The recording industry has finally lost!

[Undecided]

Federal Court of Canada Justice Konrad von Finckenstien's March 31 ruling on downloading music from the internet was seen as a major setback by the music industry and a victory by internet service providers.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association wanted a court order to identify 29 uploaders that CRIA claims illegally posted hundreds of songs on the internet. Finckenstein refused and without the names, CRIA cannot take legal action for damages.

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."

The ruling stipulates that:
-Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.
-Placing a song in an on-line music-sharing directory such as Kazaa is not considered distribution.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/downloading_music.html



It seems that in Canada it is safe to Download now, also Havard has come out with a study showing that P2P does not severly affect CD sales:

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically
indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates
are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing
is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales.

Do enjoy...

 

[fireguy_31]

I think this decision, if upheld in appeals court, clearly shows that the rightful owner of any trademark material is that of the owner itself whom is allowed to do with it what they want. I mean, how often does something have to be paid for before it is finally purchased? My thought is, if it's paid for once it is purchased i.e. if someone buys a CD and makes it available on a P2P network, so be it - it is theirs to do with it what they want... (I really hope this makes sense to y'all)

 

[SpyMoose]

Do you mean, that if I buy a Beatles song, I OWN a Beatles song, and can then go around selling Beatles CDs as I please because I put down my 20 bucks? That sounds like a great idea, except that no musician could ever make money again. They release an album, and if they are good, get to sell it for maybe a day, before pirates undercut them and there is no money to be made on their album anymore. Do you think most bands you listen to would be so good if they had to get strait jobs too?

 

[sargentlard]

I mean, how often does something have to be paid for before it is finally purchased?

Puchasing and copyright infringements are two different things.

My thought is, if it's paid for once it is purchased i.e. if someone buys a CD and makes it available on a P2P network, so be it - it is theirs to do with it what they want... (I really hope this makes sense to y'all)

The plastic is theirs to do what they want, not the content that is held within that plastic. The consumer did not compose the music, write the lyrics ,engeniered the sound or spent money on selling and marketing the product...the consumer simply paid for the right to hear the product in his/her privacy, not to give away free public access to it.

Simply plopping down the cash does not an owner make. You do not own the music, you pay for the services.

 

[fireguy_31]

Spy...

I dare you to ask artists what they think of music downloading. They'll give you a resounding, 'it's good for business' response. You know why? B/C the only people who stand to gain from 'copyright' laws are corporations who have nothing to do with the creativity or originality of the songs they so vehemently defend. A band makes the majority of their cash from t-shirt sales, ticket sales etc from touring. For every 20 dollar CD sold artists collect less than 30 cents... Do you really think the artists of original music have a stake in the fight over P2P music sharing? Yes they do! And they prey it continues, it's good for business,

 

[sargentlard]

Fireguy 31

Guess who really gets screwed from downloading without paying? Not the corporations or the CEOs..nope, their pay is steady and only rises over time. Not the artists neccessairly either. The ones who get screwed are the middlemen...the guys who work between the crack to get the product out there. The lab boys, the technicians, the little people with kids who make 30,000-60,000 a year in the music industry.

Artists make up with concert and merchandise sales and royalties. The corporations make up on everything else. The little guys get screwed. Though eventually it has been shown that downloading hasn't put a serious dent in the music buisness earnings...it is just fat cats protecting their meat but that still does make you an owner of anything.

 

[SpyMoose]

I trust the music industry to know when its hemorrhaging money, if file sharing were good for their bottom lines then they wouldn’t be so adamant about stopping file sharing. Your assertion that giving away music for free makes more money than selling it is baseless, and I have only heard it from file sharers, not musicians. And my assertion stands that if anyone who bought the CD could copy it and sell it because he owns the CD and anything on it, recording artists would no longer be able to make money.

 

[Nasor]

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."

This is just absurd. Putting music in a P2P download folder is clearly tacit authorization for copying. It is difficult to imagine any reason for placing music in a P2P download folder other than allowing others to download it. Hence the term 'download folder'.

 

[fireguy_31]

sarge...

Puchasing and copyright infringements are two different things.

Yes, I know that. And the court ruled that uploading music is not an infringement of copyright laws.

Your other argument, "who really gets screwed..." is right on the money, and I agree. But I do not agree that my conscience should be burdened by anothers financial troubles if my actions are not deemed illegal. As a matter of fact, recording companies have attempted to get fees levied for each song downloaded, with some success. This will inevitably leave the 'ma and pop' music store bankrupt. Thats the nature of an evolving market to e-business.

spy...

Do you mean, that if I buy a Beatles song, I OWN a Beatles song, and can then go around selling Beatles CDs as I please because I put down my 20 bucks?

No, that's not what I was implying and you know that (it appears my original post did not make sense afterall - I'll own that responsibility). If I make my files accessible to others over a 'free' software program, at no charge and not for personal gain then, as the court ALREADY ruled, I am not infringing on copyright laws.

Your assertion that giving away music for free makes more money than selling it is baseless, and I have only heard it from file sharers, not musicians.

Thats not what I said and you know that. The majority of recording artists will tell you that they generate the majority of their revenues from touring and the spin-offs. I have had recording artists tell me that since the insurgence of widespread file sharing via p2p software their fan base has increased. A fan base is a client base, no?

Some artists, Don Koe Jones (sp?), have echoed this publicly adding that most artists wouldn't dare spek up in agreement fearing repercussions from their labels. What's important to artists is getting their music to the masses - p2p sharing is doing that, no? Musicians will survive, however corporations may not and my conscience will not be burdened by that in the least.

And yes, I am a file sharer. And I am sick and tired of purchasing CDs that, outside of one or two songs, suck! If it weren't for great engineering techniques employed by recording engineers at major record labels half the 'mainstream' shit you hear would be just that, shit! For me file sharing is about the artists, their music and accessing it, and as long as the courts deem file sharing legal here in Canada I will continue to do so without any ethical dilemmas.

EDIT: My argument is not a legal one nor do I think file sharing has no detrimental effect on the bottom line. My argument is that the industry 'may' stand to lose a bundle from file sharing not the artists themselves.

 

[alain]

lol, most people here that buy cds, take a moral highground
downloading may support piracy, but thats mostly just teenagers with little money
buying second hand cds supports burglary.
i have had my house burgled, they took all the cds in the house (as well as less easily replaced stuff), stop supporting buglaries you people

 

[DeeCee]

Bottom line.

The music industry has lost control of the means of distribution. That belongs to us now. They will adapt or die. Either way I get my tunes.

As for copyright. It was a strange Idea to start with. I'm whistling a Beatles tune in a public place. Now other people are whistling it too. Looks like I've just distributed copyrighted material across a network and into other wetware download folders. How much do I owe Sir Paul?

Dee Cee

 

[Mystech]

lol, most people here that buy cds, take a moral highground
downloading may support piracy, but thats mostly just teenagers with little money
buying second hand cds supports burglary.
i have had my house burgled, they took all the cds in the house (as well as less easily replaced stuff), stop supporting buglaries you people

Well the difference is that the teen is once removed from the crime and certainly hasn't got any idea where the CD came from. However when we download music of songs who's album we don't already own a copy of then we are directly pirating, not just "supporting" piracy, we are the pirates ourselves.

 

[Mystech]

Bottom line.

The music industry has lost control of the means of distribution. That belongs to us now. They will adapt or die. Either way I get my tunes.

As for copyright. It was a strange Idea to start with. I'm whistling a Beatles tune in a public place. Now other people are whistling it too. Looks like I've just distributed copyrighted material across a network and into other wetware download folders. How much do I owe Sir Paul?

Dee Cee

You've got a strange idea about copy right laws. You're entirely able to whistle or hum a song in public

You're right that they've lost the means of distribution, which is quite unfortunate as they are really the only ones who should have any right to distribute the music (them and the artists that made it).

Imagine you've written a book, the great American novel, now you want to recoup the losses you've taken of having spent a year not working to write the damned thing. You find a company to publish it, but as soon as they roll out the first copy every other publisher in the country starts rolling out copies of your book too. The thing is, though, that you don't have deals with those publishers, so they aren't paying you a dime for your hard work, and guess what, because there are no copy right laws, your publisher decides that they'll just break the deal and not pay you, after all you've got no claim at all to the book you've written, and now that they've got a copy they don't need to keep you happy any more!

Without copyright we're nothing but a gang of thieves, and artists are going to be quite a bit more hesitant to keep making and sharing their art with us if they know that they'll just get screwed right up the ass as soon as they try to make a living of it (or at least some side cash). Let's face it, producing art is fun, but it's a lot more fun when you can both dedicate your time to it and still be able to eat.

From his hand to paper, or instrument, or canvas, at what point does the fruit of an artist’s mind and labor become your inherent right to own? Show some God damned respect and buy it through the channels that the artist has established, it’s his right as the creator of the work you love so well.

 

[otheadp]

didn't read the whole thread... so just going to put in my 2 cents:

i'm happy i can now download music without any fear of punishment (not that i've been scared or anything... been downloading mp3's since 1997 with my 33.6K modem)

but while i was considering becoming a musician 2 years ago, now, that the mp3 revolution has "liberated" music to be "shared", there is no way i'm going to invest in a musical career
and i'm not the only one. many many people, much more talanted than me, are going to become something other than musicians... quality of music will shrink until all music sounds like Paul Oakenfold with nice 3.5 minutes radio format and all the formulaic elements of pop garbage

oh yeah... and you'll be seeing more Hillary Duff and mediocre boxing has-beens albums

it's sad really

 

[Lemming3k]

Otheadp whilst your theory is close to the truth(except only people that like paul oakenfold will buy it and therefore if it dont sell his careers over), most people download music from new bands to get an idea of what their albums like, singles are too expensive to buy for a couple songs, albums are cheaper, but if you only like one song on the album its still a waste, i brought the corals album, and it was crap, worst album i've ever brought, i liked one song, now i always download a few songs before i get an album so i know i'll like it. Single sales are down because of the price(and this went up before downloads started), albums are down because most are just plain shit, only albums i buy without downloads are from bands i know i like all their stuff, which is about 3 bands, most new bands have 1 or 2 good songs, hardly ever an albums worth.

 

[fireguy_31]

otheadp

but while i was considering becoming a musician 2 years ago, now, that the mp3 revolution has "liberated" music to be "shared", there is no way i'm going to invest in a musical career

Well, it appears the P2P wave has created yet another benefit for musicians and music lovers - it keeps the artists(and i use that term loosely in this context)seeking 'commercial' success away from the business.. haha

 

[jinchilla]

What part of "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicaple laws" don't you understand? I have no "moral high ground" to stand on myself. I'm a (mp3) thief plain and simple. I know what I'm doing and am honest with myself and so others. But the implication that one is not stealing if they suspect the product to be over-priced shit is silly. If it held any merit, Wal-Mart would be cleaned out daily. It seems to me, those who illegally dl copyrighted material are in denial. I have a friend in a celtic band that is putting out their second album and he used to have strong convictions over copyright laws. Now he illegally copies CD's for frends. Not his own of course. But I know he'll get super defensive if I bring this up with him so I observe. At any rate, I've heard nothing but senseless arguments in defense of a practice I engage in, even pointing to the "true victims" of the recording industry then implying it serves the industry right... Just shut up and keep on sharing. And fireguy, that was a cheap shot. What do you work for? The good of society as a whole? Just a few pennies a day to keep you alive? What a heart! Rock on you quinessenssial humanitarian!

 

[SpyMoose]

Well, it appears the P2P wave has created yet another benefit for musicians and music lovers - it keeps the artists(and i use that term loosely in this context)seeking 'commercial' success away from the business.. haha

So this is what its about? You disslike musicians and think they should starve? Or do you think they should make the music you love AND work a steady job as well?

 

[fireguy_31]

jinchilla

And fireguy, that was a cheap shot. What do you work for? The good of society as a whole? Just a few pennies a day to keep you alive? What a heart! Rock on you quinessenssial humanitarian![sic]

Judging by the number of posts you are quite new here and unfamiliar with other opinions I've posted. FYI - yes I am a socialist, without question. If you'd like to debate stick to the topic and leave my convictions out of it.

SpyMoose
No, I don't think 'artists' should starve *check that* I don't think anyone should starve.

My point was; an 'artist' driven by the prospect of fame and fortune, in any endeavor as far as I'm concerned, will produce haphazard results. With respect to the recording industry, people such as this are the ones who produce shiite music engineered to sound good, marketed to seem good and sold to the market by the industry at a price which reflects those non-artistic efforts. So, if P2P sharing scares off those 'artists' motivated by the prospect of fame and fortune, good riddance.

 

[Nasor]

I'm so sick of seeing people try to justify illegally downloading music by saying things like "all the new albums are crap, I just want to try it before I purchase" or "downloading music help support new bands." Even if all that were true – and it's highly debatable – that still doesn’t give you the right to download music illegally. If you think that new albums are crap, then don't buy them. You don't have a right to steal something simply because you believe it to be of low quality. Of course it's convenient for you to try an album before you buy it. Unfortunately you don't have the right to break the law just because it's convenient.

In our society the person who makes a creative work – book, song, movie, whatever – has the exclusive right to dictate how and when his work is publicly performed or copied. You don't get to violate other people's rights just because you don't like their work, or because you think it helps your garage-band buddies. If an artist thinks that allowing downloading will help his work, then he has the right to authorize it. You, on the other hand, don't have the right to violate copyright law simply because you think that it helps him.