Digital goods such as copyright material lack the fundamental excludability and scarcity required for a normal market for those goods. This is why we have what amounts to a "free store" accessible through the Internet.

We cannot prevent all piracy, but the following factors will limit piracy in the future:

1. Legal action. Note that Kazza just changed to a paid business model, as Napster also did.
2. Moral outrage. Let's face it, the current culture is in favor of piracy. This will change. The vast majority of people will not breach their morals just because they are given opportunity to do so.
3. Improved service from paid sources.

Other factors are at play, but I have no time to comment further!

David H. Brett

You're absolutely correct that works covered by copyright are simply not comparable to markets for physical goods. So arguments based on physical property are simply not applicable. "Theft" and "Piracy" of copyrighted works are based on improper comparisons to physical property.

Copyright holders should have some legal protection, and they do. Non-commercial copyright infringement may damage the copyright holder, and there is and should be legal recourse in such cases, but the argument that each unauthorized copy is equal to one lost sale and is therefore theft is simply wrong.

If the current culture in a democracy holds a particular value that the current law of that democracy says is illegal, what's wrong, the law or the people? If the moral argument holds for all copyright infringement (under the current law), everyone who ever used a VCR would be a criminal.

We have to start this copyright discussion from the position that some forms of copying without permission of the copyright holder are and should be legal and some forms won't be. Starting from an absolute position is counter-productive.

I'll just reply quickly to your points:

1. Shutting down or converting services/software like Kazza and Napster has done nothing to slow perceived piracy.

2. We do not live in a culture of piracy. My generation made this culture and I have yet to experience this "piracy culture". Everyone I know that is moral buys everything they like at some point when they have the means. If anything, "piracy" channels have helped sales in many instances.

3. Agree on this point. But more legislation will make it more cost effective to sue/charge than support new paid sources. Perfect example is the last 10 years. There are/were plenty of revenue models that can be supported but large studios and publishers prefer to support legislation as a lawyer is more cost effective than competition and adapting to new software/services.

"Let's face it, the current culture is in favor of piracy. This will change. The vast majority of people will not breach their morals just because they are given opportunity to do so."

If that were true, then the majority of people would not pirate media today. They do.

They do indeed. But like I said. This will change.

Regarding "piracy culture," look at all the anti-music industry rhetoric. There is an attitude that record labels deserve to be ripped off. For a contrasting culture, look at scholarly publishing.

Have you seen a Napster for journal articles? No. Why?

The reasons for this are complex.

Anyone wanting a copy of my thesis,on this topic can email me via my website davidbrett.blog.ca

There are no journal articles on Napster because there is already a better platform for the users available. And some make some good coin.

I am personally not against the music industry. I support it 100%. What I don't support is their efforts to limit ownership rights or introduce laws to force monetray gains where no monetary loss occured.

In fact, I refuse to buy any product with DRM on it. Does that make me a pirate and anti-industry? No.

I just believe I should have ownership rights when I pay ownership values while maintaining common privacy.

MS, are you saying there is a file-sharing site for journal articles? Where? There isn't one.

Re DRM, you are not engaging in piracy by avoiding it. DRM is doomed because it limits option value, the main reason for paying rents for a recorded work.

I think its fair to say the record industry is loosing a lot of money due to piracy. That is a fact. There is no disputing it.

Just because there are no peer-to-peer systems for journals doesn't mean there are not other well used mediums. In fact, there is nothing stopping anyone from using these P2P platforms for just that. Universities have journal repositories and websites for publications. There are also plenty of print mediums. Who cares if they are not P2P platforms? The point is they have a sharing medium that works well.

Prove the industry is losing money from this perceived piracy. They have been currently trying to definitively prove this for years with no success. I encourage you to try - I really do want to see the results of some proper research.

By "losing money" I also mean a relevant figure. There is no doubt they are losing some but is it relevant... that's the question.

MS,

A P2P network is fundamentally different from a repository residing on a single server. It is widely accepted that P2P networks such as Napster enabled global piracy to flourish.

If you do not believe piracy hurts revenues for downloadable digital goods, I don't know if I can convince you. The evidence is absolutely everywhere.

You are absolutely correct that P2P is fundamentally different from a single repository. That doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of uses out there for all types of technology or that just because a journal or repository decides to not use a specific technology that it must be bad. You are mistaken if you think this perceived piracy has flourished at the advent of P2P technology. In fact, duplication of everything digital was already well underway and flourishing before P2P came along. P2P technology was just simply the next evolution in exchange medium. Removed, the masses will simply revert to an older or newer method.

Digital duplication has actually increased in any particular region directly correlated to digital and internet access of the people in that region. It has nothing to do with P2P, or any other specific technology, other than P2P has become the technology of choice for duplication and sharing simply because it's slightly more convenient. FTP synchronization was the choice before then and website repositories before that.

The question isn't weather or not P2P is to blame and must be stopped/restricted. The questions are is there any possible way we can stop this phenomenon from occurring and does it really affect revenues.

To date there is no evidence anywhere that stands up to scrutiny and third party evaluation that digital duplication affects any particular business or industries revenues in any meaningful way.

You are absolutely correct that I do not "believe" in this "piracy" problem. This is simply because the "fight against piracy" is not an abstract concept or doctrine that can be interpreted. This is a fundamental math equation - give me the math unaltered and proof of formula that can be validated. Only then will I accept the results. Without it, all we have is anecdote and conjecture.

The evidence is not everywhere. I've been actively looking everywhere - I have yet to find anything complete with proven correlation.

doesn't this site have a rule about personal advertising...I could be wrong, but if Dbrett wanted to quote something from his thesis then he should have....

I'm not selling anything CDN, so what's your point? I'm participating in the great free exchange of ideas. Isn't that what you are advocating?

you are a troll trying to saturate the bandwidth with RIAA propaganda. lol free exchange of ideas!
troll!

Dbrett, record labels are meant to support artists, not make millions off them. And today artists can produce, distribute and market they're art very cost effectively so there is less of a need for these record labels.

In response to your original post: File sharing is unstoppable, and while it's immoral to artists, its unfair to consumers. And because file sharing can't be stopped whether the law changes or not the artists will still lose indefinitely. A different solution must be found. And I think it looks something like a Canada where culture and media is shared freely to make a country with more rich and lush heritage. And artists can with generous compensation threw some kind of tariff. Maybe a yearly tax, or on digital media, or on personal Internet usage. I would happily live with a $50 yearly tax that goes to Canadian artists and not feel threatened when I do what I think is right.

PS: Your OP(original post) was just full demands. But why? I'm only morally outraged by your OP. But I'll agree to disagree. : ) Change is inevitable.

Dan, record companies exist to make money. Let's not delude ourselves. It's not called the music "business" for nothing.

I agree a tariff system may be in the cards. Look what happened with tapes and s. Many people don't realize that they pay a tariff when they buy a re-writable anytCDhing.

However, don't loose hope that people will eventually agree to pay money out of their cheap pockets. Look at how much people fork over for concerts. Huge bucks.

You have heard of "360" deals, no doubt, where companies like Livent are signing up artist in deals that encompass performance rights.

Eventually we are going to get this thing right and artists will flourish like never before. But don't give this stuff about indie bands opting out of getting the pros to promote them because its so much better doing it themselves. I'm sure 99% would rather be writing or rehearsing than sprucing up the Myspace for the millionth time.

This is my response simply to the music business comment: I think the whole reason we're having this debate is that we aren't deluding ourselves.

Of course it's a music "business." We know that they're just in it to be making money and don't care much for the artists, which is why we don't really care about protecting their business.

We know that they want stricter copyright so that they can make even more money off of their artists, and restrict consumers even more so we have no choice but to give them more of our money for the same old drivel they produce.

If the music businesses don't care about us, why should we care about them? Thus we're in it to protect ourselves, and to protect the artists who entertain us.

CJ,

You are very cynical. Just because someone is in business does not mean they are heartless monsters will no soul.

Anyone who goes into the music business clearly does so because they are drawn to it by more than monetary gain. It's an extremely risky and iffy way to make a living. A lot of investors loose their shirts investing in the careers are artists they believe in.

You are wrong about having "no choice but to give them more of our money." Of course you have a choice. Buying music is not like income tax. It's a discresionary purchase you make because you want the product.

Face it, your "why should I care" argument is just a rationalization, and a poor one at that.

dbrett, record companies exist to make money. Let's not delude ourselves. It's not called the music "business" for nothing.

Obviously they have hearts and souls, I never said that they didn't. But you said it: we're dealing with the music "business". We're dealing with the major labels and their big money. When it comes down to it, they'll do what any other business does and play hardball to protect their interests and cash flow. And who wouldn't? Everyone has self-preservation as their bottom-line interest.

So if you're saying that we should not delude ourselves, they're a music business in it to make money, when they try to legislate changes in the law to protect their business and cash flow under the guise or protecting artists, this is where we should play hardball back at them and say "tough luck".

And obviously it's a discretionary purchase. But what I'm saying is the way they want it is you have a choice between buying a $35 CD or nothing at all. It's like sure, you get to vote in the Iraqi election, but Saddam Hussein is the only name on the ballot. But you get a choice! You don't have to vote if you don't want to! When there are no meaningful alternatives, your freedom to choose becomes an illusion. There needs to be competition and true choice. This competition is appearing on its own through new technology, and legislating protectionist measures to save the big music business' superior position from this competition is not what we should be doing.

Face it, your response to my post evaded my argument and failed to read between the lines, and was a poor one at that. You know, you don't have to include the little personal remarks... it just makes it seem like you're grasping at straws.

CJ, I'm not sure how this debate turned into a referendum on the merits of "the major labels and their big money."

My perspective is of one who is interested in the economics of digital goods of all kinds. The promise of the Internet lies primarily in commerce in goods that are purely virtual. My contention is that respect of copyright laws if fundamental to the economic health of the WWW.

A 'tax' to support artists SOUNDS good, but in actual fact, to implement, is near impossible from my p.o.v.

The ones who would benefit most from such a 'tariff' would be the employed bureaucratic 'mediators' with their cozy taxpayer-paid government indexed pensions ... not the struggling NEW artists who are attempting to define, break free from tradition and lead the way in the name of his or her evolving culture ...

These artists want to PRODUCE their NEW works - not be hamstrung or burdened by Government Art Bureaucracy with all strings attached to specifically produce 'Canadian content'.

It won't work, (unless you like and support department store Musak, ie. Gordie Lightfoot on Prozac ...)

It would be hard to implement, but I think "government bureaucracy" is a boogeyman.

Canada's grants program does a good job funding new artists. You can see a list of Canada Council for the Arts grant recipients here:

http://www.canadacouncil.ca/grants/recipients/

And your point?

On average, Canada Council grants are allocated to 1 out of 20 applicants. That means 19 do not receive funds - regardless of the time, effort. experience and actiual work they do.

Is it any different then 'software deveopers' pitching a venture capitalist to underwrite their new app? I don't think so.

In fact, the 'market' is much more inclined to invest in some 'hair-brained' developer cuz they think they'll make money off it too.

Did a software developer kick your dog recently or something? Sheesh we have feelings to you know, here I am trying to make an nice application to help rescue people from exploding oil lines and I've got to wade through insults just to let people know I'd like it if I could listen to my vinyl's in the car without buying em all again :)

:) - Now you know how it FEELS when a generic appellation is slapped on you to 'fit into the digital economy'. - ie. 'content provider'. Sheesh.

We - 'creators' - aka 'artists/authors'- just like you 'software developers' - are a diverse bunch and have THOUGHTS & feelings TOO.

How would you like it if someone ripped off - ie. copied - your nice application to help rescue people from exploding oil lines? That's your IP, it's your livelihood (presumably), it's what you ENJOY doing. 'We' are fundamentally no different.

Why, then, is it ok to 'copy' from 'us', but for others to not 'copy' from you?

Humm, after wathing this forum since it started I am still torn on the issue.

Patent law provides a limited monopoly to recupe costs for your investment...If you invent something, patents do not prevent someone else from using your ideal for their personal use for example, a Canadian found a way to generate hydrogen more efficiently...who wouldn't want to do that in 5 years when cars ran on it...we have toys and science experiments showing this process.

Patent law provides a limited monopoly for recuping your costs, I believe that Copyright should be the same since any creative output _CAN_ take the same amount of effort to develope be it an invention or a creative work...life plus 50 years is crazy and it shows in the states how bad that is misused with the single click for Amazon or some normal computer development or extention to come about that everyone would have though of.

I think it should go back to you have to register your copyright for 5 years then extend it for maybe one or two terms if you want because most software is out of date in 5 years and it is normally registered and covered under copyright because it is not an invention...

permanent (US micky mouse copyright)copyright is not useful to society....

I want to say something here. Do not confuse Copyright and Patent law - they are completely different and should never be used as comparisons. Doing so dilutes and confuses the issues.

Copyright law (in it's basic most simplistic form) is about protecting the rights of the creator to say "this is mine".

Patent law in full application has nothing to do with giving any particular business or industry an avenue to protect their investment. Although industry uses the effects of Patent law in this manner this is a misconception.

Patent law is to give the -government- a monopoly and free unaltered preview to new ideas and technologies before the general public so they may evaluate their impact to national security, use them in their pursuits before the public (usually military), and censor them from the public if deemed necessary. They offer government sanctioned monopolies to encourage companies to bring their ideas to the government first.

If you would like to research and learn patent law in its full application research encryption and security patents particularly in the United States.

I beg you, everyone, do not correlate patent law and copyright law. They serve two completely different applications.

Well I certainly never claimed (or even thought) it was "ok" to 'copy' from anyone. You will find few people who think this is "ok".
It's against the law and for good reason, and you are right my livelihood depends on this law. Despite this, I feel it has been taken overboard. In my work I have run into these digital locks on software I need to use (and have a valid license for) which prevent me from working until the next business day when I am able to contact the software vendor (if I'm lucky and they still exist) to unlock it for me. At home, I see freedoms everyone has traditionally enjoyed and that I do believe consumers should have (such as copying my record collection onto cassette or recording tv to watch later) being stripped away in the name of paranoia and well, it's disturbing. Being told I can't copy my cd onto my ipod if I want to, is like being told I can't have salt on my beans if I want to to me. I think it's utterly ridiculous to expect me to buy an ipod version and a cd version and a tape version and a vinyl version. I'm paying for the music (in this case) not the peice of plastic it's on. And what about the next device after cds? How is anyone going to invent and make successful a new device that will enhance our experience if consumers will need to repurchase their entire music collection to use it? Ridiculous.

Or the fact that politicians can use a claim of a copyright violation as an excuse to force a critic's video to censored. That stuff just rubs me the wrong way.

There is more than evil pirates and shining creators when it comes to who is affected by copyright law. These new limitations they are trying to put in are only meaningful to those of us actually trying to follow the law. What does someone who is already breaking the law care if it becomes more restrictive?

"How is anyone going to invent and make successful a new device that will enhance our experience if consumers will need to repurchase their entire music collection to use it? ... um,
It's called BUSINESS.
...
Do you DOUBT that?
After the rock came the arrow then the gun ...

I remember the days when t.v. used to be 'free'. You just had to plug in your set and the world was there. Now, if you want ALL that t.v. can offer, you have to pay for it. With added HD, the 'just plug-in' option is near dead .... That's not even ONE generation ...

It's NO DIFFERENT then the internet. First, it's 'free' to HOOK you, then, incrementally but persistently you WILL start paying for it. Why? Because the 'suppliers' of your 'entertainment' are BUSINESSES.

Consider this vis a vis your lifestyle: "Whoever sows desire harvests oppression".

My customers for example copy my software every day for an incremental backup and I don't think it's my right to sneak something into the license agreement that says they have to pay me for every copy and then sue them in a few years for millions. Distributing something you don't have rights to is wrong, copying something you don't own is wrong. I don't believe copying my own stuff for my own use is wrong and I never will.

Well sure it's business, but preventing format shifting will definately hold back technological advancement. For example, if they had prevented format shifting before, they would not have released the MP3 player because no one would have been able to use it. Years later after it was popular they were able to sell mp3s seperately.

Consider this vis a vis your lifestyle: "Whoever sows desire harvests oppression".

Indeed, this is why we have laws. Our laws often help protect us from oppression, I may desire money, but the law protects me from being overly oppressed by my employers with minimum wages, vacation time, etc. I may desire to speak my mind and the law protects me from being over oppessed by those who don't like what I have to say.

I could theoretically become a monk and foresake all media, but I would still suffer having to witness everyone else lose what I consider to be their personal freedoms.

Thank you.

You have
affirmed my belief
that 'software
developers' & other
TECHNO-DEPENDENT
businesses NEED
alternative
'licenses' that are more 'flexible' and 'in sync' with web culture vis a vis their co-dependency.

There MUST be
a separation.

Is it FAIR that an obscure - but very talented - sculptor
makes ONE sellable stand-alone NON-TECHNO dependent object, then a
photog SHOTS that object and - without crediting the artist - SELLS that IMAGE of the sculptural object as his OWN 'photo-edited' creation
ad infinitum cuz of 'digital data'? No.

Why should the photog reap both the publlcity and the money off the back-side of someone else's WORK?

That's got to change. It's ALOT more then just 'transformative fair use'

Copyright for Original Artist's has to have teeth.
It has to PROTECT their NAME & their WORK from 'copyists'.

"Is it FAIR that an obscure - but very talented - sculptor
makes ONE sellable stand-alone NON-TECHNO dependent object, then a
photog SHOTS that object and - without crediting the artist - SELLS that IMAGE of the sculptural object as his OWN 'photo-edited' creation"

Well I completely agree with you here. In fact I complained in another thread here how just this was being done by museums taking pictures of artists paintings and then selling the pictures pretending they have the copyrights on them (which they can do according to current law in that country)

I agree, that should change. What I don't agree with is that we need to sacrifice consumers freedoms to do it.

Teeth is a whole different matter because teeth is enforcement. Making things that most people think should be legal illegal isn't going to help you any with law enforcement.

"techno dependant" is a meaningless term. computers are just one tool, often combined with many others that individuals use to build things with. Sometimes the "software" that they build happens to be music, or a movie, sometimes it's a game or another tool to build something else with... Sometimes you can't tell if it's a movie or a game or a peice of music or what. Is shrek 3 a movie because it is shown in the theater or a software program because it was made by software developers?

I often need to draw up pictures by hand to use in my programs, I also often draw them on the computer. To me there is no distinction between the ones I made by hand and the ones I made on the computer, they are just part of the work I'm making. Sometimes I use computer technology to build with, sometimes I use charcoal and paper technology, but it hardly makes me dependant on either technology.

"To me there is no distinction between the ones I made by hand and the ones I made on the computer, they are just part of the work I'm making. " - And that is where we differ.

Not everyone uses a computer to 'transform' their 'creations' into 'data'. They should not be forced or expected to either.

As for a museum 'charging' for 'photo copies' of objects in their collections, as well as charging admittance fees, personally I think that very reasonable. They are maintaining those objects for the public, they are storing them on real estate, they have educated scholars adding knowledge & perspective thru their work & publications (& libraries) to the 'common weal'. They have bills to pay.

Would you prefer that these public institutions that you enjoy for a pittance failed or closed down because they 'dare' to charge us a small fee for 'upkeep'? Or woud you just prefer that EVERYONE, even those who don't use a museum, pays more tax?

Hiring a photog to 'document' those works is a completely different matter, by the way, then a photog 'shooting' some thing or person without permission or a formal Photo Release.

You spoke earlier of the freedoms you enjoy & want to protect. Exactly. The assumption that some amorphous SOMEONE ELSE will bear the cost of our 'liberties' is, well, unrealistic. You want 'stuff'? Then pay for it.

Freedom comes with responsiblities. It's high time we started assuming a few of those. A good place to start is giving 'credit' where credit is 'due'. You want MY 'thing'? You pay me.

It is presumptious to believe that I will GIVE my 'thing' to you, or anyone else, 'for FREE'. I may choose to 'share' my 'thing' with you, but that is MY choice, and not YOUR 'Right'.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to paint me as a media pirate since I've mentioned I'm not interested in getting anything for free or getting rid of copyright, or making file sharing legal, I have bought and paid for all my media, and I just want to be able to use the things I have bought and paid for for my own private use.

I guess I'm just 'sensitive' to 'the endless copying issue'...

I understand you are a decent law-abiding citizen.

Your desire to take your music with you - in the car, in your boat, in your office, on your bike, in your hand - is a problem with the manufacturers, not the creators.

My issues are with copyright law. All the manufacturers say is "abide by the law". The last attempt (C-61) did a poor job of addressing these issues, and it is one of several things I would like to see patched up in the next iteration.

Agree. There has to be a CLEAR separation between 'creators' & their licensed distributors.

Copyright ought not to apply to 'manufacturers' of product. Rather, that should be 'patent' & 'trademark' law'. Software programs & apps should also fall under this NEW 'category'.

Hey, a bit of an aside here, do you honestly think anyone is REALLY reading this-??

Well patents are for inventions and there is even more problems with the software industry and patent law :) I dunno if anyone reads this, but I think we are out of room!

Well, SOMETHING 'ain't right' with the current 'law'. It's not 'protecting' us - the non-techno creators ENOUGH, and is's bugging you, the techno-consumer ...

I think we've got 2 goes left!

My point is that I disagree with "the government can't manage anything". A tax or levy or opt-in fee to compensate creators is not impossible.

Also, government programs for funding music artists will not result in elevator music. (well, exclusively elevator music) Many new artists receive grants.

Illegal file sharing will eventually stop. To see why, you have to understand what makes them work in the first place.

P2P networks require a critical mass of users and content for them to flourish. The required number of users is achieved because the content available has already been made desirable by the marketing efforts of the music owners and creators. 95% of the "sharing" relates to 5% of the songs.

Once users reach critical mass, less popular music become available by users opening up their catalogs. The massive variety available makes the networks "sticky."

As the record industry loses its ability to promote artists due to revenue loss due to piracy, fewer popular songs will exist in the network. Everyone will have the old stuff already.

Make no mistake. The masses that drive P2P are not the hip indie crowd looking for "different" music. The vast majority are looking for the hits.

P2P has no way to make a hit, as all files are equal until heard. How do you know which file to click? If you know about it, chances are its already a hit.

American Idol can't do all the marketing forever. Without a steady steam of fresh new hits, P2P will die.

It will happen.

Even if we allow all your other premises, there's one key flaw in your prediction. The recording industry is NOT losing revenue. Indeed, major labels have seen record profits in recent years. Music sales aren't declining.

I don't think you can draw any conclusions between the growth of peer-to-peer file sharing networks and music sales, but if I *had* to, I would say that file sharing is increasing music sales.

But like I say, I don't think a simple cause-and-effect relationship exists. It is mere correlation and there are a dozen other factors.

Music companies have been devastated by piracy. Surely you are not disputing this fact.

I will agree that the entertainment industry has incurred loses due to the digital shift, but is society as a whole the worst for it?

"Overall production figures for the creative industries appear to be consistent with this view that file sharing has not discouraged artists and publishers. While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded. In 2000, 35,516 albums were released. Seven years later, 79,695 albums (including 25,159 digital albums) were published (Nielsen SoundScan, 2008). Even if file sharing were the reason that sales have fallen, the new technology does not appear to have exacted a toll on the quantity of music produced. Obviously, it would be nice to adjust output for differences in quality, but we are not aware of any research that has tackled this question." - http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf

Music sales aren't declining. Physical media (CD) sales are declining. Particularly for RIAA members (they were the corporations heavily invested in the physical CD market). And the profits aren't even that bad for RIAA members if you normalize it against the changing price of albums and the number of albums released per year.

Digital sales are increasing, but that number accounts for only a tiny fraction of industry revenues.

The music industry as a whole has been growing, not declining, and that trend is predicted to continue:
http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1004862
There's been a shift in where the revenue comes from - more from live music and licensing for commercials, games, and the like, as well as digital sales, and less from CD sales.

The music industry doesn't need any more rights, and wouldn't be unduly hurt by taking away some of the rights that they have now. I suspect that we'd still have a very healthy music industry if they had zero revenue from sales of copies (physical or digital).

I think we should clarify that we are talking about "the recording industry." Lumping in concert revenues into the equation is problematic.

A July 30, 2009 quote from The Economist:

"Worldwide sales of music in the form of CDs and DVDs fell by 15% last year, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). Digital revenues, though rising, are not making up the shortfall."

But I don't think the "recording industry" is nearly as important as the "music industry". Of course sales of CDs keep falling - people have replaced all their vinyl and they have many new options for the entertainment dollars.
Why is it a problem if concert revenues and licensing deals are more than making up for that ?
Simple economics tells us that selling copies is not going to be a viable business model going forward. Unfortunately, the "recording industry" seems to be set on selling copies, so of course their revenues will decline. The good news is that there's plenty more money to be made elsewhere in the "music industry".

the music industry has not grown at all. creative professionals are nowhere even close to the level that they were at 10 or 15 years ago. many of them are leaving the field because of a lack of revenue. i dont mean wanna be's and amateurs..... people who have been contributing to hot 100 usa chart level cant make enough to support themselves. maybe the government people who are going to shape this issue can check the T4 returns of artists to see for themselves.

The record labels have been stealing the shirts off musicians back for a long time and the musicians know it and many are bitter and hold grudges. How can we expect to hold up their profits when the musicians don't really need them anymore to publish their music?

i figured you out. you're trying to monetize wikinomics into knexa, you run a gold mining corp, and now you morphed into a troll for the RIAA and MPAA. in your police state dreams what you wish were "Illegal" file sharing will eventually stop. greedyyyy.

Hey Po, thanks for asking about Knexa, which stands for KNowledge EXchange Auction. Knexa, launched in 1999, was the world's first "eBay for knowledge," a business model Don Tapscott now describes as "Ideagoras" in his book Wikinomics. The idea behind Knexa was that there is a distinction between information and knowledge, and that people ultimately need to be paid for their knowledge. Yahoo Answers is an example of the "knowledge marketplace" business model that Knexa was a pioneer in.

I am advocating that consumers pay for copyright works if the owner of the copyright in those works does not want to give those works away for free. This is the law and I am advocating that such laws not be watered down, but rather made more water tight in light of the digital age.

If I were greedy, as you say, I would just go ahead and start ripping stuff gratis off the Internet with impunity with the rest of the pirates.

Don't forget that police states of this world have mainly been of the view that private ownership of anything is wrong. In an economy where everything is "free," everyone ends up poor.

u talking about pinochet's chile :-) ?
in free market capitalism everyone is in conflict of interest with everyone else,
and 99.999% of the people end up poor to the 0.001% of the lucky rich money black holes like w buffett or the embedded politicals like goldman sharks alums.
give my salutations to trolls :-)

You start at the right point, that the Internet pretty much messes with the economic notion of scarcity. But then you fly off the handle. First of all, a lot of file sharing is moving to non-centralized P2P like Bittorrent. You can take out the Pirate Bay, but there are dozens of other indexes and catalogs. You're also assuming that somehow what we believe is immoral today will remain immoral tomorrow. It may very well be that you're seeing yet another culture shift in what is right and what is wrong (morals are not absolute, no matter what people at any point may think).

It is quite possible that the technology and the social mores have reached the point where the artistic distributive models developed in the 20th century are simply going to break down. Other business models have gone extinct over the centuries, why precisely is the current media industry somehow exempt from those sorts of forces?

Fly off the handle? I didn't know I was on a handle in the first place.

Copyright has been around for a long long time. The moral undergirding thereof will not fade. The ease of copyright violation via the Internet has caused the temporary rationalizing of a wayward, pirate culture. The pendulum will swing back to normal over time.

All rogue P2P networks will eventually fail, as in order to succeed, they require a critical mass of content and participants to maintain their utility. Once people start to shy away from them, they will shrivel up and die.

It will happen.

Why would people shy away? All the enormous (and completely out of lunch) awards haven't stopped file sharing in the States. What it has done has fueled a heckuva lot of innovation in P2P. I don't see much in the way of innovation to stop illegal file sharing, just a lot of rather lopsided and often incorrect arguments about how you can associate IP addresses to people, and a bit of P2P poisoning, but that's becoming more difficult as the protocols evolve.

Can you think of a single technology that, having destabilized an industry, was ever rolled back? The closest I can think of was in late-medieval Japan when firearms manufacturing was banned to preserve the feudal system.

I'm afraid you're quite wrong. The genie's out of the bag, and either the arts and entertainment industries find ways to make money, or they'll topple (not that they will, really, as I said, art has existed for many thousands of years longer than copyright).

Technology is not the only factor at play with P2P. It's also about morality and culture, in particular, pop culture.

Pop music has its own renegade culture working against it. Rock & Roll is supposed to be about rebellion. It's an attitude.

The most downloaded songs are Rap, which also happens to be a genre associated with risky behavior.

You don't see a lot of classical in the top 10. Or Country. Coincidence? Could it be because those cultural groups are more likely to respect copyright and pay the money?

What makes P2P work is the popularity of the music. What makes the music popular is marketing. Who pays for the marketing?

But why should anyone care? Right?

http://tinyurl.com/3ydf8l

RIAA troll! here is to you

How to Run a Free BitTorrent Tracker on Google

http://torrentfreak.com/run-a-free-bittorrent-tracker-on-google-090910/

now try and bite google, troll!

I must disagree about "leasing" of content. Nothing should be licensed in that form. Just consider what would happen if your grocery store started to license their food. Same goes for digital locks: it's not far off to think of a time when any physical product can be protected by a digital lock (albeit a lock that really can't stop you except with the support of legislation). What if you had to connect to your grocer's servers to legally eat food from their store ?

I understand what you are getting at but the simple solution is that you don't buy your food at that store.

A real comparison I think you are getting at is a cell phone. Currently, it's grey area/illegal to crack the DRM on a cell phone and transfer it to another carrier. I don't actually agree with this since I own the phone - I should be able to use it anyway I like regardless of carrier.

If I don't own the cell phone it's not mine to crack. However, I expect to be leasing/renting it and expect to pay less for the equipment and have rental type rights.

The simple solution to avoid having to rent my phone is to take my service to the competition that allows me to have ownership rights on the phone.

The point I am getting at is both consumer and business should have the choice without being forced one way or the other. Let the markets/capitalism sort out what is best. It doesn't need to be legislated.

If I own it, I should have full ownership rights with no limitation of use. If not, I am bound to whatever leasing license I agreed to regardless if there is an electronic lock or not.

I agree that letting the free market/competition provide us with other options is the correct response, but without significant strengthening of our anti-trust laws to keep the free market principles working we will be stuck with the kind of monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly situations we have in the cell phone industry. We are working within a free market capitalist system; we just need to make sure that we are working in the mathematical area where the free market principles will not collapse (singularities and corner conditions).
The monopoly that copyrights grant is in conflict with the principles of the free market and undermines their ability to provide a healthy diverse economy.

Eye,

Good points.

Since Gutenberg, the cost of making a copy has gone down, currently at zero for digital versions, and the quality of the copies has gone up, now perfect with digital goods.

Digital goods are the perfect example of a market failure that requires government regulation. Copyright works lack excludability and are hence non-rivalrous.

Copyright law is a form of imposed excludability, like rules governing a country's "airspace." You can't wall-off the sky, but you can pass a law stating that you will be shot down if you fly there.

The limited monopoly on copyright works is there to provide an incentive for creators to create and innovators to innovate. Those incentives are still required in our economy and will be for the foreseeable future.

Information by its nature is not free. It often has very high costs of production. That is why "Web 1.0" crashed and burned. Hi costs, no revenue.

People do however want free information. Over the next number of years you will see most "free" information disappearing from the Web. No one will remain to foot the bill for folks gorging at the free info bucket.

I could not disagree more about "free" information disappearing on the web. The entire "open source" movement is essentially free information, as well as Wikipedia and a growing collection of online textbooks which are never going to become less free.

I highly doubt that any of the things I just mentioned are about to stop existing on the web. Also, saying that information is not free is a really broad statement and does not apply in general. I think you might be getting at a good point, but your argument is just too abstract. If you think your statement is concise enough, there is a body of legislation called the "Freedom of Information Act" which provides a few counterexamples.

Dane, you cannot lump open source software in with Wikipedia. They are in totally different worlds.

You must not think of information as a homogeneous commodity that is all of equal value. Certain information will always be free, because it's cost of creation is low. However, high-end information, such as The New York Times Online, will stop being free fairly soon, I predict.

Wikipedia is free because it is not a real encyclopedia. Have you ever seen a Wikipedia page cited in a scholarly journal? Wikipedia has not been subjected to normal academic rigors.

Like one of my professors once said, most web information "is not worth the paper its not written on."

it is a widely known fact that in recent comparisons of wikipedia and britannica the quality of wikipedia is coming close so we'll dismiss your prejudice as uninformed

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844

hey guess what? in this one they mention trolls like you disrupting wikipedia

http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/mar06/berinstein.shtml

your professor must have been talking about your web publications. you're more like bill gates (of "good artists copy, great artists pillage" fame): do as i say, not as i do. lol wallbreakingly!

by the way you are making another point for me, it goes the same for information, knowledge and media contents, it's inhomogeneous so the breakoff threshold for copyright should be 10 years to simplify and cut copyright clearinghouses costs since it is a widely known fact (lol) that 99.9 % of paid-for media contents consumed today is less than a year old because people have only a few hours a day for consumption and choose novelty preferentially. dixit built-in media obsolescence.

hasta la windows 7 troll lol

Well absolutely, people will have to come up with ways to pay for it. Nobody works for free. But that's not the point. When I say information is free, I don't mean it is free of cost, I mean it is uncontrollable, intangible, figments of our imagination.

Anyway, it's no reason to legislate it. I don't see the push for copyright reform as a result of well-meaning businessmen saying "hey, in order to get -quality- information, it needs to be paid for, and so this copyright reform will help that", no, not at all.

Those businessmen are saying "hey, this Internet thing sure has changed the way information flows, and its hurting our business. If we can't control information, we can't sell it at a profit. Let's get the government to legislate against it."

That's what this is about. Do we live in a free society or do we not? Do we want to be champions of the free world or not? Do we want anybody in their basement to create brilliant 3rd-party apps for an iPhone, or do we not?

We don't need copyright laws that allow $1.92 million awards against the noncommercial copying of a handful of songs. We don't need copyright laws that restrict customers from switching cell phone providers and keeping their phone. We don't need copyright laws that restrict the fair use of copyrighted works and punish private citizens for using information in their own homes.

cj, copyright law is not some new fangled invention. It's in the US constitution, you know, that really old document. It's an ancient concept.

The impact of technology does not alter the fundamental moral concept that the creator of a work should have exclusive rights to benefit from that work.

The debate is not new. Remember what happened when video tape came out? Huge debate. Controversy. It resolved.

But no one ever came out and said "I should be allowed to make 1,000 tapes of Star Wars and give them to my friends for free." That would not be fair.

Why is it fair now? It's not.

Holy crap! Really??? The United States has a constitution? Wow. I didn't know that. And you're saying that this copyright stuff is like, hundreds of years old? Maybe I should go get one of those MBA thingies and I'll lern about that.

What I am saying is that you can't just control information like you can control a physical object. You're saying "oh, I own this particular arrangement of words," all of you people have to stop from using this arrangement of words. The easier it becomes for us to arrange the words in this way, the harder it becomes for you to control it without exercising direct control over our behavior, and at that point it becomes some kind of police state.

The change in technology shifts the balance of the moral debate because it can change our perception of the "facts". I do not accept it as mere fact that the creator of a work should have unlimited lifetime exclusive rights to benefit from a work. What makes a work exclusive? What makes it truly original? To what degree should that one person get to prohibit everybody else from using it? Now that it is exponentially easier for information to be transmitted around, why should we permit the industry to lock down this information?

Sharing 1,000 copies of Star Wars over the Internet is far less costly than reproducing 1,000 tapes. But I'm not suggesting that we should all be sharing thousands of copies. But you know what, people share stuff, it's in our nature and you can't stop it.

It's funny that you bring up Star Wars... did George Lucas just make all of that up in his head? Or did he borrow from others (*cough* Dune *cough*), borrow from previous stories and ideas told many times over. If he's gone an borrowed all these ideas from the public to create this work of his, why does he deserve this lifetime exclusive license?

He put some work into it and all we want is for him to be rewarded for the work he did, be able to make some money off of it so that he'll keep doing it, and nothing more.

You were saying that we should not water down the copyright laws, and I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I think it's necessary to water them down. We need the same fair use provisions that exist in the USA.

CJ, congratulations, you have won the 2009 Pirate's Choice Award/Thingie for most extensive use of sarcasm in a post/thingie.

dbrett -"copyright law is not some new fangled invention. It's in the US constitution, you know, that really old document. It's an ancient concept."

I agree, it is ancient but copyright law didn't originate in the US and has historical roots deeper than the US constitution.

djbrett - "The impact of technology does not alter the fundamental moral concept that the creator of a work should have exclusive rights to benefit from that work. "

But... "The original intent of copyright was not conceived as a welfare program for authors but rather to encourage the creation of new works." - A slight remix of a statement from http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf

Public domain interests should be paramount above all others.

You mean star wars isn't public domain yet? Holy crap that thing is ancient! ;)

You may have valid points, when you use terms like:"Web 1.0" and "Web 4.0"; I write you off as an MBA who does not understand how the technology works.

At a fundamental level, computer systems are designed to allow easy copying. Without copying, packet-switched networks like the internet wouldn't work.

That said, you do bring up one of my pet peeves with the internet: information on the internet is transient. Servers loose funding and get shut down. "Interesting" documents get removed from corporate web-sites when they get unwanted attention. The actual media does not last as long as paper in many cases.

The ease of copying counter-acts these forces.

Try this for a thought experiment: what would happen to "Tiananmen Square" footage if DRM worked (as advertised) and the Chinese government only allowed "revokable" cameras in the country?

My conclusion: the "unauthorised" footage would have been deleted (on all recipient devices) within 6 hours.

Phill, never write off an MBA. They don't hand those degrees out to chimps.

Regarding the fundamental architecture of computers, you are quite right. Computers by their nature make copies of everything. If computers did not make copies, they would not work.

Did you know that the US copyright act was overhauled to deal with exactly this problem? Modifications were made to the law to unsure that computer manufacturers and users could not be sued for just turning on their computers.

Its called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

Your thought experiment is flawed. The creator of the Tiananmen Square footage authorized its distribution. The issue you are raising is censorship, not copyright.

By the way, you are right to dislike DRM. It imposes an unnecessary cost on the consumer. DRM providers will be undercut by competitors without DRM. Eventually, DRM will disappear. iTunes is in a gradual phase out process.

I tell you what, you don't write me off and I won't write you off as a techie with no business knowledge.

We CAN coexist.

The point of bringing up censorship is that the DISTRIBUTORS control DRM not the CREATORS.

DRM imposes unnecessary costs on the creators as well as the consumers. This is why (I assume) some game publishing houses known for pushing DRM are experimenting with realeasing single tiles DRM free. Example: Ubisoft and "Prince of Persia: Sands of time"; apparently the packaging still claims "copy protection" :P

In addition to requiring more power and silicon for decryption, DRM opens up whole legal cans of worms as well. The goal of DRM is to make devices obey two masters. When something goes wrong, it is not pretty.

PS: After complaining about the apparent MBA, I noted you actually mention it in your original post. I think I was reacting to buzzwords more than anything.

maybe not to chimps but to trolls they do!
DMCA is a citizen ripoff lobbyed for by RIAA MPAA who are now trying to shove it down canada's throat. DRM has been declared dead this summer by the RIAA because they have something else in their sleeve but they think it's still good enough for backwards canadians. after 5 years media is obsolete because people thirst for new entertainment and won't be bothered with "gone with the wind" anymore or music from ancient mess-o-potamia. troll troll troll.

I disagree. The death penalty would stop file stealing (err, sorry, I forgot to use your euphemistic term "sharing").

IP is not dead. Far from it. Most of the value of the world stock markets is made up of IP.

I'm sorry, but you have to get serious. Without IP protection, our economy would collapse.

Maybe that's what some people want.

The death penalty would not stop unwanted file distribution of copyright works over the internet. It would introduce a totalitarian state.

I agree IP is not dead and is fundamental to the economy. I do not agree with heavy handed and ultimately unenforceable legislation.

Care to clarify, or back up your claims?

"Most of the value of the world stock markets is made up of IP"

What are you trying to say here? That copyrighted works are the wealth behind most of the companies traded on stock markets?

"Without IP protection, our economy would collapse."

So if people were suddenly able to copy and distribute unfettered, I'd have to take my bow and arrow and move to the woods?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

SJ, my claims are not extraordinary. They are widely known facts understood by people in the finance, investment, accounting and business community.

To prove my point, consider three companies: Microsoft, Google, IBM, Coke and Apple. Market caps are $208, $141, $154, $508 and $143 billion respectively. That's over a trillion dollars in market valuation based almost entirely on Intellectual Property consisting of trademarks, patents, copyright, trade secrets, and so on.

If you suddenly abolished IP laws, all these companies would collapse, and thousands of other like them. Computer manufactures in China would be free to sell computers marked IBM. Every phone could be called an iPhone, and made to look identical to an iPhone.

You have to understand that copyright is just one part of IP. Some people on this blog seem to blast IP in general thinking its some kind of evil force. Which, of course, is silly.

Widely known facts are my favourite kind to cite, because when people question them, I just have to reiterate that they are widely known. ;)

The fact that 4 tech companies and one beverage company are valued at over a trillion dollars proves that "Most of the value of the world stock markets is made up of IP"?

It seems like you're trying to blend all Intellectual Properties into one thing, then say that one thing is the lynch-pin of our economy. Perhaps you're not being that extreme. Perhaps you mean something else by "collapse"?

Copyright, the subject of this blog, is one type of intellectual property. And an important one.

In an earlier post someone was questioning the usefulness of protecting IP. The fact is that our entire economy would "collapse" if IP was eliminated.

Think about it. Without Trademark laws, every hamburger could be a Big Mac. Every shoe could be a Nike.

My point is that "intangibles," sometime collectively referred to as Intellectual Capital, account for the majority of economic activity in our modern economy.

How about this, I'll agree that protected information such as trade secrets, trademarks, patents, and copyrighted works make up a "significant" part of the value in the world economy. Probably among the top 5 in value when compared with categories such as commodities, manufacturing, services, energy, etc.

If by "collapse" you mean "be in a crisis state, causing uncertainty, the failure of some companies, and the creation of others", then I agree.

If by "collapse" you mean "we will all be living in yurts", then I disagree.

And this is my point. Let's not get carried away with calls of the-sky-is-falling. I think it's a distraction when this specific bill, C-61, contains actual removals of our rights.

So now all of a sudden you have something against yurts?!

A friend of mine lives in one in Mongolia.

Seriously, a yurt is a piece of real estate, which reminds us of the near collapse of the global economy due to a 10-20 percent decline is home prices in the USA. A three trillion dollar intervention spared us a global depression. Wipe out the value of IP worldwide and you would have a depression unstoppable by any intervention.

Hello yurt.

funny one troll, so the riaa corps are devoted to the artists and return 90% of the proceeds to them or is it more the other way around like they keep 90%. (lol hysterically).
on truth's side, its also a widely known fact that the 3 biggest industrial spying (as in ripoff your IP) countries of the world are china, russia and last but not least usa. so they want to improve their business outlook, that's understandable, but why impose on citizens law standards that aren't even respected by their governments i ask you? just because davids are easily crushed and can't defend themselves like goliaths do? that's the only justification i see and it's so troll. power corrupts and infinite power corrupts infinitely so guess what copyright laws are coming to a parliament near you soon, the laws of the rich and the powerful but that will only crank up the pendulum to swing it the side of anarchism so hold your breath long enough, the corporatists will eventually tire of waterboarding joe public. i had a dream, and it was one of cooperatism...

Your term "stealing" is less correct than sharing.

Theft implies that a piece of property has been removed from your possession.

Sharing implies that I have given copies of something to my peers.

By "stealing" I mean taking something without paying for it when you know you were supposed to pay for it.

When you connect to another computer and access a file, YOU are the one making the copy. You are causing a copy to be transfered to your computer by clicking, keystroking, whatever. You are not passively accepting the gift of sharing from a friend. You are actively searching for and seeking out the files you want and making copies of them, without payment to the creator of the work that the copy embodies.

I believe that's wrong.

Interestingly, when you download a file from another computer, you have absolutely no way of knowing even what it contains, let alone whether the person providing it is authorised to do so or not. I could download a file called my_daughter_sings_bobby_shafto.mp3 and find that it's actually a copy of the latest Britney Spears song, likely unauthorised. I could pay to download music from a website and find out later that they didn't have permission to distribute the music I downloaded.

In general, it's the *sender* that's in control of what is downloaded. the *receiver* just has to hope that what they say is correct. It would be completely unreasonable for me to be guilty of copyright infringement because I downloaded something that I believed was non-infringing but that turned out to be infringing.

So while you're correct that it's the downloader that initiates the download, only the sender knows whether the resulting copy will be infringing or not. To say that it's then the downloader that has broken the law doesn't feel right to me.

(And yes, I fully understand that some people go looking for latest_britney_spears_song_for_free.mp3, but that doesn't mean that they'll get what they think they're downloading, either).

RIAA troll!

Troll? Do you mean like the Freemont Troll? http://tinyurl.com/r42o7n

educate yourself and happy 50th birthday

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-measures-dont-work-report-shows-090129/

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

as in con(troll)ed by the riaa mpaa these embedded politicals in the justice depts of the planet buying off politicians left and right.

http://torrentfreak.com/when-pirates-become-copyright-cash-cows-090830/

lucky not all the judges are bought off yet like in usa and sweden

http://torrentfreak.com/oink-uploaders-sentenced-to-community-service-090123/

ciao troll!

Thanks for your feedback jo. I believe most people will pay when, as you say, all the conditions are right, such as "right-pricing," and ease of use.

As to the "dinosaurs," I think they should have the right to fight for their lives under normal market conditions. Right now, we can exercise our market power to avoid bad content. Unfortunately, many people think record companies "deserve" to be ripped off.

In a civil society, no one deserves to be ripped off.

Sorry, I meant to say unauthorized file sharing. Since this is a forum on copyright, I figured people would assume that.

I actually am a big believer in distributed computing, which leverages the power of multitudes of networked machines, as contrasted with the concept of a super computer.

When I say "file sharing," I emphasize the so called "sharing" part, were copyright works are "shared" in a network without the consent of the right holder.

Our laws should be beefed up to ensure that enablers of illegal file "sharing," such as ISPs, are also sanctioned.

But how are ISPs to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate file-sharing? The same protocols are often used for both.

The only way they could possibly held responsible for what goes on in their networks would be to monitor everything everyone does. Not just the types of files people are sending (which is bad enough a violation of privacy), but the information within the files themselves (ie, reading our mail).

So, outside of going out of their way and spying on every canadian citizen, how could an ISP be responsible for illegal file sharing? On that note, why should a search engine be at fault because they list where files on the internet are located?

This goes back to a comment I made somewhere else regarding who gets prosecuted. The only person at fault is the one who initially disregarded your copyright and put your works on the internet. Once it's there, and not on your website with its copyright notice and request to respect your desires regarding your works, how's anyone to know it wasn't meant to be shared? It's not like the initial infringer is going to respect your copyright and say "Hey this file belongs to so and so, so don't share it without his permission. Just thought you'd like a look".

You really can't have it both ways. Either you allow filesharing (both legal and illegal, because they can't be separated), or you prohibit the whole thing (which is not a just action considering the many legit uses, 'Skype' anyone?".

Current take-down notices on file-sharing webpages are really the only just way to approach the problem. You're responsible for identifying infringement, and the search engines at your request 'blacklist' the files from being shared again. It takes work, but nothings perfect and at least innocent bystanders aren't being caught in the crossfire.

Oh, and before you start suggesting something like three-stikes laws and tracking down filesharers using IP addresses, please note that the professionals use proxy servers (IP address no longer the one provided by the ISP), plus many homes and businesses are now set up for wireless data transfer (many computers on an oftentime unsecure network).

Neo,

I think your Big Brother concern is fair. However, did you know that your telephone company already has a record of every single phone call you have ever made? Spooky, but true.

P2P file sharing is a huge bandwidth hog worldwide. So let's forget the idea that all that music and media is "free." Someone is paying for it.

You concern however I would say is an opportunity for innovation. Someone should figure out how to shut down illegal file sharing in a way that does not invade privacy.

Likely it's already been done, or about to be done.

RIAA troll semantics!

Web 2.0 etc are indeed buzzwords, but they definitely have meaning. Try going to Silicon Valley and saying "Web 2.0 has no meaning." They will show you the Bentley they just bought with their Web 2.0 money and say "whatever."

Web 2.0 means a lot to Google and most of the venture funded new media companies out there. Keep in mind that I am focused on the business side of the Web. Does anyone remember the "dot com" bubble? That's what I mean by Web 1.0.

Does anyone remember $100 dollar IPOs for "content" websites that later disappeared? It happened. Billions and billions were lost. Does any remember that AOL bought Time Warner, and not the other way around?

Why? The free information mistake.

David, you are making vague allusions and assertions of fact that aren't supported.

I actually just finished a meeting in Silicon Valley, I have said "Web 2.0 has no meaning" here, and most people agree with that sentiment. People dismiss buzzwords and prefer to talk about specific, real things, like user-created content, asynchronous javascript, etc.

You assert 6 facts, and only one of them is real, AOL's purchase of Time Warner.

AOL is apparently your vision of how the Web will evolve, walled-garden information providers where users pay to get in. It has been dwindling for the past 6 years. You can check this fact by using sites such as Google, Wikipedia, and Yahoo Finance, sites which demonstrate the "information wants to be free" tendency.

Sorry SJ but you missed my point entirely. The AOL purchase of Time Warner is an example of the hyper valuation of information portals during the dot-com craze.

If you don't understand the significance of "Web 2.0," you are really out of touch. Have you not heard of Facebook? That's Web 2.0.

It's very high minded of you to dismiss buzzwords, as if you are above it all. Maybe you have a better word for "Internet."

Tech leaders are OK with the term:

Check this out: http://www.web2summit.com/web2009

Well you are correct that I miss your point. I invite you to make one.

As far as I can tell, your opinion is that "new clauses in the act should be drafted to"
1. specifically prohibit file sharing
2. prohibit "other computer network distributed electronic copies of protected works"

You back this opinion up with a reference to your blog post, which I read, and determined to be factually incorrect.

As best as I can understand you, I think you want laws to be made ensuring monetary tolls are placed on each transfer of information, thus enabling companies to make more money. I have probably vulgarized your vision, but that's what it comes off as.

To me, the law is primarily about morality, and secondarily about codifying already-present societal norms as they concern fair dealing. Thus the law should reflect my rights to free speech and free exchange of information, as well as the notion of "I bought it, I own it."

SJ, you seem to be fundamentally opposed to the idea of anyone making any money from digital goods transfered via the internet. You are certainly entitled to that view, but when you steal copyright material for your personal use, you are imposing your anti-capitalist views on the person from whom you are stealing.

Copyright has nothing to do with free speech. There is a whole other section of law dealing with that. It's called the constitution.

You do not have a constitutional right to pirate software, music, films, books, or other copyright works. Maybe you want the constitution to be changed so that you do have that right. Maybe you should join the pirate party and see if you can get someone elected.

In the meantime, there are a lot of people working in Canada whose jobs rely on revenue from the sale (for actual money) of copyright works.

Let's not send them to the EI office just yet.

Instead of attempting to cast me as some boogeyman with wild and inaccurate assumptions, perhaps you should come out and make an actual point with which to frame a conversation.

What is your argument, that file-sharing should be outlawed? Which files? How?

Copyright has everything to do with free speech - the government says "you can't say that without getting permission from that person who holds the copyright". Indeed, we're seeing more and more use of DMCA takedown notices to stifle criticism.

If copyright isn't a government-granted monopoly on expression, what is it ? The government hands out copyrights (by enacting the copyright act), and says that only these people (monopoly) are allowed to copy and publish these forms of expression.

Ask the documentary makers, appropriation artists and collage makers whether copyright affects their free speech.

Free speech and copyright are total different topics. I don't see the link. Sorry.

Here's an example, then.
Say I wanted to make a parody of the Harry Potter books. JK Rowling would come after me for copyright infringement. Without copyright, I would be able to express myself as I like. With it, my freedom of expression is restricted.

Ask documentary filmmakers or music mashup artists whether copyright affects their freedom of expression.

Copyright is a monopoly on expression - it essentially says "the only person allowed to express themselves in this particular way is the rightsholder (or people they authorise).

Parody is alive and well. The Simpsons, SNL, Conan, etc. Virtually all comedy thrives on it these days.

I don't agree that a comedy artist needs to use big chunks of a protected work to get laughs.

On the contrary. The talented ones get huge laughs staying within the rules.

Thats because those are US shows and parody is protected in US law.

Of course I meant low or no cost (ad-supported).

The advertising model will not work. That phase is pretty much over. The Internet is not TV. It's not Radio.

Also Me, there is a very big difference between "little" and "no" cost.

Not necessarily, in fact a report recently came out with respect to the American media outlets online revenue growing and is expected to top close to 1 billion in 2011:

http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Worst-Is-Over-for-U-S--Advertising/story.xhtml?story_id=0330031QG503&full_skip=1

Actually there is an ad market that allows a possible value chain that's basically going to hit our airwaves very shortly, and is tested tried, and true. Broadcasters are about to get rid of the 30 second ad over traditional airwaves replacing with an ad bug we are already used to, and this is how it can be potentially be used through file sharing, with cost analysis:

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

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

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

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

Being apart of the broadcasting community I also have to disagree with this statement:

"The Internet is not TV. It's not Radio."

There are several reports, including which made it to the CRTC new media hearings in which cable companies admitted they will be offering online streaming content in the near future.

It's also important to note, that TV Shows, and podcasts are readily available through Itunes, some can be purchased. Streaming content is available on virtually any of the big networks sites, and with all do respect, the in many ways the internet is TV and Radio right now.

There's also evidence to suggest that the vast amount of media consumed right now in certain age groups is online, again came out of the new media hearings at the CRTC.

As it is with VOIP, in the near future content will be "streamed" to you and delivered via Internet. It's happening now. I belong to a radio station that was the first in Canada to stream to 3G networks. Both TV and Radio have already moved to the internet and broadcasting on it. This is why we it's important to look at monetizing the networks in the same way we monetized cable TV. The internet is a medium.

While traditional ways of advertising is currently in a flux with respect to TV and Radio, there will be an ad market and revenues as I described below that will incorporate and be viable for both streaming and traditional media, and this will happen very soon.

In radio/podcasts it will be short 15 sec spots embedded and imaged in the streams or content.

Sites like hulu.com are very popular in the US and based on the advertising model. Many stations stream television online with ads included... CTV for example.

Jk, I respect your view, but it is completely out of touch. The "world order" you speak of is called "reality."

Copyright treaties and understandings have been spanning the globe for decades. Now more than ever, governments need to embrace and strengthen copyright.

You speak of "compliance." If your argument is that copyright is irrelevant because it is unenforceable, then I take it you do not dismiss the rights creators to profit from their works. Correct?

If this is true, I assume you would have no problem with civil litigation to enforce copyright laws. Law suits do work.

I would like to challenge posters who argue for watering down or elimination of copyright to stop generalizing and provide concrete examples of exactly which artists you feel should have their works used without consent or payment. It's easy to scoff at "the labels" or "the industry," but what about the artists? Which ones deserve to be pirated?

Regarding the term Web 2.0, I think you may be mis-characterising the what Tim O'Reilly is famous for. He has aged battled against patents in the software realm and is a promoter of open source software.

Open Source software development and patents are incompletely different paradigms compared to copyright. It's a mistake to lump them together.

Note also that O'Reilly was involved with so pretty huge software companies that you can bet your life had armies of lawyers protecting their IP. I wouldn't be surprised if O'Reilly made some good coin on his Macromedia options.

You see, there's an upside to protecting IP after all.

First and foremost lawsuits against the general population don't work as a deterrent, in which not only the US industry has wholeheartedly admitted, the CRIA has also come out strongly opposed lawsuits as well. Your research on several fronts is flawed. I do respect your opinion however there has never been any concrete evidence to suggest the lawsuits are actually the way to go especially after industry has admitted this tactic has not worked at all.

While I can see your responses and posts here are mainly to insight interest in yourself and blog, your position does not conform with the debate as it stands today, nor with the majority in industry, and I will not contribute to an argument that's out of date and uninformed from your thesis in 2001.