must not be allowed to use digital locks to create incompatibility.
The consumer must be recognized as owning the right to consume the content in any form they desire.
What I'm suggesting only increases the value of the digital content that is being purchased and would make for a sustainable digital economy. Canada should be leading in this area rather then following other countries mistakes.
meikipp [2009-07-25 15:14] Nº du commentaire : 889 Reply to: 882
I would argue it's better not to have DRM at all, but insisting that DRM also enforce fair dealing provisions would be a possible alternative.
I personally have never been that involved in the music industry (as a consumer), I refuse to buy any form of music because I know its overpriced beyond its value. I have also avoided downloading music because of the legal and moral ambiguity (I dont believe the action of downloading/sharing music is morally wrong, but because it *may* be illegal to download songs, going against the law could be seen as immoral).
Heres an experience I've had recently:
My friend purchased concert tickets for himself (and another ticket for me, since he wanted to bring me along). When he purchased the tickets, the band provided him with a download of ALL of their songs at no extra cost.
Since I usually avoid the music industry, when I actually attended the concert, I was shocked to see how much money was being spend on a variety of merchandise in the lobby. I personally consider it all too overpriced, but there were lots of fans of the band who thought the merchandise was either worth the price, or wanted to show their support for the band (or both).
As the warm-up band played (who neither I nor my friend had ever heard of before), they played a song that we both recognized. Not only that, but I knew most of the words, and a lot of the people in the audience were singing along too (to make a note, people were not singing along with the band's other songs). After the concert I looked up the song/band and found out the only reason I knew the song was because it had been in a commercial routinely played on television.
I think my recent concert experience is an excellent example of how the digital economy has already started to replace the old business model (which I see as horribly outdated). Musicians can still make a living even if their music is given away for free; good bands will have fans that want to support them, attend their concerts, own their merchandise, and collect their albums. In addition, I believe this examples shows that the sharing and exposure of music will allow artists to become more well-known and become even more successful. Few people in the concert audience would have recognized the warm-up band if it was not for that one commercial.
I believe the act of copying music (copying a file, file-sharing, P2P, or any related form) for non-commercial personal use should be completely legal since the ownership of the song (who created it) remains, and there is no financial loss created by this action.
An added benefit of allowing file-share of music would be the increased culture of our citizens, encouraging more people to listen to more music and increasing the public's interest in the arts.
I believe that the free sharing of music would benefit most musicians.
Large corporations with monopolies over the music industry may be hurt by this business model, but if they allow themselves to adapt they will survive. All these musicians will still need representation, marketing, cover designs, etc. that these companies can still provide and profit on.
dbrucemoore [2009-08-15 18:48] Nº du commentaire : 1684 Reply to: 835
"Musicians can still make a living even if their music is given away for free; good bands will have fans that want to support them, attend their concerts, own their merchandise, and collect their albums."
How do songwriter's get paid, then? Many songs are performed by 'other' than the songwriters.
Bands can make money by performing, yes, but the professional songwriter will have to quit writing and get a traditional job…and all those wonderful songs will never be written.
MatthewSherrard [2009-08-15 23:38] Nº du commentaire : 1693 Reply to: 1684
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.
dbrucemoore [2009-08-16 11:21] Nº du commentaire : 1698 Reply to: 1693
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?
MatthewSherrard [2009-08-16 21:29] Nº du commentaire : 1701 Reply to: 1698
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.
dbrucemoore [2009-08-16 21:39] Nº du commentaire : 1703 Reply to: 1701
"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'.
MatthewSherrard [2009-08-16 23:10] Nº du commentaire : 1704 Reply to: 1703
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.
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.
dbrucemoore [2009-08-17 09:49] Nº du commentaire : 1710 Reply to: 1704
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.
Rai [2009-08-17 16:35] Nº du commentaire : 1716 Reply to: 1704
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.
dendee [2009-08-19 00:41] Nº du commentaire : 1796 Reply to: 1698
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
Jkobo [2009-08-19 02:39] Nº du commentaire : 1799 Reply to: 1796
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:
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:
In music it's the labels that need to adapt more to creative talents needs in the paradigm shift:
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:
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.
crade [2009-08-19 12:10] Nº du commentaire : 1818 Reply to: 1799
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.
Jkobo [2009-08-19 16:48] Nº du commentaire : 1851 Reply to: 1818
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.
crade [2009-08-19 21:08] Nº du commentaire : 1866 Reply to: 1851
"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:
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?
Jkobo [2009-08-19 21:48] Nº du commentaire : 1869 Reply to: 1866
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."
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):
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:
For TV + Film:
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.
crade [2009-08-20 03:39] Nº du commentaire : 1885 Reply to: 1869
First, thank you for your informative reply!
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)
wildesmith [2009-09-08 12:40] Nº du commentaire : 2324 Reply to: 1693
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?
Rai [2009-08-17 16:16] Nº du commentaire : 1715 Reply to: 1684
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.
dbrucemoore [2009-08-17 18:03] Nº du commentaire : 1721 Reply to: 1715
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.
Rai [2009-08-18 19:28] Nº du commentaire : 1764 Reply to: 1721
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).
MatthewSherrard [2009-08-18 21:11] Nº du commentaire : 1776 Reply to: 1764
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.
Rai [2009-08-19 12:46] Nº du commentaire : 1825 Reply to: 1776
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.
dbrucemoore [2009-08-19 10:33] Nº du commentaire : 1811 Reply to: 1764
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
Rai [2009-08-21 14:57] Nº du commentaire : 1956 Reply to: 1811
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).
wildesmith [2009-09-08 11:58] Nº du commentaire : 2319 Reply to: 835
I understand your perspective; however I don't see that you have thought it through. Instead it seems like a rather narrow view of the "music" industry, the perspective that all music is derived from a "band" who wish to "perform' like monkeys for their audience. Some authors are creating great pieces of work in the background, and many popular songs are written by persons who never play them personally. The "band' plays them and pays for the privilege. And rightly so, for they reap a direct benefit as a result.
If we elect to ignore effort and expense of creative persons and do not provide a means to protect them and their work we will inevitably all one day be driving the same car and listening to same music that megacorp decides for us.
It is this very protection of creative work whether it is software or engineering or music that supports free enterprise and fosters diversity and allows for innovation at the grassroots level.
If we lose this we surrender our lives to the corporate model in the name of personal greed. It is greed that drives the idea of us getting something that cost someone else, be it labour or money, and then permit ourselves to get it for nothing.
I write songs and I give them away at my discretion, this is my choice and the choice of many artists in the hope of exposure. This is a concious decision.
If you feel that musicians should give away thier work without permission, then why don't you go into work and give your knowledge away to your employer for free. In the hope that they will become a fan of yours and compensate you at their discretion. I doubt anyone could afford such an approach to life so why should the music industry?
Rai [2009-09-08 13:26] Nº du commentaire : 2328 Reply to: 2319
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.
In a digital commodity market do we not see environmental benefits in less consumption of physical goods? If our global reputation suffers from our lack of progress on the negative environmental impact of resource-driven activity, could we not see our environmental reputation improve from making the transfer of digital goods less punitive?
Part of the reason that I no longer buy DVDs is because the digital distribution alternatives made me much more aware of the environmental footprint associated with it. The other was that I was no longer willing to keep repaying for the same content due to VHS to DVD to HD-DVD (yes, I got burned on that failure) format shifts.
While not a primary driver for the consultation I feel that enviromental impact is a valid point to bring into the discussion. It could be likely that we would see more DRM that is tied to the actual physical possession of a product if DRM is given the weight that it would be if bill C-61 was passed.
Finally, here is an interesting quote from a 2007 article titled "How the Physical Distribution of Digital Goods Impacts the Environment" by Carolyn Pritchard:
"It is difficult to place an exact estimate on the total environmental impact of an individual CD. In relation to just greenhouse gases, one study estimates an impact of 1 kilogram of carbon dioxide equivalents for each music CD produced, packaged and delivered. About half of this comes from the production of the CD and half from transportation. Another study, which focused on alternative approaches to music reproduction and distribution, estimated a net difference of approximately one 1 kilogram of greenhouse emissions between physical and electronic distribution (assuming that the electronic media isn't simply burned onto a CD by the recipient)."
rinzertanz [2009-08-27 23:59] Nº du commentaire : 2084 Reply to: 831
.. are you suggesting that the Energy sucked out of the planet to drive personal & commercial computers with all the on-going supportive infrastructure 24/7 is 'less' then the periodic and limited production of 'tangential' physical artefacts-?
I just cannot by into the hypocrisy of this position.
If someone was genuinely CONCERNED about the 'well-being' of the planet they would FOCUS on the ramifications & environmental impact of that Energy-Sucker at the end of their finger-tips …
o' and btw, when's that next GB/RAM 'upgrade'?
Cuz everyone KNOWS 'users' gotta have MORE POWER & MORE SPEED.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to forget that the planet is our life support system? Wouldn't it be much easier to just float around in the 'limitless realms of the human imagination' via the net forever… tra-la …tra-la … ?
KickingRaven [2009-09-02 13:39] Nº du commentaire : 2172 Reply to: 2084
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.
rinzertanz [2009-09-02 23:31] Nº du commentaire : 2179 Reply to: 2172
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 …
sjbrown [2009-08-28 14:43] Nº du commentaire : 2092 Reply to: 831
Delivery of audio and video over the internet is indeed less harmful to the environment than physical delivery. I think this is a motivator in how people try to get their media.
Companies invested in pressing discs have been slow in waking up to consumers' desires, both in methods of delivery and format.
There will still remain a market for physical packaging of audio and video media. But this will cater to "fans" looking for physical keepsakes and conspicuous cultural identifiers.
Heather Robertson, author, recently 'won' a DECADE LONG class action law suit against the Globe & Mail regarding compensation for 'illegal' digital transmission of works by 'content producers', aka 'artists & authors'.
Yet, internationally, the continued FREE dispersal of digital content by WITHOUT COMPENSATION continues … See 'cloverleaf.com', a 'FREE' magazine service, as an example.
Authors and artists must be vigilant about 'distribution clauses' whether working 'on contract', or 'freelance'.
The internet has revolutionized our society in every conceivable way!
Piracy will never, EVER be abolished unless content is given away freely by its creators. Trying to create laws to stop it or laws to control it are doomed to fail every single time without fail!
To make Canada a leader in the digital economy, I believe freedom of content distribution MUST take place. The internet can simply not be held back and there are always ALWAYS going to be work arounds to DRM and paid (iTunes) or subscription (Napster) systems.
The content is ALWAYS going to be floating around online for people to download for free. Don't try and control that because it CANNOT be controlled in a Democratic free country. Nothing short of a Socialist society can control that and we don't want that now, do we ;)
The ONLY solution for the problem of royalties and compensation (of content creators and distributors) while maintaining this digital economy is an Entertainment Tax on digital devices used to Acquire, store, display and play digital content.
Take the digital media tariffs. I think the tax on the iPods was a good thing! I think the tax on blank media is a good thing. So, take that idea and run with it!
As an example;
Allow file sharing. Allow the LEGAL downloading of movies, television shows and music. To compensate, tax the devices used to acquire store and play the content. These devices are (but not limited to)
-digital media (blank DVD, Bluray, USB sticks)
-hard disk drives (internal and external)
-home theater equipment
-car audio equipment
Basically, any device capable of playing or acquiring the content should be taxed. This tax should be the same for every product. Don't make it confusing for the consumer or end user. Everyone should know they are going to pay x% on any of these products.
I do not believe that the content itself needs to be taxed, as it is unable in its own capacity to be copied or distributed. The above list of products are what need to be considered.
If you consider how many homes are going to purchase a new LCD or Plasma TV or a new computer each year, or how many cars will get new CD players or DVD screens or speakers, you'll begin to see why this makes sense!
I'll use the automotive industry as an example. Each and every oil service performed has an environmental levy imposed. Each tire sold has a levy. Every time a new car is sold with air conditioning, there is a levy.
These levees are imposed to negate the cost of environmental programs and protection. People don't complain about this. In fact, 99/100 times they understand and agree with them!
The goal is not to go crazy and make products/services difficult to purchase or afford, but make it reasonable enough that consumers can accept and embrace the tax because they can tangibly see and hear the benefits.
Like the automotive example above, it shouldn't cost you $100 tax per tire… that is unnecessary!. But $2/tire is a lot in the long run considering how many tires are sold in Canada and yet, it does not affect the purchaser of the tires in a negative way.
Let them know how the tax will benefit them and what it can do FOR THEM
In my opinion, the consumers are more likely to pay a slight tax on their digital products to enjoy extra freedom with their use!
This is the only way that, artists, actors, directors, content providers etc… will ever be properly compensated for the wonder called the internet.
This is all my 2¢… so please respond accordingly.
Devan [2009-07-24 02:31] Nº du commentaire : 751 Reply to: 735
While I agree that piracy is not likely to be eliminated without extremely harsh controls, I don't see how the digital media tariffs could be used to fund all digital content. The biggest problem would be in properly distributing that money to creators. If I'm a novelist and I release my book online for free, should I receive money for it? If so, how much?
Those things are usually determined by the number of people willing to buy it at a particular price, but in the system proposed here there would be no way to know that. There could easily be creators getting paid too little or too much.
Additionally, I wouldn't be surprised if non-Canadian creators and industry associations started blocking their content from Canada, claiming unfair returns for their products.
That's simply my thoughts on the system presented here. However, I do like this train of thought. Alternative forms of payment is much preferred to draconian restrictions.
majicmeow [2009-07-24 12:10] Nº du commentaire : 785 Reply to: 751
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
JayBarti [2009-07-24 13:34] Nº du commentaire : 793 Reply to: 785
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.
fixerdave [2009-07-28 00:56] Nº du commentaire : 1029 Reply to: 751
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.
Rai [2009-07-24 16:41] Nº du commentaire : 823 Reply to: 735
I largely agree with the first few paragraphs. Trying to restrict and prevent users from doing anything is just going to leave the industry with nothing.
However, I disagree with how you presented royalties. I don't believe it to be fair to tax all devices that *could* be used to access copyrighted material (although I wont argue against applying it to iPods). From the point of view of someone working in the IT industry, the royalties would mean that whenever we purchased new hardware (new servers, hard drives, etc), we would be charged this fee even though our hardware would never be used for that purpose. Its easy to lump everything together, but I don't think it would be very fair to industries or consumers.
That being said, I think having royalties on the above mentioned items and allowing free distribution would be FAR more fair (to consumers specifically) than allowing companies to sue for millions of dollars for a few infractions (as can be seen in the US).
I'm sure that one of the issues on the table for potential legislation is the policy of "Anti-Circumvention". I recently wrote a research paper on copyright and why Anti-Circumvention must not be supported by law:
If we learn anything from the DMCA, it should be that digital locks are very frequently used to enforce anti-competitive or anti-consumer practices. Companies can tie customers to their products, remotely deactivate content that was already purchased, and completely prevent Fair Use.
What we need is copyright law that protects consumers from any digital locks which prevent them from exercising their rights or which hamper free consumer choice (which is an essential component of an effective free market).
Short of that, we must still ensure that no Anti-Circumvention policies are added to our copyright system. Policies like that are like "hooks" into law; they allow third parties to effectively add-on to the law and make it more restrictive by simply placing a digital lock on a product. Then since whatever the lock does is protected by law, the customer has to choose between obeying the third party or sacrificing the product.
There have been numerous recent cases of heinous abuses of Anti-Circumvention policies which result in unfair and economically unhealthy business practices (see my paper for examples). Even if digital locks were an effective form of anti-piracy measure (which is another good discussion), they would still not justify legal protection. The amount of unbridled power that gives to unelected individuals and corporations is just too great.
rinzertanz [2009-07-24 10:29] Nº du commentaire : 774 Reply to: 725
Devan wrote: "The biggest problem would be in properly distributing that money to creators. "
I totally agree.
Also, I'm not as enthusiastic about our 'disposable consumer society' as the original poster. I don't upgrade my 'components' every 2-5 years. If need be I just 'transfer the data'. Thus, paying a 'tax' on blank media makes sense. Though I sincerely doubt that these funds are distributed equitably between and to artists. I, personally, have never seen a 'dime' from these so-called 'taxes' I don't know any artist who has. Where are those monies actually going? Associations? Lobby groups? Again, I'm not aware of any artist who DIRECTLY benefits from these taxes …
Bannir les DRM et autres extensions numériques légale du pouvoir de l'éditeur/créateur légal de la création sur le produit serait une bonne chose. De cette maniè re, on assurerait une liberté des produits et une meilleure distribution de contenu de qualité. Il est selon-moi indéniable qu'une législation permettant encore plus aux éditeurs de verrouiller illégitimement le contenu nuirait grandement à une économe numérique. Non-seulement ces verrous logiciels sont-ils nuisibles à la qualité des produits, mais il imposent des restrictions sur des produits numériques… ce qui ne devrais pas avoir lieu d'être.
Arrêter de considérer le "piratage" de créations numérique comme étant un problè me serait aussi un bon début. Une étude soumise au ministè re de l'industrie à déjà démontré que les supposés pirates sont les plus grand consommateurs de contenu.
Si nous voulons bâtir une économie numérique fleurissante, elle doit se dérouler dans un cadre qui assure une libre compétition dans un marché qui soit avantageux pour les consommateurs.
L'internet a été pensé pour être libre… le marché du numérique doit l'être lui-aussi.
My main concerns about "modernized" copyright laws were very apparent in C-61.
Fair dealing is a vital piece of any reasonable copyright law, and needs to be preserved. While specifically enumerating fair dealing's provisions as in C-61 may be useful, it must be clear that these provisions are not exclusive; I was concerned that the specific measures in C-61 could be interpreted to have meant that consumers of copyrighted media had the rights specified and no others.
My biggest concern however is the so called "digital locks" provisions. While I could understand an increased penalty for breaking various protection schemes FOR THE PURPOSE of violating copyright, banning the bypassing of these provisions in general only serves to weaken fair dealing to no positive end. In effect it says that fair dealing gives certain rights, unless the copyright holder says otherwise. This is not reasonable, fair dealing is, and should be based in giving the user of content the ability to use as he or she sees fit. Equating the act of bypassing a system intended, for example, to restrict music to a specific brand of player with a violation, while also stating that consumers may, in general, "platform shift" content makes no sense whatsoever.
Beyond this I have few concerns about copyright provisions. Ideally I believe shorter terms are better for the public at large, but in practice this doesn't so much mean shortening Canadian terms avoiding the American "author's life plus 95 years" term length. Life +50 should be more than sufficient, and I do wonder if a shorter time might be reasonable.
Finally, crown copyright should be eliminated. It serves no purpose but to restrict the availability of government information.