# Music downloads



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

I was looking for music download sites for my iMac and unless you have OS X (which I don't) there seems to be little or nothing.... Came across a P2P site called Limewire and was just wondering ... er ... about the legalities of P2P sites. I've seen a fair amount in the news about people being sued for illegal downloads and would _really_ prefer not to be numbered among them....  

Thanks!


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

That is correct, stealing music is wrong.

As Apple says : 'Don't steal music'


----------



## Timothy J (Jun 4, 2003)

If you don't want to live up to your namesake then stop take two P2P breaths and use your noodle. If it was legal than we wouldn't need HMV anymore would we? Buy the cd or go to itunes store and get the individual song you need for only one buck and a clear wrap sheet.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Timothy J said:


> If you don't want to live up to your namesake then stop take two P2P breaths and use your noodle. If it was legal than we wouldn't need HMV anymore would we? Buy the cd or go to itunes store and get the individual song you need for only one buck and a clear wrap sheet.


Umm...in case you couldn't read...

1. Running a pre-OS X machine - whichs means no iTunes Music Store.
2. Looking for a download service, not a "walk to the store and buy a full CD for 1 song" solution.


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

So you're looking for a "legally OK" option that respects your own present technological limitations. Understood.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

I wasn't aware that it is currently illegal to download shared music in Canada. Unless a law has been passed that I am unaware of it is still legal. Is it ethical? Maybe not. Is it illegal? No.


----------



## bmovie (Jan 18, 2003)

You mean to tell me that nobody here has used a P2P server?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

You can use the emusic download service:
http://www.emusic.com

Their catalogue is not as complete as the iTMS or other Microsoft-based "Plays for sure" online retail spaces, but it is an option. They no longer support Mac OS 9, but their OS 9 download client is still vailable for use. From their FAQ page:
http://www.emusic.com/help/download.html#q4


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

archambault.ca also sells music downloads. But I don't know if you need OS X.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

andreww said:


> I wasn't aware that it is currently illegal to download shared music in Canada. Unless a law has been passed that I am unaware of it is still legal. Is it ethical? Maybe not. Is it illegal? No.


Pretty much sums it up.
And don't forget that on Nov15 our version of the Patriot Act is being revealed (Lawful Access Bill).


----------



## macsackbut (Dec 15, 2004)

bmovie said:


> You mean to tell me that nobody here has used a P2P server?


I may be in the minority here, but I haven't.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

sketch said:


> archambault.ca also sells music downloads. But I don't know if you need OS X.


Last time I checked, this service required Windows (secure WMA format = no Mac).

The main thing is that the OP needs sources of MP3 files, because OS 9 doesn't support any other commonly used music-download format.

There are many places to get MP3 files legally, both paid and for free, but if the OP is interested in major-label anything then forget it. All you will find is samplers and the occasional "name" band doing the download thing independently (Grateful Dead, They Might Be Giants...). Everything else will be indie. Which is good for some of us, but not for everyone.

There is an old thread around here somewhere with lots of URLs to legit free downloads. I will try to dig it up later if someone doesn't beat me to it.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Umm...in case you couldn't read...
> 
> 1. Running a pre-OS X machine - whichs means no iTunes Music Store.
> 2. Looking for a download service, not a "walk to the store and buy a full CD for 1 song" solution.


Thanks, guytoronto ... that pretty much sums it up.  

And I'm by no means fixated on a 'free' service; I'd be happy to join iTunes _if_ they would condescend to make it available to pre-OS X users. I certainly plan to upgrade (i.e. buy a new machine) someday -- it's just not possible at the moment.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> You can use the emusic download service:
> http://www.emusic.com
> 
> Their catalogue is not as complete as the iTMS or other Microsoft-based "Plays for sure" online retail spaces, but it is an option. They no longer support Mac OS 9, but their OS 9 download client is still vailable for use. From their FAQ page:
> http://www.emusic.com/help/download.html#q4


That site looks fantastic; thanks for the links, Macaholic!


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

iMatt said:


> *snip*
> The main thing is that the OP needs sources of MP3 files, because OS 9 doesn't support any other commonly used music-download format.
> 
> There are many places to get MP3 files legally, both paid and for free, but if the OP is interested in major-label anything then forget it. All you will find is samplers and the occasional "name" band doing the download thing independently (Grateful Dead, They Might Be Giants...). Everything else will be indie. Which is good for some of us, but not for everyone.
> ...


I'll give emusic.com a shot, but if for some reason it doesn't work I may be back to plead for other suggestions....

My music tastes run all over the place, so samplers definitely wouldn't help. As for indie bands, I'm not familiar with them but wouldn't automatically rule them out.

Thanks, all, for the advice and links.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Legal mp3 files, including some name bands: Live music archive at archive.org.

http://www.archive.org/audio/etreelisting-browse.php?collection=etree


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

Currently, downloading music is legal in Canada. Uploading is not. Technically, if you disable the uploading in your P2P software, you are not breaking the law.

I'm sure this is going to change sooner or later.

I still don't do it though. I own 600 CDs and have spent $100 on the iTMS. I will download an album from time to time from Torrent sites to see if I like it. If I do, I go and buy it. If I don't, I delete it. I think that is about the same as going to the listening post in your local record store, or listening to your friends CD in a car, unless you keep the downloaded material.

emusic is a decent site for sure.


----------



## rampart519 (Sep 27, 2003)

*Patriot act?*



ArtistSeries said:


> Pretty much sums it up.
> And don't forget that on Nov15 our version of the Patriot Act is being revealed (Lawful Access Bill).


Please explain


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

rampart519 said:


> Please explain


Bill C-74 (aka lawful access bill). 
This affects all our privacy. 
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php has a few correct comments about it.

And it's only going to get worse:
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/051114/e_bellcda_cust_inform.html


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

Graham Henderson, the president of CRIA gave a great talk and answered questions at our office the other day. Highly recoommend reading from Graham Henderson : http://cria.ca/news/290905_n.php

You can try these sites :

https://www.werkshop.com/nettmusic/index.jsp?letter=A#catalog
http://epitonic.com/
and of course - emusic IS a pretty cool site. 

Your situation totally sucks and it's more than unfortunate that there isn't a beter solution for you and the majority of iPod/mac users. A lot of it is really Apple's fault for not playing fair with fairplay! Stupid online wma and drm.

As a separate rant - MICRO$OFT sure is coming off looking like the good guys with their fix for SONY'S rootkit problem. They're gonna sweep in, save the day, and show the world that they have a drm solution. Everyone gets windows and wma's for christmas this year. yay!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

iChard said:


> Graham Henderson, the president of CRIA gave a great talk and answered questions at our office the other day. Highly recoommend reading from Graham Henderson : http://cria.ca/news/290905_n.php


Seriously biased and false assumptions - the man should stay away from the bong pipe....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

What else would one expect from CRIA:


> CRIA is...
> 
> The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) is a non-profit trade organization that was founded in 1964 to represent the interests of Canadian companies that create, manufacture and market sound recordings.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Seriously biased and false assumptions - the man should stay away from the bong pipe....


I honestly believe your comments are disingenuous. I find it hard to believe you read the whole article in under 9 minutes.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

iChard said:


> I honestly believe your comments are disingenuous. I find it hard to believe you read the whole article in under 9 minutes.


Read and actually re-read the article. 

Disingenuous would really apply to said article.
First, downloading is not illegal at the moment.
Calling it theft maybe fashionable but it's false.
The whole "article" is nothing short of propaganda using spurious arguments at best.
The record industry likes to blame people for bad sales instead of looking at the big picture. How much as the DVD and gaming industry revenues gone up in the period of the music biz decline?

The major record labels just don't get it.... and neither does CRIA.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And before you make assumptions that I download music, read some of my post where I decry the poor quality of all downloaded music. 

That said, the record industry does have cojones calling what they sell CDs when most are not even red book compliant lately... No wonder my 500+ CD a year buying habit has been seriously curtailed as of late.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Because i don't want to end up in jail, and like sleeping with a clean consciense at night, i do not even use itunes, just to be safe. the sole mention of p2p makes me gag. I only buy CDs, and when i listen to the radio, if there is a song playing that i currently don't own on CD, i turn the radio off for 5 minutes and repent. This happens a lot. 

I miss the good old times when i could enjoy music


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

gastonbuffet said:


> I miss the good old times when i could enjoy music


Ain't that the truth....


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

The only reason that I don't use the so-called "legal" download sites is that I refuse to accept paying for the sound quality compared to what you can get on CD or vinyl. When we can actually download full-range (1440kbps) recordings, then I'll consider buying, but for now, since it is still legal, I'll stick to P2P for trying out new songs, and my friendly neighbourhood used CD store, Deja Vu Discs, for new discs.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> And before you make assumptions that I download music, read some of my post where I decry the poor quality of all downloaded music.
> 
> That said, the record industry does have cojones calling what they sell CDs when most are not even red book compliant lately... No wonder my 500+ CD a year buying habit has been seriously curtailed as of late.


I'm making no assumptions whatsoever about you - your comments just seemed extremely broad and unsubstatiated. I respect your comments and your music buying habits.



ArtistSeries said:


> First, downloading is not illegal at the moment.
> Calling it theft maybe fashionable but it's false.
> The record industry likes to blame people for bad sales instead of looking at the big picture. How much as the DVD and gaming industry revenues gone up in the period of the music biz decline?
> 
> The major record labels just don't get it.... and neither does CRIA.


I think you're missing the point of the article. The main point of the whole thing is that people who flat out state that downloading in Canada in not illegal are just as bad as the people who actually download. It confuses the issue for Canadians who aren't really sure about downloading. *The laws state that it's wrong to steal music - BUT the moment it becomes digital it's OK.* You have to agree that our contry is behind the times and just a little backwards. I thought CANADA was supposed to be a forward thinking and technologically advanced country??

You have to realize that CRIA isn't working alone here. They are working with other huge companies who make things like OPERATING SYSTEMS, BOOKS, DVD's, ART, SOFTWARE etc. which are all suffering from "Legal" downloading in digital form.

I'm not trying to start a debate - but as someone who works in the music industry it just bothers me when I see posts around here stating that downloading music is Legal. These statements perpetuate the downfall of my livelihood! I think it's nice when people mention that there are"Legal loopholes at the moment - but it's still wrong"....

And I totally agree that the music industry as of late has been kind of messed up - since when did you have to make sure that music is "safe" to buy? There's still A LOT of great new music worth supporting out there these days....


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Man, on this issue is always legal against illegal, moral against inmoral, righteous against wrong. 
It's man's struggle of good against evil! (i just made this phrase, you can use it ).

Let's see, if i bought a Rolling Stone cassette in 1986 ( which I did), and i bought that same album but on a CD in 1994 (which i did) and now i want those same tunes in my computer and all my cd collection is in a box in a storage, and i don't want to bother to go and dig thru crap to get it and rip it, and i choose to just download it using p2p. Am I going to hell? 

The answer: I am in hell, so i could not care less about all this crap. Sue me


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

iChard said:


> I think you're missing the point of the article. The main point of the whole thing is that people who flat out state that downloading in Canada in not illegal are just as bad as the people who actually download. It confuses the issue for Canadians who aren't really sure about downloading. *The laws state that it's wrong to steal music - BUT the moment it becomes digital it's OK.* You have to agree that our contry is behind the times and just a little backwards. I thought CANADA was supposed to be a forward thinking and technologically advanced country??


The premise of the article is FALSE and filed with LIES. So there is little value to it.
You forget that there is a private copying levy in existence in Canada. This affects us all, even those that use CDs for backups. In 2004 that levy resulted in 39 million dollars.
http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm

If anything, our country has been progressive.

Companies such as Sony, that employ spyware tactics, are the real criminals here, trying to stop my rights as a consumer. They are the ones that should be sued and punished for shoving DRM restrictions and falsely labelling "CD" on defective pieces of hardware that don't conform to red book standards.






iChard said:


> You have to realize that CRIA isn't working alone here.


It's a lobby group. So what? 
There is a difference 


iChard said:


> I'm not trying to start a debate - but as someone who works in the music industry it just bothers me when I see posts around here stating that downloading music is Legal. These statements perpetuate the downfall of my livelihood! I think it's nice when people mention that there are"Legal loopholes at the moment - but it's still wrong"....


It is perfectly legal to download in Canada at the moment. 
You may not like the law and big business is using all the PR, scare tactics and other methods that it can - but simply there is no infringement happening. 


> Sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday, handing the record industry a sharp setback in its international fight against file swappers. In a far-ranging decision, the court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online appeared to be legal in Canada.


http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html
(yes it's being challenged)


I understand your position but the record industry is blaming the wrong people.
In 2005 sales by volume is up, yet revenue down - how about blaming Walmart for that?




iChard said:


> And I totally agree that the music industry as of late has been kind of messed up - since when did you have to make sure that music is "safe" to buy? There's still A LOT of great new music worth supporting out there these days....


Nothing wrong with supporting Canadian music and those who work in the industry.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Here's a interesting article on the "download debate" http://www.lawconnection.ca/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=25 

As the Copyright Act says, you can make a copy of music for your personal use, even if it is from the internet.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Kosh said:


> Here's a interesting article on the "download debate" http://www.lawconnection.ca/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=25
> 
> As the Copyright Act says, you can make a copy of music for your personal use, even if it is from the internet.


This is not quite accurate. The article is out of date. Mr. Justice von Finckenstein's judgment was appealed successfully and the issue of whether downloading for personal use is legal remains to be decided.

The principle asserted, mentioned in the original judgment, is that downloading for personal use is the equivalent of photocopying from books in the library, for personal use. This photocopying is definitely legal. Downloading is a grey area.

The other issue is the purpose of the CRIA levy. It is for the express purpose of compensating copyright holders for legal copying. There should be no principled argument against me copying my own CDs to my iPod, for instance. That's where the Sonys of this world, who try to interfere with this, seem so unprincipled. (forget about them infecting hundreds of thousands of computers with a trojan horse in pursuit of this objective).


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Kosh said:


> Here's a interesting article on the "download debate" http://www.lawconnection.ca/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=25
> 
> As the Copyright Act says, you can make a copy of music for your personal use, even if it is from the internet.


No, the Act doesn't say that. There's a fairly vague Private Copying exemption that says you can duplicate copyrighted works for your own personal use, but that you cannot distribute them. The Act says nothing explicitly about downloading or the internet. 

The article you linked to explains that so far copyright holders (via CRIA) have failed to satisfy the courts that p2p users who make files available for sharing are engaging in "distribution." They have also ruled that downloaders are making "personal use" copies within the letter of the law. 

Frankly, I think that all such rulings will be overturned eventually unless the new legislation closes the loophole first. It seems pretty obvious to me that there's a world of difference between a library putting a photocopier among the books and an internet user making a music collection available for download. Yet that is the exact analogy used in a ruling quoted in the article.

It's completely unsurprising that the revised Copyright Act will be shutting down this loophole, all arguments about right and wrong aside.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

A percentage of every blank CD or DVD I buy goes to the record companies. I buy allot of them and have never burned an MP3 to a disk. Do you think the record company execs lay awake at night and think about the moral implications of stealing from me? I makes me f__king sick to see these billionaire record moguls and artists bellyaching about lost revenues. I am not breaking any laws by downloading from P2P, so don't try to brainwash the masses into thinking I'm a f__king criminal. 

Charge me $20 for popcorn and a coke at the movies and nobody gives a $hit. Download a copy of some piece of crap movie, that every TV show has lauded as the best movie ever made, and you are ostracized. Wheres the justice?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Legal mp3 files, including some name bands: Live music archive at archive.org.
> 
> http://www.archive.org/audio/etreelisting-browse.php?collection=etree


Thanks, nxnw ... I'm embarrassed to say I've never heard of _any_ of these bands, but that can surely be changed ...


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

gastonbuffet said:


> Because i don't want to end up in jail...when i listen to the radio, if there is a song playing that i currently don't own on CD, i turn the radio off for 5 minutes and repent. This happens a lot.


Attempted ironic humor, but completely irrelevant. The radio station pays the copyright holder performance royalties for every play of the song, based on the size of the station's market. Not to be equated with getting music for free -- the advertisers pay the station who pays the royalty so you don't have to.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

andreww said:


> A percentage of every blank CD or DVD I buy goes to the record companies. I buy allot of them and have never burned an MP3 to a disk. Do you think the record company execs lay awake at night and think about the moral implications of stealing from me? I makes me f__king sick to see these billionaire record moguls and artists bellyaching about lost revenues. I am not breaking any laws by downloading from P2P, so don't try to brainwash the masses into thinking I'm a f__king criminal.
> 
> Charge me $20 for popcorn and a coke at the movies and nobody gives a $hit. Download a copy of some piece of crap movie, that every TV show has lauded as the best movie ever made, and you are ostracized. Wheres the justice?


The issue is choice.

The movie theatre chooses to offer popcorn at $20 and you can choose whether or not to take the popcorn - don't buy any and you don't have to pay.

Copying removes the choice from the copyright holder to sell their property or give it away or through which channel. 

Styling the argument as hitting back against multimillionaire record companies is a cop-out. The loss hits the individual artists, period. The independent artists, the artists with their own labels AND the artists who will never recoup expenses and earn an income from their major label releases. It all comes out of the artist's income.

I am incensed as you are over having to pay for every CD blank I use for data. The REASON we all have to is that certain members of the public wanted something for nothing in enough volume to allow the government sufficient justification to apply the levy.

It comes down to greed. Some people want something for nothing, and are willing to go to any lengths to justify why they shouldn't have to pay for something that has value, while everyone else (including ME with the levy on 2000 or more CD's I have to buy every year) pays.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Hear-hear, CanadaRAM.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

HowEver said:


> I don't know what you "have to buy" 2000 or more CDs for every year, but you have a choice too. You don't "have to buy" them.


Missing the point - I buy blank CDs for data backup for my business, and for distributing my own data and the music my son wrote and recorded (there's an irony for you). I don't have a "choice" of whether to pay the $0.21 levy unless I buy them outside Canada -- as a consequence of piracy by others.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

CanadaRAM said:


> I am incensed as you are over having to pay for every CD blank I use for data. The REASON we all have to is that certain members of the public wanted something for nothing in enough volume to allow the government sufficient justification to apply the levy.
> 
> It comes down to greed.


Yes and it's mostly the record company lobbyist greed. 

The reason has nothing to do with the public wanting something for nothing - record companies pushed for the levy (and have reaped benefits from it). Canadians pay for the right of private copies - don't start confusing the issues.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

The piracy chicken laid the levy egg, chicken came first.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So it's perfectly legal to download then - as we are paying a levy... 
End of story. Enjoy Poisoned while we still can...


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

The jury is still out on the fact that downloading is legal my friend.

I'm really happy to see credible people stepping in to this thread stating that they buy music and support artists. I really consider the good folks of ehmac to be a good breed of people with varied intellectual interests – spanning politics, art, music, literature, photography, trends, sports, tv, movies, life, technology, macs and most importantly – weather  

As far as the music category goes, music is important. Music is something that 'Steve Jobs' seems to be passionate about - and this is an apple community! It's good to see most of us nourishing a marriage between art and technology.

Since this thread is titled Music downloads... I must say that I believe the minority around here who continue to post that downloading music is legal or NOT morally wrong should be stopped. They perpetuate the myth that stealing the work of artists is ok.

I pose this question : If people can't support software pirating around here - why can others openly support/encourage music pirating? It seems to me that there's a small double standard that exists here between pirating software and pirating music. Maybe not...


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So it's perfectly legal to download then - as we are paying a levy...


The levy says that you are exempt from copyright violation when you copy music* to recording media on which you have paid the levy. No more and no less.

*(and specifically NOT video, TV or copyrighted images or written material)

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html
"Before the Copyright Act was amended in 1998, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized private copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media* - i.e., the copying of pre-recorded music for the private use of the person who makes the copy. In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use." *recording media defined as: CD-R and CD-RW (bith "data" and "CD-Audio"), Mini-Disc, and analog audio Cassette

http://cpcc.ca/english/privCopKey.htm
"Private copying is the subject of Part VIII of Canada's Copyright Act. It has a very specific, and limited, meaning. A "private copy" is a copy of a track, or a substantial part of a track, of recorded music that is made by an individual for his or her own personal use. A compilation of favorite tracks is a good example of how people typically use private copies. In contrast, a copy made for someone else or for any purpose other than the copier's own use is not a private copy."

So under the terms of the copyright act, copying to any other medium (such as DVD-R, DAT tape, computer hard drive, Web server*) is not exempted by the levy. And transmission of a copy to another person is specifically defined as not "private copy" and is also not exempted by the levy.

*iPods and MP3 players were originally included in the levy, but this was struck down because the levy language did not properly distinguish between the storage media inside the player and the player itself.

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33390

The levy does not go straight to the "record companies", it goes to the CPCC, 
"CPCC has been designated as the collecting body for the private copying levy. CPCC is also responsible for distributing the amounts generated by the levy to collective societies representing eligible authors, eligible performers and eligible makers. Member collectives of the CPCC include:

* the Canadian Mechanical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA)
* the Neighbouring Rights Collective of Canada (NRCC)
* the Société de gestion des droits des artistes-musiciens (SOGEDAM)
* the Société du droit de reproduction des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs au Canada (SODRAC); and
* the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN)"

SOCAN, CMRRA, et al are the various agencies who already ensure that royalties from radio, TV, performance and record sales are paid to the songwriters and performers. The levy cash is distributed to the individual copyright holders based on their sales in the other areas, so yes, Bryan Adams gets more royalties than Wide Mouth Mason, because he sells more and is played on radio more.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

iChard said:


> The jury is still out on the fact that downloading is legal my friend.


Downloading is still legal - yes it's being challenged - until then....
Furthermore, it is perfectly legal for me to make copies of works I own as we all pay a levy. 
As some say, it's unfair that we have to pay a levy on all CD media but blame the record executives for that one...




iChard said:


> Since this thread is titled Music downloads... I must say that I believe the minority around here who continue to post that downloading music is legal or NOT morally wrong should be stopped. They perpetuate the myth that stealing the work of artists is ok.


Wacky guy.... show me where music downloading is illegal.....
Morally wrong? How about labelling a CD a CD when it's not Red book compliant? (It's basically a defective product)
How about record companies dictating how I can listen to a CD. If I really paid for intellectual property, why do they try sell me so many formats?
How about record companies using spyware technology such a Rootkits and not even warning about it?

Remove the levy on all blank media and we may have something to talk about, until then.....




iChard said:


> I pose this question : If people can't support software pirating around here - why can others openly support/encourage music pirating? It seems to me that there's a small double standard that exists here between pirating software and pirating music. Maybe not...


Wow, terms like "music pirating", "illegal downloads" are misnomers - 

What we should be asking is if DRMs and TPMs as implemented by some is legal in Canada.
What we should be decrying is the lame attempts by some companies to control our consumer rights of "fair use".


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> As some say, it's unfair that we have to pay a levy on all CD media but blame the record executives for that one...


I blame pirates and people like you!



ArtistSeries said:


> Wacky guy.... show me where music downloading is illegal.....Morally wrong? How about labelling a CD a CD when it's not Red book compliant? (It's basically a defective product)


That's a sidestep. As nxnw said, "Finckenstein's judgment was appealed successfully and the issue of whether downloading for personal use is legal remains to be decided." Artists invest time, money, heart and soul into creating music and deserve to be PAID. They're not all billionaires you know. AND that's totally not the point. It's been illegal to steal artists' music up until now - how has that changed in your head?



ArtistSeries said:


> How about record companies dictating how I can listen to a CD. If I really paid for intellectual property, why do they try sell me so many formats? How about record companies using spyware technology such a Rootkits and not even warning about it?


Wacky guy - Not all labels and artists do this. Why are you accusing all artists and labels of doing this? Everything isn't black and white - wacky guy. Do you think all downloaders should pick and choose which labels and artists they steal from?



ArtistSeries said:


> Wow, terms like "music pirating", "illegal downloads" are misnomers -


YOU my good friend, are a misnomer yourself. I think YOU are still encouraging people to steal from artists who work hard and would prefer to have their music paid for. If YOU would stop saying these kinds of things JUST MAYBE your cursed levies, DRMs and TPMs would go away faster....stop and think about it. It's an endless circle and a mindset that needs to be changed.

You're also totally missing my point - by the way, do you have a copy of final cut express I could "borrow"?

It's a growing process for both the consumer and the music world. Mistakes have been made on both sides of the fence - maybe both sides should give a little? You know that NFB film about the two neighbours?  And yes, we know you are paying the levies!

And speaking of fair use - has apple shared fair play yet?


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

CanadaRAM said:


> The issue is choice.
> 
> The movie theatre chooses to offer popcorn at $20 and you can choose whether or not to take the popcorn - don't buy any and you don't have to pay.
> 
> ...


My view is that given any loophole, big business will take it and take your money. Maybe you do have a choice in a movie theatre, but you don't when it comes to the monopolies of cable companies, energy suppliers, banks, credit card companies, etc. You are getting f__cked daily by companies that have nothing but profit in mind. As a person, you have the fundamental right to be entertained, and paying for that right is understood. But charging $150 for a concert ticket is absurd. Back in the 70s and 80s concert prices were in the $15 to $40 range. I understand inflation, but there hasn't been 1000% inflation in that period of time. It's simply greed and nothing more.

I am not breaking the law, I am simply taking advantage of the laws as they exist. If you choose not to, thats your problem. I think you are being naive though!


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

As a sidebar...

Getting away from the huge artists and record companies, have you ever thought that sharing music is an excellent way of spreading the word on up and coming bands? I still buy what I really like, meaning I only really download songs that I previously owned or that I've heard somewhere and am curious about. I've never been a rap fan, but after sampling some songs by 50cent and eminem I've actually purchased their cds. My son has become so enthralled with Star Wars after downloading Revenge of the Syth, that I have since spent countless dollars on Star Wars merchandise and will likely be buying the dvd as a christmas gift.

Its never a bad thing to get your music heard. The people that go through the effort of DLing movies and music are not likely to be in the position to purchase these items anyway. The artists that will be successful are the ones that embrace this new technology and make it work for them instead of against them.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Might as well jump in here.

Andreww and others, you're using all the old arguments, from "rich bastards" (the big labels are -- and yes, they're absolute boneheads) to "concert tickets are too expensive" (they are) to "P2P is a great way for bands to promote themselves" (it's not) and on and on. These arguments have been put through the wringer ad nauseam here and across the internet. But the facts are facts. The ONLY reason the record labels are being "singled out" in this bull**** moral crusade by downloaders to "give 'em what's right", so to say, is because the record companies have no teeth. People are stealing music _just because they can_. This behavior leads me to believe that, if they could steal a chocolate bar with impunity", they would. Ditto with the products of cable companies, energy suppliers, banks, and credit card companies, as you list them.

If you use something, it should be paid for. If you don't like the price, then don't use it. Anything else is theft. That's the way the world has worked forever, and it has to work that way. The CD levy is a stupid solution, I hope the labels' days are numbered as their irrelevance grows in this new age of LEGAL internet distribution, moves such as Sony's is VERY bad, blah blah. Despite all this, there's no way that theft via downloading will ever be fine, and wrapping a "cause" around it just makes me sick. This has nothing to do with teaching the labels a lesson and everything to do with what yer momma taught ya.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> If you use something, it should be paid for. If you don't like the price, then don't use it.


And here is where we will disagree. 
The CD that I paid for should be mine to use the way I want. NOT saddled with some DRM that damages or potentially damages my computer. If it's labelled a CD (red book) then it should not contain anything else. If it does, it's defective. 
I have returned all CDs that contain DRM - who suffers? The artist. 


I should be able to have a backup if I choose. I'm told that I'm paying for "intellectual property". The levy is akin to a tax that in theory goes back to the artist. Until copyright laws are amended, I would have no qualms about downloading music. 

Please note that because MP3's sound quality all suck, I don't. I also don't use an iPod because it's a closed system.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> Anything else is theft. That's the way the world has worked forever, and it has to work that way. The CD levy is a stupid solution, I hope the labels' days are numbered as their irrelevance grows in this new age of LEGAL internet distribution, moves such as Sony's is VERY bad, blah blah. Despite all this, there's no way that theft via downloading will ever be fine, and wrapping a "cause" around it just makes me sick.


Paying a levy on a medium that will not be used for music is stealing - so work towards changing the law but don't get sanctimonious on me....


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

andreww said:


> Getting away from the huge artists and record companies, have you ever thought that sharing music is an excellent way of spreading the word on up and coming bands? I still buy what I really like, meaning I only really download songs that I previously owned or that I've heard somewhere and am curious about. I've never been a rap fan, but after sampling some songs by 50cent and eminem I've actually purchased their cds. My son has become so enthralled with Star Wars after downloading Revenge of the Syth, that I have since spent countless dollars on Star Wars merchandise and will likely be buying the dvd as a christmas gift.


Well, that's nice of you to "likely" buy the DVD for what you already have used, but the problem here is that technology has given us, the end-user, the choice of whether or not you WILL pay for what you've used. There's the rub. Entertainment and software distributors and owners are the ONLY THING in this world that cannot control the distribution of their product. Everyone else can. if you don;t like the price of bread -- or gas -- we still have to pay for it. Would we steal it if we could, regardless of the price?

No way dude. You did not hear "the word" spread about 50cent or eminem via P2P; you heard it from somewhere else and choose to grab this stuff off of P2P. P2P had NOTHING to do with making you aware of these artists. I often can't understand how people who use this excuse think it works. No P2P app is set up with music review, user reviews, no "people who bought this also bought", no "essential collection" of various groups, based on genre, no 30 second preview. There is NOTHING in the P2P structure that promotes obscure bands. if there's an indie band out there that is gaining traction in national sales, I can probably determine who they are using the iTMS. There's NO WAY I can using P2P. That capability does not exist in that software.



> Its never a bad thing to get your music heard. The people that go through the effort of DLing movies and music are not likely to be in the position to purchase these items anyway.


That is NOT true. Certainly, it's not true enough to base a premise on at all.



> The artists that will be successful are the ones that embrace this new technology and make it work for them instead of against them.


Yeah, and it's called the iTunes Music Store. THAT's using this modern whizz-bang technology properly. P2P is a total dead-end for artists, rich and poor. In fact, there are ways better ways for new artists to get their music heard than through P2P if they want to give their music away for promotional purposes.

Excuse me, ArtistSeris, but if you don't use MP3s and therefore don't use P2P to get them, then I'm not getting sanctimonious on YOU. Am I? The levies are wrong. The way Sony went about it is wrong. The big labels are stupid greedy pigs and I hope PROPER web-based distribution eventually makes them go away. But, they like every other product in this world need to protect their stuff and be the ones who control the distribution of it. This is intrinsic to "ownership". They need to provide the buyer with fair rights usage and DRM (like Apple's established with them), but in this day and age, they also need to try to prevent or make difficult the unfettered distribution of their stuff (including the song writers and musicians). They should leave the price model as it is, too. I KNOW the labels will screw this all up, but that dopesn;t take away from the fundamentals.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

andreww said:


> As a sidebar...
> 
> Getting away from the huge artists and record companies, have you ever thought that sharing music is an excellent way of spreading the word on up and coming bands? I still buy what I really like, meaning I only really download songs that I previously owned or that I've heard somewhere and am curious about. I've never been a rap fan, but after sampling some songs by 50cent and eminem I've actually purchased their cds.


I would venture to say that your experience is not atypical. Some people being exposed to music and then buying it.

People who d/l tons of music don't do it for the music but for the "possession" and I highly doubt they would buy music in the first place. This is of course lost on record execs.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

If P2P does nothing for an artist then neither does radio. Record companies are just too stupid to realize that by using value added features to a cd, people would be more inclined to buy. This is not a new issue, people have been taping since the beginning of time!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> I would venture to say that your experience is not atypical. Some people being exposed to music and then buying it.


I agree.



> People who d/l tons of music don't do it for the music but for the "possession" and I highly doubt they would buy music in the first place.


That's true to a point, because one can go absolutely hog-wild with P2P. But that these people would not buy music in the first place? Surely not as much as many of them download, but they would indeed buy.



Andreww said:


> If P2P does nothing for an artist then neither does radio.


Oh come on! Radio is HUGE in allowing people to hear new music. Come on! What the hellz THAT, man? 



> Record companies are just too stupid to realize that by using value added features to a cd, people would be more inclined to buy.


And you really believe that this would stop P2P??



> This is not a new issue, people have been taping since the beginning of time


Not resulting with digital clones, however. There was always a drop in quality and there was no network to distribute it like there is now. To compare the two and draw ANY similarity is ridiculous.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> Not resulting with digital clones, however. There was always a drop in quality and there was no network to distribute it like there is now. To compare the two and draw ANY similarity is ridiculous.


And you don't think that MP3 and whatever Apple uses does not result in a drop in quality? iTunes store music is a serious drop in quality compared to a CD/DVD.


macaholic - please fix your quotes above - you are quoting Andrew and attributing it to me....


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Guess what guys, P2P will eventually be banned. The record companies will eventually provide DL services and the world will be good again. But who do you think pioneered and developed the technologies for the transmission of music? Can anyone say Napster? Record companies get all the technology provided courtesy of the pirates!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Sorry on the quoting, ArtistSeries, obviously I didn't mean for that to happen. HTML typos 

Of course MP3 is not as good as CD, but the market doesn't seem to care much about it, given the amount of MP3 filesharing going on. People are STILL digging the music, which they should then pay for, and the distribution "web" for it blows away any dent home cassette recording in the pre-internet era ever made. Come on, the times are DEFINITELY not the same.

Yes, Andreww, the labels are benefitting from technologies developed by the swappers. In case you haven't got the drift from me, I think the big labels are stupid greedy pigs. i think they should go the way of the dinosaur. But that is separate from the fundamentals at hand here. No matter WHO it is, people need to protect their work, whether it's a song writer, performer, anybody. Would it be fine for me to go into a place of work and tell the employer that s/he can fire a staff member because I'll work for free? By doing such a (ridiculous but it's an example) thing, I have devalued the "normal" salaried employee and the employer got the same services... for free. Stealing music or films whatever is the same thing.

I have to bail on this conversation. I know where this is heading. We've all been there before. No one on either side of this debate ever convinces the other. My opinion is that it's a bad thing to do, the temptation due to the ease and array of music out there on P2P is very VERY strong and can erode one's moral base, and there are indeed moral conveniences at play when people P2P stuff. Period. That's my opinion. Relax. These are only little bits of light emanations on a screen. They have Zero effect on you and your world as you choose to create it.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

andreww said:


> have you ever thought that sharing music is an excellent way of spreading the word .... Its never a bad thing to get your music heard. The people that go through the effort of DLing movies and music are not likely to be in the position to purchase these items anyway. The artists that will be successful are the ones that embrace this new technology and make it work for them instead of against them.


Two things wrong with the argument:

It is the artist's CHOICE whether to give away samples of their music, video or whatever to increase their market. Downloading unlicensed material removes that choice from the owner and robs them of the value in being able to make a promotion, OR to decide to withold it. Copyright = the right to decide how and when and under what terms the material gets copied.

The people who have a computer and a broadband connection are EXACTLY the market that buys CD's and DVDs. It's hard to imagine the economic group who cannot afford a computer as larger CD/DVD buyers than someone who has a new Mac and pays $45 a month for a big pipe.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

iChard said:


> That's a sidestep. As nxnw said, "Finckenstein's judgment was appealed successfully and the issue of whether downloading for personal use is legal remains to be decided." Artists invest time, money, heart and soul into creating music and deserve to be PAID. They're not all billionaires you know. AND that's totally not the point. It's been illegal to steal artists' music up until now - how has that changed in your head?


Yes, but just as the legality of downloading music is not clearly legal (as some would argue), neither is it clearly illegal.

What should be understood is that making ANY copy of ANY copyrighted work is not legal unless:
- the copyright (or the holder of the copyright) specifically authorizes the copying;
- the law specifically authorizes the copying. 

The law does specifically authorise private copying. The question is whether private copying includes downloading.

THE CPCC levy, as iChard obnoxiously asserts, was not a response to "pirates and people like [artistseries]!" Levies (in various countries) were introduced before Shawn Fanning even had the idea for Napster. The canadian levy, including blank tape levies for video and audio, were introduced in 1997, designed to compensate copyright holders for LEGAL private copying. This legal private copying was deemed reasonable and appropriate by Parliament, and the levy is just the other side of the coin.

A ton of money is collected under this levy - it looks like CanadaRam (the ehmac member) alone paid over $1,000 to the CPCC last year.

Certainly, there are good arguments to be made that the levy did not contemplate downloading and is therefore not satisfactory compenssation. (In this regard, the CRIA does want it substantially raised on account of downloading AS WELL as to prosecute or sue people engaged in filesharing - like having your cake and eating it). On the other hand, the levy originally contemplated, primarily, media used almost exclusively for copying copyrighted materials - audio and video tapes). It did not contemplate the windfall it now receives to the tune of 22¢ for each blank CD we buy - see CanadaRam again who bought 5,000 blank CDs last year, and it doesn't sound like any of them was used for making private copies of copyrighted material.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

andreww said:


> ... The record companies will eventually provide DL services and the world will be good again. But who do you think pioneered and developed the technologies for the transmission of music? Can anyone say Napster? Record companies get all the technology provided courtesy of the pirates!


It's a good point. They needed to be dragged into the 20th century (not a typo), kicking and screaming, because they did run their businesses like robber barons. I remember, too well, the transition from $7 LPs to $14 CDs - from a medium that cost much more to manufacture, store and transport, to CDs, yet they doubled the price? The price of CDs was too high for 20 years and maybe, now, the pigeons have come home to roost.

Maybe the emusic model - independent artists selling their music for 25¢ a track - represents a truer picture of a fair price for music. I wonder how much illegal downloading there would be now if there had been an iTunes music store, selling music for 25¢ a trach, in 1999?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw, thank you for stepping in here and clarifying a few issues.

I do understand what Macaholic is trying to convey but what is morally unacceptable to some does not always equate with being illegal.




nxnw said:


> Yes, but just as the legality of downloading music is not clearly legal (as some would argue), neither is it clearly illegal.


Hence, the need to clear up a few issues with the present laws and why I prefaced with "at the moment" on many of my comments.




nxnw said:


> The law does specifically authorise private copying. The question is whether private copying includes downloading.


And this is a right I want to keep - private copying. 
Add that I don't think labels should crippled what they call CDs because they want to limit where I can use a product I paid for.


nxnw said:


> THE CPCC levy, as iChard obnoxiously asserts, was not a response to "pirates and people like [artistseries]!"


Not sure what I've done wrong here....  




nxnw said:


> Certainly, there are good arguments to be made that the levy did not contemplate downloading and is therefore not satisfactory compenssation. (In this regard, the CRIA does want it substantially raised on account of downloading AS WELL as to prosecute or sue people engaged in filesharing - like having your cake and eating it).


Hence the need for reform and the perception that record companies are greedy....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> I remember, too well, the transition from $7 LPs to $14 CDs - from a medium that cost much more to manufacture, store and transport, to CDs, yet they doubled the price? The price of CDs was too high for 20 years and maybe, now, the pigeons have come home to roost.


Let's not forget the missing artwork, the shoddy re-issues, horrible sound quality (poor mastering), CD that would de-laminate etc...
14$? It was more like 20-25$, no?


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

nxnw said:


> THE CPCC levy, as iChard obnoxiously asserts, was not a response to "pirates and people like [artistseries]!"


My apologies. I'm not really an obnoxious person - i swear! What I was trying to convey was that the use of levys, DRM, copy protection etc. might decline if people like [artistseries] stop dropping the hint to people that downloading is legal and not morally wrong.

Remember that behind every so called rich record exec - there's an artist working hard. I work at a record company - and the people I work with - including myself are definitely NOT rich. We work hard to make music more valuable to people like you every day. We provide a lot of free added content on artists websites every day - free music samples, videos, podcasts etc. - all for free! We add bonus dvd's to packages that cost basically the same as a single music Cd. Free content for the fans and consumers who we appreciate very very very much.

Artistseries - I honestly have nothing against you as a person and I understand and even agree a little with some of your arguments. I'd happily sit and discuss our favourite bands over a coffee someday. 

I wish I had more time to take part in this, but my job doesn't exactly allow me to...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> I do understand what Macaholic is trying to convey but what is morally unacceptable to some does not always equate with being illegal.


Yes. Forgive me for playing "The Race Card", but slavery was once legal, too. Just because there's a law for something, doesn't mean it is moral one. I also think the CD levies are a poor solution. What IS the perfect solution? I really don't know.

And, to be clear, I agree that _private_ copying, the ability to transfer music to portable devices, network it about the house (even played simultaneously :O ) and burn custom playlists, is absolutely totally required and reasonable for the end-user to demand of the labels and all content providers (the stupid bastards). We're on our way there -- but obviously nobody should trust that these people will do it properly, nor remain cognizant of their weakness given the fluid nature of the internet (e.g.: SONY). I certainly don't.

But, like everything in this world, people have to own up to what they consume. There's no free ride with _anything_ in this world, and people need to be compensated for the use of their creations/products. _God! Doesn't this music have a value to our ears and soul as we listen to our beloved, personal songs repeatedly throughout our lives?? How cool is it to listen to new expressions from your favourite artists? New outstanding performances by your favourite musicians? Which songs lift your sprits? Which ones make your horny? Can we remember what song we lost our virginity with?  Why do we choose special music for when we die? Why not display our favourite socks, instead? Why do we guess on what would be our "desert island" tracks -- but we NEVER think of what brand of underwear we'd love to have on that island as well? Take your pick of ONE THING for you to have as you live alone on a desert island: your favourite playlist? Or a can of deodorant?_ This stuff can be more valuable and personal than gold to us and we've literally reduced the value of those who create it to ZILCH.

It starts with us and, given how the labels kept their heads in the sand in the early days, we users _did have the opportunity_ to show our (collective) true colours once Shawn Fanning gave us this incredible power. It's been a disappointment, to say the least. Hell, I confess to having downloaded some music. It is just TOO TEMPTING. TOO EASY. Am I a "bad person"? No. Was it wrong to do? Yes. It's the easy dismissal of "steal a pen from work" gone mad within us. So, I know of this problem, firsthand.

Prior to iTMS, most that I downloaded was stuff I previously had on vinyl (all the old stuff they want to now sell cheap, I suppose). But not ALL of it. However, since the Canadian iTMS opened a year ago I have purchased well over $600.00 in music. That is more music than I have purchased _in years_ -- internet or not -- and the user experience, information available and the ability to discover artists unfamiliar to me has been extremely effective. iTMS is an awesome research tool and fun way to get music.

P2P really reawakened my appetite for music, but iTMS -- and now MS' online stores for non-Mac users -- has given us what is probably the best reasonable solution that is FAR MORE effective than P2P. In fact, it's a pity that more people don't see this and go legit. I bet it would make Steve Jobs' arguments with the labels A LOT more convincing to them and in turn make our future a lot happier.


PS: Heh. I just got a (subscribed) email from awesome jazz-picker guitarist Don Ross that his new album is available online. Now _THAT's_ the internet working _for_ musicians and consumers the way it should.


PSS: ArtistSeries, many of the complaints you listed with CDs (that seems to be an attempt to justify P2P -- that is lossy anyway as you stated) can be avoided by reading trusted reviews. This, as you well know, can be easily served to you via the internet.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

iChard said:


> Remember that behind every so called rich record exec - there's an artist working hard. I work at a record company - and the people I work with - including myself are definitely NOT rich. We work hard to make music more valuable to people like you every day. We provide a lot of free added content on artists websites every day - free music samples, videos, podcasts etc. - all for free! We add bonus dvd's to packages that cost basically the same as a single music Cd. Free content for the fans and consumers who we appreciate very very very much.


That "free" content is there to help sell an artist. I don't think it's altruistic. 
Without it, your product would not sell - that's the market reality. 

Is it appreciated? Sure but lets not forget the motivation behind it.





iChard said:


> Artistseries - I honestly have nothing against you as a person and I understand and even agree a little with some of your arguments. I'd happily sit and discuss our favourite bands over a coffee someday.


I own over 3000 CDs and countless albums. While some may find downloading music immoral, it's a grey area to some (while other say it's perfectly legal) in Canada.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> PSS: ArtistSeries, many of the complaints you listed with CDs (that seems to be an attempt to justify P2P -- that is lossy anyway as you stated) can be avoided by reading trusted reviews. This, as you well know, can be easily served to you via the internet.


There is a difference between justifying P2P and pointing out that at the moment, it's legal (although being reviewed).

The record labels that I buy from have been well served by the internet as they were early adaptors (Telarc, Chesky, Mofi, Sundazed, etc...).


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> That "free" content is there to help sell an artist. I don't think it's altruistic.
> Without it, your product would not sell - that's the market reality.
> Is it appreciated? Sure but lets not forget the motivation behind it.


I'm very happy to see you addidng descriptors next to your statements (grey area / under review) I think we're kind of on the same page now  I do have to disagree with the above statement. DVDs and web content didn't always exist and CDs sold without them in the past. A good album is a good album and people will buy music for that reason alone. Of course, these things help to sell more music in a period of decline.

My job is actually creating the majority of the free content for web and dvd at our label - and my own personal motivation is to help fans feel closer and to understand artists they appreciate and enjoy. Most of the people who watch the web content I create are people who have already bought CDs by each artist - and they tell us this through thousands of emails and message board posts. It's this feedback that I actually enjoy most about my job - making fans happy. I work countless overtime hours, unpaid, creating extra content that we wouldn't otherwise have time to create - FOR THE FANS. It's ok by me that people here call the big labels evil - but there are a lot of good intentioned, hard working people behind these lablels. And these people truly are passionate about what they do, passionate about music and getting good music into the hands of fans.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

I think it is hilarious (and laughable) when folks try to stick up for their "right" to download music for free. Whatever the reason (sticking it to "the man", taking advantage of the current laws by "not being naive"?, being annoyed with the levys on blank media), the bottom line is that the material you are downloading was created by an artist, with up to hundreds of other people in supporting roles. It was created in hopes that people would buy it and they could continue making music.

Forget all the "major labels are thieves" crap... when you decide to download all of your music and not pay a cent for any of it, you are, as it was mentioned before, hurting the artist. Yes, the system is flawed, but being a pirate is not the way to change things.

By downloading music, it is almost as if if you are saying art or music isn't worth anything. Yes, it's legal right now, but people are abusing that law... the government's perspective (I think) was that if you download music, you either own the CD, or you are using it for research and education, or something along those lines. I do not think the government is saying people should be able to download artist's material for free to make copies of and use for personal use.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> By the way, the "government" has no perspective on this yet. It was the courts that have commented so far. And when they did, they said personal use was okay, not that it wasn't.


This is something that people tend to forget here.

I have never said that I found it acceptable personally , but that is lost on most.
What I have decried are DRM schemes that hurt the paying customer and infringe on my fair use of what I have purchased or selling a defective CD. 

Want to change the law in Canada? Fine but make sure you also remove that levy...

Today I was reading a movie executive saying how pirating has hurt sales just like in the music industry - what a load of BS. It may have hurt but CD sales are higher than they have been in awhile.

Interestingly, it is perfectly legal to bring in recording equipment to a movie theatre, but as a private venue, they can ask you to leave.

Record labels have hurt themselves in the sense that above average record buying public are tired of being told that they have to use "this or that" software to listen to their music on a computer. I have returned many new CDs because of that - and refuse to buy any with DRM schemes.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Ironically, okcomputer has in is signature an "Soft Modded XBOX", now shall we examine the legal ramification of that with regards to fair use policy and intellectual property?

And I'm a little confused, on your blog you have a list of Xbox Games: Retail = 4, Burned = 22. One can easily believe that the 22 burned are "special private copies", no?


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Tony, tell Rahhman and Steve that i have "walk the line" , beautiful, and a xtra cd with every Johnny Cash tune ever recorded. Whole set going for 10 bux includes shipping. I'll have over 35 set by tonight. Bring my Timms.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

oops wrong forum.

Please Disregard


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

gastonbuffet said:


> oops wrong forum.
> 
> Please Disregard


Selling of said material is a no-no.....  and for that you would go to j... well get a fine....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

HowEver said:


> I guess these were burned for "research and education" purposes












lmao! WHY would someone put on their website that they burned copyrighted material (makes ya wonder about those DVDs he's listed)? And disclose their identity?? And his car's license plate #??? And even a blogmap to his house in Nova Scotia???!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> lmao! WHY would someone put on their website that they burned copyrighted material (makes ya wonder about those DVDs he's listed)? And disclose their identity?? And his car's license plate #??? And even a blogmap to his house in Nova Scotia???!


We could add the pot or hash use:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattcorkum/57284974/in/set-1240534/

Now, of course there was no inhaling.


Morally, I find it repulsive that an educator would be doing this kind of activities (from the XBox, to the pot smoking, to the lack of common sense online) - but hey, it maybe a great example for some kids.....


So, okaycomputer, what where you lecturing about artist and people in supporting roles, abusing the law, piracy and taking advantages of laws?
Here's a mirror - have a look....


(now, if you can explain away most of this, I owe you a big apology)


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

okcomputer said:


> I think it is hilarious (and laughable) when folks try to stick up for their "right" to download music for free. Whatever the reason ... being annoyed with the levys on blank media)...


Not NEARLY as hilarious (*and* laughable) as an ethically challenged person being so self righteous. I hereby nominate okcomputer for the Gordon Campbell Award for Sanctimony.

But enough of that.

Do you understand that we are paying the CPCC the, "private copying tariff", i.e. the CPCC levy, to compensate the copyright holders for something? 
Do you understand that the CPCC is supposed to distribute the the proceeds of the levy to the copyright holders?
Do you understand that, in the US, they pay no similar levy, yet have the right to fair use of their media, i.e. to copy their CDs onto their computers, iPods, etc.?
Do you know that the CPCC collected *$40 million* in levies in 2004, on behalf of the copyright holders? Do you understand that this will certainly be well in excess of total revenues for iTunes Canada for 2005?

So, tell us, wise one, what are we paying the levy for? Did we pay the CPCC $40 million in 2004 for nothing?


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Do you understand that we are paying the CPCC the, "private copying tariff", i.e. the CPCC levy, to compensate the copyright holders for something?
> Do you understand that the CPCC is supposed to distribute the the proceeds of the levy to the copyright holders?
> Do you understand that, in the US, they pay no similar levy, yet have the right to fair use of their media, i.e. to copy their CDs onto their computers, iPods, etc.?


Nope, Fair Use is a specific part (Section 107) of the US Copyright Act and has nothing to do with the ability to make duplicate copies of materials.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html The Act does permit the copying of one backup copy of computer software for the owner's use as a backup only, however music and other materials are excluded from that backup provision
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/index.html

If you have a statute or a court decision to support that duplication of copyrighted musical material for personal use is permitted in the US, please share it.

(And not the Betamax decision, which does not apply here, as it merely held Sony protected from prosecution for copyright infringement if they sold equipment that could be used for both infringing and legitimate purposes. An example of legitimate purpose was the time shifting of TV signals that were broadcast FOR FREE to the individual.)



nxnw said:


> Do you know that the CPCC collected *$40 million* in levies in 2004, on behalf of the copyright holders? Do you understand that this will certainly be well in excess of total revenues for iTunes Canada for 2005?
> So, tell us, wise one, what are we paying the levy for? Did we pay the CPCC $40 million in 2004 for nothing?


The levy is collected so that individual Canadians can make copies of music (and music ONLY) onto CD-Rs, CD-RWs, Audio cassettes and MiniDisks without fear of prosecution from the Copyright Act. It does not change the Act to allow transmission of copies by any means, nor does it cover recording media other than those the levy is paid on. (supporting links in my previous post)


----------



## ncoffey (Apr 6, 2005)

As I understood it, the copying of a CD that I own for my buddy is perfectly legal here, which is the source of the RIAAs Canadian problems. I though that the levy was for this too.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

CanadaRAM said:


> Nope, Fair Use is a specific part (Section 107) of the US Copyright Act and has nothing to do with the ability to make duplicate copies of materials.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you have a statute or a court decision to support that duplication of copyrighted musical material for personal use is permitted in the US, please share it.


Feel free to do your own legal research, but it is not too challenging to find good authority for my statement:

"It's perfectly legal for you to make copies of your own music for your own personal use," says Robin Gross, EFF's staff intellectual-property attorney. "It's called 'fair use.' It's your legal right to do so, even if the copyright holder doesn't want you to."

http://www.macworld.com/2001/10/macbeat/rip/[/QUOTE]



CanadaRAM said:


> The levy is collected so that individual Canadians can make copies of music (and music ONLY) onto CD-Rs, CD-RWs, Audio cassettes and MiniDisks without fear of prosecution from the Copyright Act. It does not change the Act to allow transmission of copies by any means, nor does it cover recording media other than those the levy is paid on. (supporting links in my previous post)


 Most if this is completely accurate. There is a serious legal and policy dispute, however, about whether the Act allows, or should allow, private copying of downloaded music. Ironically, because there is no longer a levy on MP3 players, copying our own CDs onto our ipods, in Canada, is not likely legal.

As a policy issue, it is an outrage if the CPCC thinks it was entitled to collect $40 million in 2004 to allow us to copy music we paid for from one medium to another, for our own personal use. That position is as morally bankrupt as anything asserted against P2P users. If that is really what the levy was enacted for (and you are dead wrong on this), there is no ethical or moral justification for it. Among the original arguments for the levy was that people were recording music off air or from each other, and that deprived copyright holders of revenues. That is a situation that could be compared to downloading, although presumably on a smaller scale, which would warrant an adjustment of the levy.

I am not arguing that the system is a good one, or fair to the copyright holders, or makes sense. It is clear, however, that if we do not accrue any substantive and valuable rights for the levy, we should not have to pay it. If we have to pay it, we are entitled to receive a genuine benefit for it, not an illusory right that costs nothing in a fair use regime.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> We could add the pot or hash use:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattcorkum/57284974/in/set-1240534/


You forgot pills.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattcorkum/57285015/in/set-1240534/


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

I'm an artist, so I think I'm entitled to a portion of every digital camera sold as I believe people may be taking pictures of my artwork and enjoying it without paying me!


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

The insults are getting personal in here, let's leave it alone and stay on topic.

The biggest problem I find with the whole music download/piracy is the conflict between an old distribution system and a new technological age. being able to download music for free that isn't authorized shouldn't be legal, but it's got a grey loophole here in Canada.

The only solution possible to fixing this is going to be a compromise between consumers and record companies in things like the iTunes Music Store. Personally I'm not happy with the compromise simply because DRM is not about rights, it's about restrictions. It's about the large companies taking copyright ownership as far as they can so that people have no ability to create non-commercial (eg. personal use, for use in a mix tape or created video) products. Until the recording industry decides to join the 21st century I don't see the downloading of music from abating in any shape or form. Especially if they use hard arm tactics that do nothing more then alienate their customer base.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Chealion said:


> The insults are getting personal in here, let's leave it alone and stay on topic.


But it was just getting funny....  



Chealion said:


> The biggest problem I find with the whole music download/piracy is the conflict between an old distribution system and a new technological age. being able to download music for free that isn't authorized shouldn't be legal, but it's got a grey loophole here in Canada.


There is more to it than that, no? 
MP3s are are not of high enough resolution to be considered an alternative to CDs. Maybe the record companies should charge less for d/l (as you are only getting a portion of the music). 






Chealion said:


> The only solution possible to fixing this is going to be a compromise between consumers and record companies in things like the iTunes Music Store.


Wrong - I don't want inferior sounding music just for the convenience of d/l some over inflated-priced MP3. 
As a consumer of a CD, I don't want DRM impeding how or when I enjoy my purchase. This is not even about making a copy, but how I can play my CD. On the Mac, we are more immune to this, for now....


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Feel free to do your own legal research, but it is not too challenging to find good authority for my statement:
> 
> "It's perfectly legal for you to make copies of your own music for your own personal use," says Robin Gross, EFF's staff intellectual-property attorney. "It's called 'fair use.' It's your legal right to do so, even if the copyright holder doesn't want you to."
> 
> http://www.macworld.com/2001/10/macbeat/rip/


That isn't an authority, it is an opinion from a lobby group (happens to be one I have some sympathy for, but just as biased in their own way as the RIAA is) 

"Fair Use" in the US legislation has nothing to do with this. Fair Use covers the use of a portion of a copyrighted work for the purposes of reporting, research, commentary, or education, and is *not* a right. It is a defence against a charge of copyright infringement and has to satisfy a judge on a multi-point scale of eligibility, including the purpose of the copying, what fraction of the whole was copied, whether it was for commercial gain, and whether the copying caused injury to the commercial interests of the copyright holder. The links to the section of the act are in my last post. 

Robin Gross on the EFF website adds "Time-shifting" and "Format-shifting" to the usual criteria for Fair use -- these two terms are _not_ in the legislation. In order for this to be true, there would have had to be court cases that resulted in interpretation of the law to add these concepts and define what they mean. That is the case for Time-shifting, a result of the Betamax case is that if I offer you a television program for free, you may copy it for your own use and play it back later. I have not found anything to date on "Format-shifting" or backing up audio. The following are overviews of Fair Use.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/index.html



nxnw said:


> There is a serious legal and policy dispute, however, about whether the Act allows, or should allow, private copying of downloaded music. Ironically, because there is no longer a levy on MP3 players, copying our own CDs onto our ipods, in Canada, is not likely legal.
> 
> As a policy issue, it is an outrage if the CPCC thinks it was entitled to collect $40 million in 2004 to allow us to copy music we paid for from one medium to another, for our own personal use. That position is as morally bankrupt as anything asserted against P2P users. If that is really what the levy was enacted for (and you are dead wrong on this)...


Umm, no. Read my post again. I said nothing about what the SOURCE of the music was, or that it had to be music you bought and paid for. Neither does the CPCC levy. It makes no opinion or restriction as to what the source of the music was.

"Copying for Private Use

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public."

The CPCC legislation charges a $0.21 cent levy based on the theory that not all CD-Rs are used for music duplication. The levy is $0.77 on CD-Audio recordables, which by inplication means that they esimate one out of three CD-Rs is used for music duplication. The normal royalties on a CD that you buy are about 8.5 cents per song, so the songwriters get approximately $1.00 from the $15 you pay for a CD. 
The distribution of the levy after approx 15% in operating costs, is:
"Eligible music authors and publishers: 75%
Eligible performers: 13.7%
Eligible record companies: 11.3%"

The authors and publishers collectivley get 13 cents per blank CD sold, or about one eighth of the normal rate.

So: although copying onto a CD for your own private use is permissible _regardless_ of the source, giving the CD to someone, or transmitting the file, selling, playing in public or distrubuting the file, is illegal (still). 

A more interesting debate: Being in posession of a file that had been illegaly distributed doesn't attract attention from the CPCC levy legislation, but may from other legislation.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

nxnw said:


> Do you understand that, in the US, they pay no similar levy, yet have the right to fair use of their media, i.e. to copy their CDs onto their computers, iPods, etc.?


All of the below from : http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml

<b>What other countries collect a levy like this? Is Canada alone?</b>

At least 25 countries, including most G-7 and European Union members, have introduced comparable regimes with respect to the private copying of sound recordings. Canada is one of the LAST to do so.

The USA is often held out as an example of a place where "this could never happen", but as far as I can tell, it has been law there since December 8, 1994. It is part of Title 17, section 1004, and if you go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1004.html

you will find this paragraph:

(b) Digital Audio Recording Media. - The royalty payment due under section1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium.

Note, however, that in the US there is NO levy collected on "ordinary" CD-Rs When the legislation was last changed (in 1994/1995) CD-Rs were not seen as a media intended for copying music. There IS a levy applied to other digital media, such as DAT and CD-R Audio.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

andreww said:


> I'm an artist, so I think I'm entitled to a portion of every digital camera sold as I believe people may be taking pictures of my artwork and enjoying it without paying me!


I actually downloaded a bunch of your artwork and framed it. Some of it is hanging in my Sister's home, some of it I used on my wife's computer as her desktop and everyone quite likes it. Some people liked it so much that they asked me to email it to them - so I did. One of their friends actually used one as a background on their website - but they figured you wouldn't mind because they don't really know you and figure you're probably selling enough pieces to get by....


----------



## ncoffey (Apr 6, 2005)

Chealion said:


> The insults are getting personal in here, let's leave it alone and stay on topic.
> 
> The biggest problem I find with the whole music download/piracy is the conflict between an old distribution system and a new technological age. being able to download music for free that isn't authorized shouldn't be legal, but it's got a grey loophole here in Canada.
> 
> The only solution possible to fixing this is going to be a compromise between consumers and record companies in things like the iTunes Music Store. Personally I'm not happy with the compromise simply because DRM is not about rights, it's about restrictions. It's about the large companies taking copyright ownership as far as they can so that people have no ability to create non-commercial (eg. personal use, for use in a mix tape or created video) products. Until the recording industry decides to join the 21st century I don't see the downloading of music from abating in any shape or form. Especially if they use hard arm tactics that do nothing more then alienate their customer base.


It's a shame that there isn't an allofmp3 where I wouldn't have to send my credit card number to Russia. If Apple just sold us high quality stuff without DRM I'd be a lot happier about buying music online and would do so. (Although I did break down and buy the new Seu Jorge album today. It's just so good that I couldn't wait.)

I could even be convinced to swallow DRM if we got something worthwhile in return but the only thing we get is slightly cheaper prices (not for long), and no physical copy of the music in case the hard drive buys the farm. The thing that really grinds my gears is the fact that I can't buy music from Japan, or Portugal, or anywhere but Canada. If I want to check out artists from a different part of the world the only legal thing I can do is pay three to five times the price for the import. (I'd like to check out some more Tomoyasu Hotei but if I'm not going to spend 50 dollars on a CD unless I'm absolutely sure it will be one of the best CDs I own.) This also doesn't do much to promote a healthy world society and keeps the musical borders of the world effectively closed. The record industry (and film, since they are guilty of the same) should be ashamed of this.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

So I'm glad HowEver and others decided to rip me apart personally, making judgements and assumptions about my character and such.

My comments were about downloading music. I don't think it's right. The games I have burned, I have only recently burned, and I plan to buy several of them. Much like I do with music, I try before I buy. Of course since you know me inside and out now, you will say I'm bull****ting, but I'm really not.

And it's great that you find it appalling that an educator would do such things. Those pictures of the pot smoking were of a friend.. and this was 3 years ago, in university. And I was not partaking. Not that it even matters, but I'm glad you jumped to that conclusion. And the pills? It was a joke...

And now that I've been attacked, I think I might leave this forum for good. Moderator, if possible, could you please remove the links to my site(s) and images, and I am attempting to make my photos and blog private from now on. Maybe I should have done that along time ago, but I'm not paranoid, and didn't expect a couple of Mac heads to be so brutal over a stupid thread.

I'm a musician, and I don't like when people steal music. It's okay from time to time, especially when you actually buy a CD here and there. Or if you support local artists. I spend a lot of money on CDs, DVDs, and yes even some games from time to time if I really like them. I'm okay with it, and I can still sleep at night.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> lmao! WHY would someone put on their website that they burned copyrighted material (makes ya wonder about those DVDs he's listed)?


Also, I own each and every one of those DVDs, half brand-new, half purchased from Blockbuster.

I own 600 "real" CDs. Lots of vinyl. Lots of VHS. Lots of books. I currently have no burned movies or albums in my posession.

So wonder no more.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

,


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Where did I make a personal remark? I can't find it, and I haven't and won't edit those posts, so feel free to point it out. As you say in high school what we were doing was a simple "compare and contrast."
> 
> I will say this: welcome to the internet. There's a cache.
> 
> In my experience, Haligonians are among the nicest people in the world. But, and this is as personal as I will get here, some people wherever they happen to be from have a serious lack of perspective. And some people don't like the teachers of their children to undertake certain activities, and the teachers with perspective don't broadcast what they do all over the world. You may have heard this before.


Sorry, HowEver, I guess it was ArtistSeries that made the remarks that I was most upset about.

I guess I just didn't expect someone to go above beyond a normal response, ie: reading blogs, looking at photos, etc. Not that I think I have anything to hide. I don't.

I completely understand how some parents are. And I am sure that if I broadcast to our little world that I myself did drugs or sold illegal games or something, then there would be some angry parents. As such, I don't, nor do I condone any of those activities, and all things found so far have been explained - and not with excuses.

Anyways, I'm just a little upset about the turn that this thread took. Things tend to get way too personal and people attack others very quickly. Most message boards are like that, but I thought ehMac was different for the most part.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

CanadaRAM said:



> That isn't an authority, it is an opinion from a lobby group (happens to be one I have some sympathy for, but just as biased in their own way as the RIAA is)
> 
> "Fair Use" in the US legislation ...


Actually, it is the opinion of an American IP lawyer, who is somewhat more of an authority than you. Better, in the MGM v. Grokster case, MGM conceded to the Supreme Court that such copying does constitute fair use. Your beliefs on this subject are not correct.


CanadaRAM said:


> Umm, no. Read my post again. I said nothing about what the SOURCE of the music was, or that it had to be music you bought and paid for. Neither does the CPCC levy. It makes no opinion or restriction as to what the source of the music was.
> 
> "Copying for Private Use
> 
> ...


Umm, so what's your point? Are you recognizing that the argument that private copying includes downloading may have merit? As you say, it makes no reference to the source - it just says that it's OK to reproduce a sound recording onto media for your own private use (subject to subsection (2)). Sub (2) just says, basically, you can't distribute it further.

So, we are paying 10's of millions of dollars every year for what rights, exactly, do you think?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

okcomputer said:


> My comments were about downloading music. I don't think it's right. The games I have burned, I have only recently burned, and I plan to buy several of them. Much like I do with music, I try before I buy. Of course since you know me inside and out now, you will say I'm bull****ting, but I'm really not.


People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 

You called music downloaders thieves, although downloading music may not even be illegal here. On the other hand, you duplicate game software, which is most decidedly against the law. What does that make you? You really shouldn't be surprised at the criticism.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

iChard said:


> I actually downloaded a bunch of your artwork and framed it. Some of it is hanging in my Sister's home, some of it I used on my wife's computer as her desktop and everyone quite likes it. Some people liked it so much that they asked me to email it to them - so I did. One of their friends actually used one as a background on their website - but they figured you wouldn't mind because they don't really know you and figure you're probably selling enough pieces to get by....


Exactly my point! I get paid for producing each piece, end of story. That is the way the record industry should work. The artist is the employee and produces the product for a set price. But I forgot, recording artists like to get paid each time a song is purchased, played or mentioned?

Would an artist be interested in working for $60,000 per year?

This whole problem exists because the recording industry is based on such a f__ked up business model that is outdated and solely based on greed.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I've read this thread... wow. I'm not going to comment on downloading given the legal ambiguity we have here in Canada...

I will comment on the use of language around the word "artist".

Why do "Artists" do what they do? Is it for the "Art" or the money? Do you have a story that you want heard or are you looking to make money. I think there is an important difference between those looking to create art and those looking to make money.

I'm sure that those involved in the creative "artistic" know full well about "the starving artist" theme which is common in the industry.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

andreww said:


> Exactly my point! I get paid for producing each piece, end of story. That is the way the record industry should work. The artist is the employee and produces the product for a set price. But I forgot, recording artists like to get paid each time a song is purchased, played or mentioned?
> 
> Would an artist be interested in working for $60,000 per year?
> 
> This whole problem exists because the recording industry is based on such a f__ked up business model that is outdated and solely based on greed.


Well, that's "copyright" under the Anglo-American model. A system for protecting copyright holders' rights (usually a publisher who has purchased rights from a creator) and giving the public reasonable access to the works.

In practice, for literature this almost always meant that when the consumer bought a copy of a work, they had the right to enjoy *that specific copy*, with no rights whatsoever to reproduce the work or distribute it commercially (except selling it used). 

If that copy was lost or destroyed, they had no right to another one for free. They had no rights regarding the text inside, aside from reading it and being inspired by it. They had only the ownership of the ink and paper. The whole idea was to stop rogue publishers (a.k.a. "pirates") from taking books and publishing their own editions, thus cutting into (or stealing, if you will) the profits of the author and/or original publisher.

Fast forward about 300 years. What has changed? Copyright holders have a longer monopoly before works enter the public domain. Sound recordings and movies have come along to join books as some of the kinds of creative works covered. In Canada, we have "fair dealing" and "private copying" exemptions. (There is no "fair use" in Canada.) Oh, and millions of people have the musical equivalent of a printing press in their home.

That last little detail, combined with the "we sell you a single copy, and you own the medium and nothing more" contract between the rights holder and the consumer, is the root of the main problem being discussed in this thread. Something's got to give. Either the contract has to change, or users have to accept that p2p isn't consistent with the spirit of copyright law. 

So far, the industry's lawyers have obviously done an awful job of making their case, and the legislators left the wording too loose, because it's clear to me that the intent of the private copying exemption was to allow you to make a backup copy (or mix tape, or mobile copy) of a work which you, not someone else, purchased.

Please note that this doesn't mean I love the major labels or anything like that. I'm just trying to be realistic about the future of p2p music sharing in Canada. It's not bright.

And BTW, all but about .1 % of musicians (the rich superstars) would probably love to be paid a $60 K salary in return for making records and touring. As it is, a major-label contract represents a form of indentured servitude for most artists. The label signs them. The label fronts them an advance, money for studio time, marketing money. Band has a hit...and all the money goes to paying off the advance, etc. There is a multitude of ways for the labels to screw artists under this system, and they use them.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Why do "Artists" do what they do? Is it for the "Art" or the money? Do you have a story that you want heard or are you looking to make money. I think there is an important difference between those looking to create art and those looking to make money.
> 
> I'm sure that those involved in the creative "artistic" know full well about "the starving artist" theme which is common in the industry.


Everyone, even the purest, least greedy artist, needs to make a living. 

And even if they're not motivated by profit in the first place, surely they should be rewarded when it turns out that everybody loves what they've done? And really, if we as a society really value art, shouldn't we do something other than ensnare our artists in ruinous contracts, pirate their work, and do whatever all else it is we do to keep them starving? (But hey, at least they got street cred.)


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

This is just a side effect of the move from a traditional manufacturing economy where goods are bought and sold for value to an information economy (where ideas are bought and sold). 

What's interesting is that before when people needed / wanted something, they'd have no other reasonable option but to purchase it from a store. With the internet however, access to information, or more accurately, content, makes access without paying possible. 

While some may argue that stealing music is not theft, I would argue that it is. It's not the traditional shoplifting or Break and Enter, but it is a way of obtaining goods and services without paying, more like fraud. 

Anyway, we can argue about whether the cost per song is too high, but in a free market economy the only legal way to deal with it is to either pay or abstain, hoping that the market will correct itself.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iMatt said:


> Everyone, even the purest, least greedy artist, needs to make a living.
> 
> And even if they're not motivated by profit in the first place, surely they should be rewarded when it turns out that everybody loves what they've done? And really, if we as a society really value art, shouldn't we do something other than ensnare our artists in ruinous contracts, pirate their work, and do whatever all else it is we do to keep them starving? (But hey, at least they got street cred.)


OK... so what about the works of an expressionist master, lets say Van Gogh? 

Van Gogh's art is recognized around the world... yet he lived in squalor for most of his life. Did he or his decedents benefit from any of his talent? I see people making millions at Sotheby's from his work so where is the equity in that arrangement?

Or Michael Jackson owning the rights to the Beatles work?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> OK... so what about the works of an expressionist master, lets say Van Gogh?
> 
> Van Gogh's art is recognized around the world... yet he lived in squalor for most of his life. Did he or his decedents benefit from any of his talent? I see people making millions at Sotheby's from his work so where is the equity in that arrangement?
> 
> Or Michael Jackson owning the rights to the Beatles work?


It's all just goods to be bought and sold. Take the art out of the equation, because everyone else has.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> It's all just goods to be bought and sold. Take the art out of the equation, because everyone else has.


No I don't think so... technology has opened the availability but the issue still resides. Case in point...

20 years ago prior to today's technology If James Clavell <sp> writes a book called Shogun and it becomes a bestseller and I don't want to spend the $10 on his book I go to the library and read it there (or take it out on loan and read it).

How is it that NO ONE has any issue of me doing that in that scenario. The author's art is freely available through the library... and the author gets no benefit except for the initial sale of the book to the library in the first place.

Or lets say the art hanging in a public art gallery... I can take my camera... take a photo and blow it up and hang it on my wall. I don't have to buy a print and that is a perfectly legal and acceptable thing to do.

The point being is that the difference here is technology and access and control and money.

You cannot stop the technology at this point... What is needed is a paradigm shift (I hate that term ever since that Simpson's episode). Do artists benefit from
the sale of their art to individuals or do they benefit from their endorsement of products commercially?

Perfect example is Tiger Woods... Tiger makes almost no money from the people that see him play golf (and it costs me nothing to watch him)... he makes money from Nike in endorsing their products. Why wouldn't that work for musicians?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to show what the other side in this debate is showing. 

As for free access to music, you can still listen to the radio.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Actually, it is the opinion of an American IP lawyer, who is somewhat more of an authority than you.


I'm not an authority at all, so no trick there. 

Robin Gross is an IP lawyer who works for a lobby group. His interpretation of Fair Use goes beyond what is written in the legislation, and I can't find any other reputable sources that support his position. Again, if there are precedents that modify Fair Use in the USA to include Format Shifting, I would like to see them.



nxnw said:


> Better, in the MGM v. Grokster case, MGM conceded to the Supreme Court that such copying does constitute fair use. Your beliefs on this subject are not correct.


This, I am interested in, do you have a link?



nxnw said:


> Umm, so what's your point? Are you recognizing that the argument that private copying includes downloading may have merit?


I simply don't know about downloading being included in private copying, legitimately. It could be argued that it is there by omission, as it is not strictly forbidden. But, the act of transmitting it (what the 'other guy' is doing) seems to be explicitly prohibited under the "transmission, distribution, etc." language. So it's like saying stealing a car is against the law but buying a stolen car is not. That seems to be out of whack with established law in other areas.



nxnw said:


> As you say, it makes no reference to the source - it just says that it's OK to reproduce a sound recording onto media for your own private use (subject to subsection (2)). Sub (2) just says, basically, you can't distribute it further.


Yes, we agree. That's what it says.

I would like a better definition of "a musical work embodied in a sound recording", 'cause that would instantly clear up the question... is a sound recording a file, or a physical CD/LP/Tape? In other places in the act there is reference to Transmission and Secondary Transmission, which covers (and forbids) non-royalty-paid delivery of materials by TV signal, Radio signal or cable. So, what is a downloaded song, a work embodied in a sound recording or a transmission? Hey, Gov, Canadians want to know!


nxnw said:


> So, we are paying 10's of millions of dollars every year for what rights, exactly, do you think?


You're arguing the intent and use of copying. All I am saying is that the legislation makes no comment about where the music comes from. 

But quite obviously, the legislation exists because of the presumption that copyrighted material will be copied which was NOT bought and paid for (if it was only backups of purchased music, then the debate wouldn't have ever started). You're saying if the legistlation exists to charge for backups you make of music you have already paid for it ain't fair -- that's not what it says though. It is a consequence, of course, just as I have to pay $0.21 for data backups that have nothing to do with music. But our government in their wisdom charges all CD-Rs as if one out of three of them will be used for (formerly) infringing purposes - copying music that ain't paid for.

So in short, as Canadians we pay for the right to make personal copies onto CD, cassette or MiniDisk, of whatever music (seemingly) we can get out hands on. So here's the best sense I've been able to make of this: your buddy hands you a new CD, you make copy to CD-R and hand the original back to buddy. Legal. You hand the _copied_ CD to Buddy, not legal. You copy the songs to a hard drive or an iPod or anything not a CD, cassette or MiniDisk, not legal (apparently).


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> 20 years ago prior to today's technology If James Clavell <sp> writes a book called Shogun and it becomes a bestseller and I don't want to spend the $10 on his book I go to the library and read it there (or take it out on loan and read it).
> 
> How is it that NO ONE has any issue of me doing that in that scenario. The author's art is freely available through the library... and the author gets no benefit except for the initial sale of the book to the library in the first place.


Fundamentally different -- you are not copying the book, it is being used by one person at a time. The author received his revenue from each copy that exists. Therefore copyright doesn't come into it at all. Copyright doesn't address the use of the work, or the revenue from the work, it addresses whether or not copies can be made of the work.

And just to head off the other classic 'library' argument, yes, the library pays a royalty on each photocopy machine. As does the shopping mall that plays music over the speakers, and the radio station, and the bar where either a live band or a jukebox plays music -- these uses are not free, there have been established royalty payment mechanisms for decades.



da_jonesy said:


> Or lets say the art hanging in a public art gallery... I can take my camera... take a photo and blow it up and hang it on my wall. I don't have to buy a print and that is a perfectly legal and acceptable thing to do.


There I think your assumption is wrong. I believe you have infringed the artist's copyright by reproducing the work. I'm too lazy to look up the references now though.



da_jonesy said:


> Perfect example is Tiger Woods... Tiger makes almost no money from the people that see him play golf (and it costs me nothing to watch him)... he makes money from Nike in endorsing their products. Why wouldn't that work for musicians?


You don't get to watch Tiger for free -- you either pay your admission fee to the golf course or 'pay' by watching commercials on TV or 'pay' by paying 1% more for your Nike shoes because you're supporting their advertising payment to Tiger. As you would if you watched a concert on TV where the musicians were paid by the promoter or TV broadcaster or sponsor, or if chose to perform for free. 

The sponsorship idea has some merit, but it is only one way that an artist could fund their work. The copyright owner has the choice of how, when, where and under what terms their performance is distributed.

In response to some earlier posts, the average annual income for a musician in Canada is $16,000. Think on that a bit. Because of how averages work, that means that for every Celine Dion there are a thousand Canadian musicians making essentially nothing from their music.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> OK... so what about the works of an expressionist master, lets say Van Gogh?
> 
> Van Gogh's art is recognized around the world... yet he lived in squalor for most of his life. Did he or his decedents benefit from any of his talent? I see people making millions at Sotheby's from his work so where is the equity in that arrangement?
> 
> Or Michael Jackson owning the rights to the Beatles work?


In the case of a long-dead painter who lived in squalor, you're citing an example of an injustice. It was what it was; the people making millions today are simply reaping a benefit of supply and demand. 

None of that has any bearing, that I can see, on how we treat living artists, except perhaps as a lesson. If Van Gogh had managed his affairs differently or been properly recognized in his lifetime, then yes, it's quite possible that his descendents would have benefited in some way, probably very significantly. That's the way it goes for many artists: they sell some to live, and they keep some to bequeath. (As an aside, let's remember that painting is qualitatively different from music or literature, since it's about unique objects, not words or recordings that can be easily reproduced and still remain "original.")

And you know what? Art for art's sake is almost never just that. If you have any art on the wall that has any real dollar value, then you can appreciate and enjoy the art all you want, but you will always be conscious of the dollar value. 

As for MJ and the Beatles, that's a business transaction. I don't remember the details, but I believe the gist was that MJ had the opportunity to acquire from a third party the publishing rights to a huge chunk of the Beatles' music (not the same as rights to the original recordings) and he took it. Hasn't he since had to use that asset to bail himself out? I'm not sure he even owns it anymore...

In any case, I'm not sure what you're suggesting by raising that example. Rights to works have been bought and sold for hundreds of years. The artist usually gets the short end, because artists do see art as the business it is, but they're usually worse businesspeople than dealers, agents, publishers, etc.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> MP3s are are not of high enough resolution to be considered an alternative to CDs. Maybe the record companies should charge less for d/l (as you are only getting a portion of the music).


Personally, I don't consider Apple's AAC files to be an alternative to CDs. They are an alternative to free but unreliable and slow-to-download MP3 files via p2p. They are an alternative to cassettes. And IMO they sound significantly better than a typical MP3, because they're encoded directly from master using a superior codec. But we've already established that my hearing isn't what it used to be, so YMMV. But please, no more complaints about sonic qualities unless you have done direct blind comparisons.

And for the most part, they do cost significantly less than CDs. To take one example, Arcade Fire - Funeral. iTMS: $9.99 taxes included. HMV: about $19 + tax last time I checked. There are many, many more examples where it works this way, and relatively few where Apple's offering is more expensive (though I have seen some).

So you're an audiophile and you're not part of the target market? OK. Good for you. Not applicable to me.

Regarding DRM on CDs: I fully agree with you on that point.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

The DRM on CDs has gotten out of hand. They are punishing the folks who actually buy the albums! I returned one CD with DRM because there was absolutely no way to import it into iTunes and use it with my iPod at the time - I only had a PC, and the "holding shift" trick wouldn't work. The same CD wouldn't play in my car stereo either - it's a 2001 stereo.

I understand their intentions, but when the consumer ends up with an inferior product (and one that is not standards-compliant), there is something wrong.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

okcomputer said:


> I returned one CD with DRM because there was absolutely no way to import it into iTunes and use it with my iPod at the time - I only had a PC, and the "holding shift" trick wouldn't work.


Actually, the labels who use DRM on their CD's offer work arounds for the iPod. They openly offer these solutions just for this reason and ask that apple open up their own DRM to the labels so they can play nice with macs. It involves burning an audio CD of the high quality wma files that are included on the disc - which you are permitted to do - then rip the CD into iTunes. If you had contacted the labels rather than return the album, they would have shared this with you. Unfortunately it's not a perfect copy - which a lot of this thread revolves around - but it's good enough for the majority of iPod users.

As far as people making claims about redbook - I'd be interested in seeing direct violations related back to compliancy....anyone have any of that info? Multimedia CD's with second sessions have been around for ages - they are still redbook compliant are they not? Most DRM CDs are nothing more than a second session on the CD....so perhaps a lot of them still are RedBook compliant.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Why do "Artists" do what they do? Is it for the "Art" or the money? Do you have a story that you want heard or are you looking to make money. I think there is an important difference between those looking to create art and those looking to make money.
> 
> I'm sure that those involved in the creative "artistic" know full well about "the starving artist" theme which is common in the industry.


And how CUTE a stereotype that is: the starving artist.

This is all dead wrong. As others have pointed out, even the most committed artist has to eat and should be entitled to create a life full of every dream or desire they are capable of just like anyone else -- including making a family and providing for their education in future... not to mention the artist's well-being when he is too old to continue on with his life's work.

But a big point is missing here, and it is an important one. Whether one does it with a greater commitment to "art" or not is irrelevant; what is MOST relevant is how the public perceives and embraces the person's art. *AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE THE VALUE OF ART IS CREATED: NOT BY THE ARTIST, BUT BY THE PERCEPTIONS OF THOSE WHO CONSUME IT*.

I'm ****ing sick and tired of the onus and argument regarding this thing being place placed on the creators of it. What about YOU, the CONSUMERS?! How important is it TO YOU to have this music, movie, book, painting, graphic, whatever?? It is the consumer who cherishes the piece of art. It is YOU that assigns value to it, based on your desire to posses it. But, you want it for free?? UP YOURS! if you think you should get art for free, then you have NO sense of value for it. If so, please delete all your music library NOW, as it has zero value to you. No? Okay, The onus is on YOU to pay for what you value. To be able to take something you value and pay nothing for it is wrong. The ONLY way that happens in life is when it is given as a gift to you. You know: "HAPPY BIRTHDAY"? Yes, the artist expressed his/her creation of that song, painting, book whatever, and after that it is OVER for the artist in terms of the involvement of that creative piece. But, for the viewer/listener (the CONSUMER), the potential for value will be perpetual. And that is how everything in this world works.

Today, right now, there could be the most creative artist of all time, exploring their creativity through works of art that s/he has no interest at all in having anybody see. Guess what? These stellar works of art ARE WORTHLESS in this world, valuable only to s/he. And yet, they would put Michaelangelo to shame. WHY would they be worthless?? Because nobody knows about them. Nobody can even know if they'd want them, because this guy lives say, in Toledo Ohio and his gratification is solely in the process of unearthing his creativity and getting onto paper (or whatever). But, that person STILL needs a day job, because it costs money to live in this world. And yet, s/he'll die, the works will go to the curb and be destroyed in a landfill heap. End of story. A creative giant, capable of shaking the artistic world... reduced to less than a blip in the cosmos, once there and now gone without a trace. i suppose some people think that this is what an artist should do? Well, it's romantic and all, but it doesn't jibe with reality. For one, if "the world" knew of this guy, THEY'D WANT HIS ART... whether or not he wanted to sell it.

So, consider what art means TO YOU, and understand that you are not paying the artist to survive like some charity; you are paying TO HAVE THAT PIECE OF ART IN YOUR LIFE. If music means nothing to you, then delete your library. ALL of it. Even the stuff you paid for in the past. Given that people think it's fine to have music for free, then even the stuff they had before they HAD TO pay for it is really worthless. It serves no meaningful role in their life. Right? RIGHT??

Of course, that's not true.

So, THINK about it from a different perspective and DON'T require artists to live in this silly, romantic stereotype of a crappy existence with broken furniture in a ****ty apartment in some funky part of town. We want a decent life just like everybody else wants.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

CanadaRAM said:


> In response to some earlier posts, the average annual income for a musician in Canada is $16,000. Think on that a bit. Because of how averages work, that means that for every Celine Dion there are a thousand Canadian musicians making essentially nothing from their music.


I only raise these as points of discussion... I'll take the work of those thousand over Celine Dion any day of the week.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I only raise these as points of discussion... I'll take the work of those thousand over Celine Dion any day of the week.


Yup -- and the sad point of this whole thread is that millions of others in Canada will take them too.... without paying.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> But a big point is missing here, and it is an important one. Whether one does it with a greater commitment to "art" or not is irrelevant; what is MOST relevant is how the public perceives and embraces the person's art. *AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE THE VALUE OF ART IS CREATED: NOT BY THE ARTIST, BUT BY THE PERCEPTIONS OF THOSE WHO CONSUME IT*.


I had this discussion with my wife this afternoon... 

I don't think the onus on perception of art relies on the consumer it relies on the artist. If it lies on the consumer then we live in a sad sad world where the best artist make the most money... which means that the Jerry Bruckheimers, Micael Jacksons and Pamela Andersons of the world are this generations Picasso, Mozart and Billy Holiday?

Consumer acceptance is not the criteria for what is and is NOT art.

I think the difference here, and where many of you are confused is the difference between an Artist (someone who has a message that they want heard or seen) and a Journeyman (someone who who uses their creative talents to create something for money).

The easiest example is the difference between someone who writes because they have something to say and someone who writes because they need to put food on the table... that is the difference between a poet and a magazine columist. The both write, but for very different purposes.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

CanadaRAM said:


> Yup -- and the sad point of this whole thread is that millions of others in Canada will take them too.... without paying.


Yeah, but here lies the rub... P2P and Podcasts have introduced me to more smaller Canadian artists than HMV ever will. 

I downloaded a podcast for free... found a new artist I loved (Bloemfontein from Windsor) and I liked it so much I order their CD straight from them... There was no HMV, no Sony Music Canada. The technology will allow for more exposure for the little guy than the way things were done.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Without the eye, that thing is nothing.

And you know what? SCREW the "artist/journeyman" notion. You give the journeyman less respect for his work than the artist -- and yet, the journeyman's work is still used. Therefore it should be paid for. It's like who in their right mind says when they;re a kid, "I want to work the drive-thru my whole life!" There's no way those folks work such jobs from their hearts. Should they not get paid, even if what they're doing is purely for the money??

And just what is "good", anyway? Who are you to determine this?

No matter what it is, high art or low brow, it means something to the people who download it. If it didn't, they wouldn't bother. This point is indisputable. If, therefore, they see value in that which they download, then they should be paying for the benefit for having that thing in their life. I hate the people you reference as well (I HATE Bruckhiemer films), but if people are watching it???? Well, I'd say that THERE's the rub. People want to see it, so everyone who created that, from the lowliest musician on the session to Bruckhiemer himself are entitled to payment. If you don't like it? TOUGH! The world can;t nor should adhere to your standards of taste. if you want different art appreciated, become an artist and set the world on fire, baby!

Now... often this stupid argument comes around to how crappy art is these days as a justification for stealing music. This premise of others leads me to believe that these people must be downloading music they hate, because it is of no value. Tell me PLEASE that you're not downloading ART!! That would fly in the face of all your reasoning. But, in truth, such people are downloading what they love as art, screwing the artist they love in the process.

As for someone being a journeyman to put food on the table? LMFAO. Jesus, there are WAY better ways to make a living than being "a journeyman" artist -- even ones who are only in it for the glory. I've never met a musician who was in it just for the money. Ever. Anybody who is should be considered an idiot. There may be differing levels of artistic awareness, of different influences and background, but with any of that comes a love of music. It may be popular music, but it's still music.

Al;so, the argument that because MP3 is lossy and therefore worthless is bull****. If you download it and use it, it's worth just as much to you as a CD. That download -- in the vast majority off cases -- is negating the need to PAY for a CD.

And once again, I ask all people who think music should be free and out of control of the creators to please delete your libraries, as you apparently see no value in those libraries. Da_Jonesy? Do you value your music collection? Then pay for it. If you don't think you should pay for it, then it has no value to you and you shouldn't waste your time listening to it. But, of coruse if you didn't like it you wouldn't have it in the forst place. So, you DO like it. it DOES add value to your life and therefore should be paid for. THERE's the rub.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> And once again, I ask all people who think music should be free and out of control of the creators to please delete your libraries, as you apparently see no value in those libraries. Da_Jonesy? Do you value your music collection? Then pay for it. If you don't think you should pay for it, then it has no value to you and you shouldn't waste your time listening to it. But, of coruse if you didn't like it you wouldn't have it in the forst place. So, you DO like it. it DOES add value to your life and therefore should be paid for. THERE's the rub.


Hey... Kiss my ass. I have over 200 CDs and have spent between $75 to $100 this year at the iTunes music store.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

CanadaRAM said:


> This - MGMs submissions in _Grokster_ - I am interested in, do you have a link?


http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tka/2005/03/29 



CanadaRAM said:


> I simply don't know about downloading being included in private copying, legitimately. It could be argued that it is there by omission, as it is not strictly forbidden. But, the act of transmitting it (what the 'other guy' is doing) seems to be explicitly prohibited under the "transmission, distribution, etc." language. So it's like saying stealing a car is against the law but buying a stolen car is not. That seems to be out of whack with established law in other areas.


Private copying is defined. There is a dispute about the interpretation of the statute. 

It is not comparable to your stolen car analogy. Among other things, theft and possession of stolen goods (both sides of your symmetry) are both criminal offences. If parliament chose not to make possession of stolen goods an offence, then it wouldn't be. 



CanadaRAM said:


> But quite obviously, the legislation exists because of the presumption that copyrighted material will be copied which was NOT bought and paid for (if it was only backups of purchased music, then the debate wouldn't have ever started). You're saying if the legistlation exists to charge for backups you make of music you have already paid for it ain't fair -- that's not what it says though. It is a consequence, of course, just as I have to pay $0.21 for data backups that have nothing to do with music. But our government in their wisdom charges all CD-Rs as if one out of three of them will be used for (formerly) infringing purposes - copying music that ain't paid for.


Our government does not charge anything. In the words of the CPCC itself:"The private copying royalty is not a tax. Unlike a tax, which is collected by the government, the private copying royalty is collected by the CPCC to provide remuneration to rights holders for private copying."



CanadaRAM said:


> So in short, as Canadians we pay for the right to make personal copies onto CD, cassette or MiniDisk, of whatever music (seemingly) we can get out hands on. So here's the best sense I've been able to make of this: your buddy hands you a new CD, you make copy to CD-R and hand the original back to buddy. Legal. You hand the _copied_ CD to Buddy, not legal. You copy the songs to a hard drive or an iPod or anything not a CD, cassette or MiniDisk, not legal (apparently).


I think this is accurate. I am not defending it as a good policy or idea, but that seems to be the state of the law here.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Hey... Kiss my ass. I have over 200 CDs and have spent between $75 to $100 this year at the iTunes music store.


I've spent over $600.00. But who's counting?

Bottom line: Music is not yours (or anybody's) to take for nothing. Regardless of fuzzy laws, it's wrong. _This stuff is not for you the listener to take for nothing. You have no right to do so_ Those artists you so loftily pine for deserve to be paid and not ripped off. And so do the hacks if people are listening to it. it's very VERY simple, and people who argue for free music look very much like the ass you want me to kiss.

So, if one loves music, shouldn't s/he give back to the creators who gave them this? Nobody has answered me this. Even in the case of the crappiest music aout there, if it is being used shoud it not be paid for? Think of all the times you use music in special ways that are uniqeuly personal to you ("you" as in "whomever"). There's no way that that can't be valuable to people.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

nxnw said:


> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tka/2005/03/29


Thanks, I will look into that



nxnw said:


> Our government does not charge anything. In the words of the CPCC itself:"The private copying royalty is not a tax. Unlike a tax, which is collected by the government, the private copying royalty is collected by the CPCC to provide remuneration to rights holders for private copying."


That's a fine hair to split. The government amended the Federal Copyright legislation to bring the CPCC into being for the purposes of collecting a levy. You're right, it is not a tax, but I didn't say it was.

I amend my post to: "The govenment created the CPCC to charge us..."


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

CanadaRAM said:


> That's a fine hair to split. The government amended the Federal Copyright legislation to bring the CPCC into being for the purposes of collecting a levy. You're right, it is not a tax, but I didn't say it was.
> 
> I amend my post to: "The govenment created the CPCC to charge us..."


Not REMOTELY splitting hairs. This is not tax going to health care or national defence. This is a levy collected by and for copyright holders.

Of all the claims that are regularly made in this debate, the least true is that the copyright holders get nothing. In 2004, the CPCC collected $40,000,000. Hardly free. Maybe not enough, but hardly free.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> I've spent over $600.00. But who's counting?
> 
> Bottom line: Music is not yours (or anybody's) to take for nothing. Regardless of fuzzy laws, it's wrong. _rThis stuff is not for you the listener to take for nothing._ Those artists you so loftily pine for deserve to be paid and not ripped off. And so do the hacks if people are listening to it. it's very VERY simple, and people who argue for free music look very much like the ass you want me to kiss.


Welcome to the 21st Century... Now you can go on and on about what is right but that won't stop it. Maybe you and the music industry need to rethink the existing model. 

I for one would love to see the existing model flushed away. I'm not sure what would replace it, however something smaller and more direct with less emphasis on the labels and more emphasis on the musician. 

In the end I agree that musician should be paid if people find value in their work... however I think the existing model is unfair as only the smallest fraction of musicians get airplay.



Macaholic said:


> So, if one loves music, shouldn't s/he give back to the creators who gave them this?


Absolutely... but how does lining the pockets of HMV and Sony Music help in me getting access to new music.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

I'm glad that we agree that the creators need to be paid when their music is acquired.

Obviously, as a big user of iTMS, I am all for a new model. I hate the labels and see that, as a result of the internet, their days are hopefully numbered. A massive, centralized library of music (like iTMS), where all distribution is central and artists are paid directly would be great and quite attainable.

HOWEVER, songwriters and musicians STILL get paid when a CD or song is legally purchased. Yes, the labels get WAY too much, but P2People are screwing the artist in their effort to hurt the labels. This doesn't help.

But honestly -- _really_, don't you think that most people try to justify their actions and grab at any straws they can, but in the end it's just very simple in that they like the music, can easily take music... and so they do? With impunity? And don;t you think the world has had enough chance to prove to the holders of this music that they've got the integrity to honour those creators... and that the world has failed in this regard?


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Not REMOTELY splitting hairs. This is not tax going to health care or national defence. This is a levy collected by and for copyright holders.
> 
> Of all the claims that are regularly made in this debate, the least true is that the copyright holders get nothing. In 2004, the CPCC collected $40,000,000. Hardly free. Maybe not enough, but hardly free.


Hmm, I think we are saying the same thing. 
It's not a tax. CPCC collects it. 15% goes to costs, of the rest 75% goes to the songwriters, about 17% each to record companies and performers, all apportioned out based on recording sales and radio airplay. The Government made it happen by creating the CPCC but does not take any of the levy fee. I think we are agreed on all that.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Absolutely... but how does lining the pockets of HMV and Sony Music help in me getting access to new music.


Without HMV and Sony there wouldn't be one of the mass distribution channels. Artists enter into relationships with labels because they don't want to / cant run their own marketing and distribution. Obviously, some like Ani Defranco can, and they choose the independent route and succeed - most don't.

HMV is one distribution choice in the marketplace. Amazon and BestBuy are alternatives, iTunes Music Store is an alternative.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

This thread is going on way too long without saying anything new. You guys just keep paying and I'll keep on stealing, and we'll leave it at that!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

andreww said:


> This thread is going on way too long without saying anything new. You guys just keep paying and I'll keep on stealing, and we'll leave it at that!


And you keep being a leach, hitching a free ride on the backs of those who do pay and ruining it for everybody. That's what's really happening here. If people didn't cause this huge problem in the first place instead of being assholes and stealing music in a HUGE way, the labels would not have reacted as badly as they have. They _possibly_ might have looked at this whole thing in a different light. They've been in a defensive war attitude, rather than taking advantage of a new business model. Thanks to this genie being uncorked, they are the only commercial entity on the planet that has NO CONTROL over their product's distribution. And the world showed them in no uncertain terms that they should be VERY concerned about it.

And BTW, I'd say that what I was trying to ask, that being "What is this music worth to YOU?", is not discussed very often whenever this tired old topic rears its ugly head. The typical dynamic in these discussions are the leaches placing more and more onus on what the artists and labels should be doing and NOTHING AT ALL about what the consumers SHOULD be doing. And NOBODY IN THIS THREAD answered my questions about this. That's because you don't have to, there's no obligation... just like music downloading; no obligation. Therefore, you take the path of least moralistic resistance, or rather _the easy way out_.

WE created this problem; not the labels. WE went over the line first. WE first showed that, en masse, we have no integrity or sense of honour or fairness. From then on, it's been a downhill tumble, dragging along ALL the other people in the world who _do_ want to pay for their music. DRM plays no favourites. It's Hell for all, regardless of one's view and payment habits.

And WORST of all are the stupid assholes who wrap the blanket of a moral cause around stealing. Such people make me ****ing SICK.

And Andreww, your profile says that YOU are a designer! YOU are a creator. How can you think that way about music?? That's sad, man. Very sad.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Welcome to the 21st Century... Now you can go on and on about what is right but that won't stop it. Maybe you and the music industry need to rethink the existing model.


Okay. I'll do that.

Say, you're in software sales. Aren't you? Can you give me some of your software, please? What have you got that I might be interested in?


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

I've been buying from retailers for years, and have started buying directly from specific artists I know and trust not to do this DRM stuff unto me. I've never gone the P2P route, never used pre-legit Napster, Grokster, BitTorrent(which seems to be getting legit usage by the Free/Open Source Software movement) and the like...so I find the pre-emptive presumption of my guilt by Big Music and Big Software offensive on any number of levels. The few music downloads I've made were freebies from the artists' own sites.

As for spyware put on my machine...I say "no one but law enforcement should be able to get away with that, and those guys should always get a warrant first". Which definitely leaves SonyBMG, Microsoft and anyone else out of the equation. Permanently, as far as I'm concerned.

I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place here, and I'm not entirely sure which way to turn to get both the companies and the pirates militant alike _off of my neck_.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

okcomputer said:


> Sorry, HowEver, I guess it was ArtistSeries that made the remarks that I was most upset about.
> 
> I guess I just didn't expect someone to go above beyond a normal response, ie: reading blogs, looking at photos, etc. Not that I think I have anything to hide. I don't.
> 
> ...


You post your opinion that you find it "hilarious (and laughable)" when people download yet you have no qualms about pirating video games.
"Hypocrite" used to be a word that had some meaning....

You post your webblog url on your signature - and on top of that you list your pirated video games. 

You go on to say that you may buy some of them, but you will criticize anyone who says that they would do the same with music. 

Like a whited sepulcher, you would like me to believe that all is innocent.

You have nothing to hide, yet you are trying to make you once public pictures private...

Look, I have nothing personal against you but when you come preaching here about piracy yet you yourself indulge in something that is illegal (copied games) don't expect my sympathies. 

If morally, you can't see anything wrong between your actions and what you are trying to teach here, then you just don't get it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> And WORST of all are the stupid assholes who wrap the blanket of a moral cause around stealing. Such people make me ****ing SICK.
> 
> And Andreww, your profile says that YOU are a designer! YOU are a creator. How can you think that way about music?? That's sad, man. Very sad.


The law has no moral, so stop trying to play that card.

I'm a designer and a creator - one has nothing to do with this discussion. 
If anything is sad, it's DRM schemes that have hurt sales.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

iMatt said:


> But please, no more complaints about sonic qualities unless you have done direct blind comparisons.
> .


Want to come over my place to do this? 
(yes I have done this)


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Dwight, I agree 100%. As I said, the honest ones have been dragged down with the thieves. This whole thing is ugly on both sides. Some (Many? How many??) users being idiots, and the labels being idiots.

We buy music from the iTMS: $600.00 of it in the past year. My wife has gone absolutely NUTS checking out new music from artists she's never heard of in a way that would be impossible with P2P. The iTMS has reawakened our thirst for music AND provided a viable solution for that. I have to say that I have yet to hit the wall with Apple's negotiated terms of use with the labels. I have a 30GB iPod. My son has a Shuffle. My wife burns CDs for the car with very particular song orders. The Mac Mini in the living room is where the music is stored, and yet I can listen to it streaming down to my work Mac in the basement. I can backup my entire music library to an external Firewire drive. The only thing I can't do is give the music away, which I wouldn't want to do, anyway.

This type of use could not be imagined ten years ago, and I'm using this music in more ways than I ever have before. Frankly, I can't see what's wrong with this. That's the bottom line: I'm an honest guy using this stuff in honest ways and -- at least for me and i can't see it being much different for other honest people -- not being hindered by DRM (as it is right now).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

iChard said:


> As far as people making claims about redbook - I'd be interested in seeing direct violations related back to compliancy....anyone have any of that info? Multimedia CD's with second sessions have been around for ages - they are still redbook compliant are they not? Most DRM CDs are nothing more than a second session on the CD....so perhaps a lot of them still are RedBook compliant.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(audio_CD_standard)


> Recently, some major recording publishers have begun to sell CDs that violate the Red Book standard for the purposes of copy prevention, using systems like Copy Control, or extra features such as DualDisc, which features a CD-layer and a DVD-layer. The CD-layer is much thinner, 0.9mm, than required by the Red Book, which stipulates 1.2mm. Philips and many other companies have warned them that including the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo on such non-conforming discs may constitute trademark infringement; either in anticipation or in response, the long-familiar logo is no longer to be seen on many recent CDs.


Any "CD" that contains any bit of extraneous information in not Red Book compliant and should not be sold as a CD. End of story.
Some companies have started to change their labelling. 

http://www.pcnineoneone.com/howto/cdburnadv2.html
http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid5_gci503642,00.html
http://www.licensing.philips.com/information/cd/audio/


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> That's the bottom line: I'm an honest guy using this stuff in honest ways and -- at least for me and i can't see it being much different for other honest people -- not being hindered by DRM (as it is right now).


Try using a DRM controlled "CD" on a PC - you are forced to use "their" player that plays back at a lower bitrate than what I'd like. That same CD will not have those restriction in my sound room (where I can play on my CD player).....

Mac users have it better when it comes to DRM restrictions....


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Try using a DRM controlled "CD" on a PC - you are forced to use "their" player that plays back at a lower bitrate than what I'd like. That same CD will not have those restriction in my sound room (where I can play on my CD player).....
> 
> Mac users have it better when it comes to DRM restrictions....


Well, like I (and we all) have said, the labels have been STUPID in many of their responses and solutions. That, however, doesn't negate the issue of concern for them; it only shows how poor they are at seeking a fair solution.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

My first post!! Interesting discussion.
Are most people interested in seeing that the musicians are compensated for their hard work or the record company?

Hey Jonesy!! Great Hallowe'en costume.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Robbie_Mac said:


> Are most people interested in seeing that the musicians are compensated for their hard work or the record company.


Shouldn't make any difference, really.

The artist chooses the channel they distribute through. If they choose a major label, you can't separate compensating the artist and compensating the company.

You can however choose the retail channel you buy through. If you buy at HMV or Sams in the mall, in addition to the artist and the company, with the markup on the CD you are also supporting HMV, the mall, and the people who work there for $8 and hour, and the manufacturers of the physical CD. If you buy from iTunes Music store, you bypass those and support the artist, company and Apple. If you buy directly from the artist's website or at live shows, you support the artist and maybe the company (depending on the exact deal the artist has)


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Want to come over my place to do this?
> (yes I have done this)


That's OK, I can do it for myself. I have decent but old speakers in a less than optimal setup. I have a work computer in an environment with a fair bit of ambient noise. I have an iPod with some OK headphones that I use when walking outside (they're not noise-cancelling, so there's always some ambient noise there too).

Given all that, Apple's downloads are fine for me. But if you have a high-end setup with premium speakers and components in a dedicated listening room, I can easily see that they won't be good enough.

But I am glad that you have actually made comparisons using iTunes music store downloads (not MP3s). I remembered you saying you have never bought there, so I thought it was possible you never made such a comparison. Obviously you have friends, and that's good.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I have a 2 year old midrange receiver and good speakers that I bought 30 years ago. I have compared 128bps aac and mp3, 160 bps mps and 192 bps mp3 (all encoded myself from my own cds) to the original source CD. Although I am not remotely an audiophile, all of the compressed files were readily distinguishable from the original.

My iPod still sounds good, I still enjoy it, and the above knowledge doesn't ruin it for me. I also often play from iTunes through my audio system and enjoy that too. I am trading off convenience for quality. It would be better if there was no tradeoff.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

What types of music are being downloaded the most and who is doing most of the file sharing? I assume it's young people downloading today's top 40. If it becomes unprofitable maybe the record companies will get out of that business? It must be vexing for musicians and record labels to know that they have music good enough to steal but not good enough to get people to pay for.

I would assume that the record companies have stats on the the hottest downloads are. A top 10 so to speak.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The law has no moral, so stop trying to play that card.


Let me interject here.

"The law" does reflect public policy, including commonly held moral values. It may do so imperfectly, or sometimes fail to keep up with the times, but the law is certainly not amoral.

In this case, there supposed to be a policy expressed in the law - private copying is allowed in exchange for a private copying tariff. This is sort of a contract imposed on society and it was designed to achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the rights of copyright holders. The fact that it may have become unfair, because the landscape has changed, or because hindsight tells us that the model may not achieve its aims, does not mean it is not "moral". As we can see, the legality, morality and fairness of this system is hotly debated.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

Is it just me, or is this thread overly nasty and personal? Not that there's anything wrong with that... 



iChard said:


> Actually, the labels who use DRM on their CD's offer work arounds for the iPod. They openly offer these solutions just for this reason and ask that apple open up their own DRM to the labels so they can play nice with macs. It involves burning an audio CD of the high quality wma files that are included on the disc - which you are permitted to do - then rip the CD into iTunes. If you had contacted the labels rather than return the album, they would have shared this with you. Unfortunately it's not a perfect copy - which a lot of this thread revolves around - but it's good enough for the majority of iPod users.


Thanks for the tip.. Yes of course I know that you can burn a CD and then re-rip it and re-encode it with iTunes. I don't need to contact the label to figure that out. But why should I have to do that? I've already paid for the album, and going through those extra steps is a pain... but the bigger issue is that if I do that, I've now taken a compressed WMA file, made it into a CDA file, then back to a WAV file before making it an AAC or MP3 file. This definitely has an effect on the quality of the music, especially since the WMA compression isn't high quality to begin with. It might be good enough for the majority of iPod users, but not those who value the fidelity of their music that they have paid for.



iChard said:


> As far as people making claims about redbook - I'd be interested in seeing direct violations related back to compliancy....anyone have any of that info? Multimedia CD's with second sessions have been around for ages - they are still redbook compliant are they not? Most DRM CDs are nothing more than a second session on the CD....so perhaps a lot of them still are RedBook compliant.


ArtistSeries says:



ArtistSeries said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(audio_CD_standard)
> Any "CD" that contains any bit of extraneous information in not Red Book compliant and should not be sold as a CD. End of story.
> Some companies have started to change their labelling.
> 
> ...


If one CD works in every player I own and one doesn't, how can we say they are both following the same standard?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Robbie_Mac said:


> What types of music are being downloaded the most and who is doing most of the file sharing? I assume it's young people downloading today's top 40. If it becomes unprofitable maybe the record companies will get out of that business? It must be vexing for musicians and record labels to know that they have music good enough to steal but not good enough to get people to pay for.
> 
> I would assume that the record companies have stats on the the hottest downloads are. A top 10 so to speak.


Here is an enlightening article on that very point: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=915&Itemid=89

An interesting excerpt:


> The UK study finds that music file sharers buy nearly five times more music from services such as iTunes than do non-file sharers. This should not come as a surprise. Many file sharers use P2P to sample music and exposure to new music will result in increased sales...Years ago radio was viewed as an important promotional channel for the industry ... With Statistics Canada reporting that radio audiences are on the decline, P2P is increasingly the best mechanism to promote music.
> 
> The Rolling Stone article ... affirms that there are the multiple reasons for music sales declines including the popularity of DVDs and video games and the changing retail landscape now dominated by the likes of Wal-Mart and Best Buy, who stock a fraction of the number of titles found in a typical record store...
> 
> ...


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

nxnw said:


> I have a 2 year old midrange receiver and good speakers that I bought 30 years ago. I have compared 128bps aac and mp3, 160 bps mps and 192 bps mp3 (all encoded myself from my own cds) to the original source CD. Although I am not remotely an audiophile, all of the compressed files were readily distinguishable from the original.


I don't doubt they were readily distinguishable. To be fair, though, an iTunes download is not equivalent to a 128 K AAC you ripped yourself. I've noticed many home rips at 128 AAC sounding very noticeably lossy (in fact, I would gladly re-rip everything at a higher rate, but don't have the patience at the moment), but have never encountered a music store download that was really obvious. The difference is that they're not ripped the same way: Apple provides the record labels with a special setup (or maybe just software, not sure) for importing directly from master.

Before the question comes up, at the time I decided to go with the default 128 setting, storage space was an issue for me.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

I took a look at the Michael Geist article, then clicked over to the link he had to the BBC article on "download myths". There was mention of the phone/music player. I gotta say that for me phone/music player is at this point one stupid idea. Why not the phone/toaster or the phone/tv. Or the music player/video player... oh wait that one is cool. 

Downloading music over the phone and then being charged for that slow download time seems like it would add up to quite a phone bill. I thought we were a civilized society?


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

The assertation that P2P users buy more music online than non-P2P users can be spun any way you like. 

For starters, any poll relies on the accuracy of self-reported information; and with such a publicized issue, I am willing to bet that the incidence of exaggeration is high: either "no I never inhaled a MP3" or "Sure, I P2P but hey I spent, like, $100 on real downloads (or at least, I intend to, or, whatever)". I'm confident that the pollsters didn't ask to see receipts... 

I am also skeptical of the survey poopulations and the basis of comparison. In fact, the study only compared spending on paid DOWNLOADS, not other means of purchasing music. It didn't quantify how many of the respondents had ready access to a legal downloading service at the time of the survey, or whether they used them.

So what are they saying? People who download music are more likely to spend money on downloads than people who don't (who presumably buy their music on CDs and/or don't use the computer for music at all)? That's like saying that 8-track owners spend more money on music on 8-tracks than CD player owners. The "other music fans" in the survey might have spent 10 times as much on CDs, and that was not reported. 

But the secondary and later generations of reporting often conveniently gloss over the limiting details of the poll and just report the conclusions as suits them. Geist reports accurately, if briefly, "The UK study finds that music file sharers buy nearly five times more music from services such as iTunes than do non-file sharers." but then quickly attributes the "preview" effect as the reason that P2P users buy more iTunes than non P2P users, a postulate unsupported by data from the poll and ignoring all other possible variables in the poll. Then we quote Geist as an authority and might say something like "music file sharers buy nearly five times more music". Thus the untrue becomes 'true'.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

CanadaRAM said:


> For starters, any poll relies on the accuracy of self-reported information; and with such a publicized issue, I am willing to bet that the incidence of exaggeration is high: either "no I never inhaled a MP3" or "Sure, I P2P but hey I spent, like, $100 on real downloads (or at least, I intend to, or, whatever)". I'm confident that the pollsters didn't ask to see receipts...


Sure. So why don't you impugn a legitimate study (and a well reasoned article) with your own speculations, guesses, and dogmas.

I suspect you must be one of those people who have concluded that Universal's sales are up because people don't download Universal music by P2P.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

iMatt said:


> I don't doubt they were readily distinguishable. To be fair, though, an iTunes download is not equivalent to a 128 K AAC you ripped yourself. I've noticed many home rips at 128 AAC sounding very noticeably lossy (in fact, I would gladly re-rip everything at a higher rate, but don't have the patience at the moment), but have never encountered a music store download that was really obvious.


In isolation, it isn't obvious to me either. Side by side, it is. 

I also doubt that ITMS 128kbps sounds better that 192kbps MP3s that you encode yourself.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Macaholic said:


> If people didn't cause this huge problem in the first place instead of being assholes and stealing music in a HUGE way, the labels would not have reacted as badly as they have.
> 
> And WORST of all are the stupid assholes who wrap the blanket of a moral cause around stealing. Such people make me ****ing SICK.
> 
> And Andreww, your profile says that YOU are a designer! YOU are a creator. How can you think that way about music?? That's sad, man. Very sad.


Well, I was hoping to avoid being called an asshole today. Non the less, I am not stealing. The law as it exists backs me on this, whether you agree with it or not.

I'm not wrapping it in a moral clause because I am not doing anything illegal. I'm simply stating my reasons why I have no sympathy for the other side of this debate.

As a designer/mac technician I make a decent living. Once my designs are complete they are the property of my employer. Believe me, I would love to be paid by each person that views my work, but thats not how the world works.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Sure. So why don't you impugn a legitimate study (and a well reasoned article) with your own speculations, guesses, and dogmas.
> 
> I suspect you must be one of those people who have concluded that Universal's sales are up because people don't download Universal music by P2P.


Well sure I question the study. 'Cause what we have to go on is a Web article which quotes another Web article which draws some conclusions from the press release of a study that none of us has had access to. The BBC News article isn't the study. The study was done by "The Leading Question" and there is no information on the methods or the legitimacy of that study. Is it legitimate because the BBC reported it? 

Here is The Leading Question's press release on the study http://www.musically.com/theleadingquestion/news.htm 
It also has little information on the methods of the survey. It does say that the P2P group spent less on CDs, but doesn't quantify how much. Their lead paragraph "[p2p users] are ironically one of the music industry’s most lucrative markets" -- this is an exaggeration unsupported by the data. Paid downloads are emphatically not the industry's most lucrative market -- paid downloads are a pimple on the rump of the industry's revenue at this time. The Leading Question's phrasing is either sloppy or intentionally misleading for the headline value; I lean toward the latter. 

So yes, I question the motives, methods and conclusions of this particular study. I suspect it is flawed and biased both. But I have no proof either way.

PS. No I am not one of those people - whoever you mean to lump me together with... whatever you mean by that.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

andreww said:


> As a designer/mac technician I make a decent living. Once my designs are complete they are the property of my employer.


Which is not how the music industry works. A != B

99.9% of the time, a songwriter is not paid a wage, or anything, until the song sells. They may write 100 songs that make squat for each popular seller that makes some royalties.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

CanadaRAM said:


> Which is not how the music industry works. A != B


Exactly, so why even bring it up?


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

andreww said:


> Exactly, so why even bring it up?


Huh? Because you equated your employment situation vis a vis your designs to the ownership of intellectual property as protected by coopyright?
I thought your implication was that copyright owners have an unreasonable expectation of profiting largely from future royalties... sorry if I got that wrong, I shouldn't have jumped into a topic line I didn;t read all the foregoing of.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Macoholic implied that I should understand the artists position, as I replied, my business model is different. Even though I am a creative person, I am a business person first and foremost so don't try to make that comparison.

Earlier in the thread I pointed out that musicians should be on a similar business model. That is, draw a salary from the record company to produce music, and the record company can do what they like with it.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

andreww said:


> Earlier in the thread I pointed out that musicians should be on a similar business model. That is, draw a salary from the record company to produce music, and the record company can do what they like with it.


Ah OK. Kind of like a creative communism-ideal.

It's been tried, in the "Tin Pan Alley" days and again notably in the '50s and '60 with the "Brill Building" songwriting firms and at Motown and other "hit factory" labels. Result was the labels profited obscenely and the artists died in poverty and obscurity (I'm exaggerating for effect here) but the consensus in the songwriting business is now "retain your publishing at all costs" or at least get a really good buyout for it. This is why when you look at the credits on an album, you'll see all these odd little company names (for example Peter Cetera's compositions with Chicago are all credited to "Polish Prince Music" or something like that). These are publishing companies set up by each songwriter to handle their royalties.

What you describe is actually happening, when an artist signs with a label and gets an advance. They get paid to write and produce, and the label 'recoups' these expenses against any profits the music makes. This leads to the "I sold 100,000 records and haven't seen dime one" complaints (forgetting about the advance), and the popular conception of the big, greedy, immoral labels. 

Basically, it's down to human nature. Everybody wants to use their talent and or luck to hit it big. Nobody's happy with "yeah I know the song made $2,000,000 but you got your $25 an hour for writing it so that's that." Like the lottery -- if I bought a $1 ticket on a $14 Mil prize, I wouldn't want the rules to be: "If you win, then everyone who bought a ticket will get $0.60 back on their $1.00 investment." which would be the wage-equivalent solution. No, I'd want my whole $14 M and @%# the others who didn't pick the right numbers.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

The only way for musicians to be sure they won't have their songs stolen by an ungrateful and sneaky public is to not sell their music. No live performances either, I would hate to have that whole live bootleg rear its ugly head.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

iMatt said:


> I don't doubt they were readily distinguishable. To be fair, though, an iTunes download is not equivalent to a 128 K AAC you ripped yourself. I've noticed many home rips at 128 AAC sounding very noticeably lossy (in fact, I would gladly re-rip everything at a higher rate, but don't have the patience at the moment), but have never encountered a music store download that was really obvious.


I used to have an iPod - at the time the shortcomings for me were too great. This is not to say I'm not tempted by a nano or video one....

I'm glad you sorta agree about the sound quality issue. It's not really an impediment for most as music is more of a background thing (reminds me of when the first walkmans were introduced).

In an age where musicians have better recording facilities/capabilities, quality sound seems the furthest from the consumers....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Let me interject here.
> 
> "The law" does reflect public policy, including commonly held moral values. It may do so imperfectly, or sometimes fail to keep up with the times, but the law is certainly not amoral.
> 
> In this case, there supposed to be a policy expressed in the law - private copying is allowed in exchange for a private copying tariff. This is sort of a contract imposed on society and it was designed to achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the rights of copyright holders. The fact that it may have become unfair, because the landscape has changed, or because hindsight tells us that the model may not achieve its aims, does not mean it is not "moral". As we can see, the legality, morality and fairness of this system is hotly debated.


Thanks for clarifying that - I trust your opinion on this and stand corrected.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

I'm a composer. I write music for television. There's a move against composers by some production companies to pay absolute crap money during production -- in some cases NO money during production -- and for us to get our pay in royalties; in other words, "back-end money". If people steal our music, or if the law erroneously decrees downloading to be legal, then how in the hell are we to eat? 

Even aside from this, it's unreasonable for a company to ask ANY creative supplier to do it for no money up front. Working on a series easily spans more than half a year; well over a year for other persons in the production process. Plus, there's the value of every actor, script writer and every other creative person involved whose talents and experience all contribute to the quality and nature of the production. The necessities of life do not grow on trees (actually, some of them do, but you get the drift  )


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

I suspect that if the production houses tried this against the writers, directors, actors, etc., their respective guilds would move Heaven, Earth _and_ Hell to get said production houses effectively drawn, quartered and publicly gibbeted for it.

It may be one of several options used by indie comic book publishers across the world, with print runs of, say, one to five thousand/issue/title financed on little more than a maxed credit card...but in TV, it won't be allowed to stand.

But I'm going off-topic somewhat, aren't I?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

DEWLine said:


> But I'm going off-topic somewhat, aren't I?


Not really. If we have production companies trying to wiggle out of paying for creative services rendered on the front end, and end-users wiggling out of paying on the back end, living between a rock and a hard place would be easy by comparison.

The American Federation of Musicians is all but dead. Most productions -- and I'm talking BIG production companies as well as the small fry -- usually don't bother with musician union contracts. Hell, they usually don't even bother _with a band!_ It's usually a guy by himself or with a sideman or two, sequencing everything on a computer. The recording session scene today is emaciated compared to what it was like even ten years ago. Composers are usually paid an "all-in" fee, where they are to pay for any sidemen or singers out of a fixed sum. And those musicians/singers are paid as a buy-out, no back end at all. To me, it's very sad for the musicians who work on this stuff -- if there's work to get in the first place!


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Music on vinyl rules.


The only truly secure DRM format is 8 track tape and the sound is craptacular.

As this great debate rages on I have been transferring my vinyl to CD. I should be done in about 5 years.
Now my mother just gave me her old Buddy Holly© and Sam Cook™ 78s. What are the moral and legal ramifications of transferring an outdated format to digital? Does the hassle of converting supersede the copyright©? It's a little grey who owns the records me or my mom. What about my wife's™ Rolling Stones records? Can I transfer them to CD or does she have to do that to stay within the law? How many back up copies can there be in the house? Can I have a copy on my computer and hers too?
What if my wife™ and I bought a U2 CD and we paid for it from our joint account? Is there some kind of joint custody. Could I listen to our U2 CD on weekends and holidays? Or would I have to get Bono's permission. What if Bono said okay but the Edge said no because in the past I have made disparaging remarks about his guitar playing? (Hey come on Edge you're cool and all but your are no David Gilmour.) What If we bought the CD in Ireland? Do Canadian copyright laws still apply?

Now if this was a Beatles CD we bought...


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Robbie_Mac said:


> As this great debate rages on I have been transferring my vinyl to CD. I should be done in about 5 years.
> Now my mother just gave me her old Buddy Holly© and Sam Cook™ 78s. What are the moral and legal ramifications of transferring an outdated format to digital?


Have at it - you've paid your $0.21 per CD-R for the priviledge


Robbie_Mac said:


> Does the hassle of converting supersede the copyright©?


Nope. © is still in effect


Robbie_Mac said:


> It's a little grey who owns the records me or my mom.


Doesn't matter. Physical posession of the records should be enough. Of course the songwriter still owns the song itself, and the performer the performance rights, all you (or Mom) owns is the individual phonorecording.


Robbie_Mac said:


> What about my wife's™ Rolling Stones records? Can I transfer them to CD or does she have to do that to stay within the law? How many back up copies can there be in the house?


Doesn't matter, You can, and no limit, in that order


Robbie_Mac said:


> Can I have a copy on my computer and hers too?


Oops sorry not legal to keep a copy on your computer. Take that up with the government who wrote the legislation. CD=good Computer=bad iPod used to =good but now = bad 'cause the CPCC can't charge for 'em any more. Go figure.


Robbie_Mac said:


> What if my wife™ and I bought a U2 CD and we paid for it from our joint account? Is there some kind of joint custody. Could I listen to our U2 CD on weekends and holidays?


Communal property, I think you could both listen simultaneously or sequentially, at your pleasure. It's a copy-right, not a listen-right, after all. Just don't broadcast it to the neighbors or play it at a dance, then it becomes a transmission or a performance, and you have to pay a different set of royalties. 

But if you two were to split, you'd have to decide who gets custody, you couldn't share. Unless of course she made a perfectly legal $0.21 copy onto CD-R and THEN you took the original CD and the lava lamp with you when you left. That would be legal *except maybe not the lava lamp.


Robbie_Mac said:


> Or would I have to get Bono's permission. What if Bono said okay but the Edge said no because in the past I have made disparaging remarks about his guitar playing? (Hey come on Edge you're cool and all but your are no David Gilmour.)


Depends who owns the publishing on the song. Prolly have to go through some lawyer, anyway.


Robbie_Mac said:


> What If we bought the CD in Ireland? Do Canadian copyright laws still apply?


Generally, yes, because Canada and Ireland are participants in multilateral agreements on copyright.


Robbie_Mac said:


> Now if this was a Beatles CD we bought...


Contact Michael Jackson for home entertainment distribution rights...

Oh, you were being sarcastic/ironic?

Nevermind...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Robbie_Mac said:


> The only truly secure DRM format is 8 track tape and the sound is craptacular.


Yo Robbie_Mac... If I mentioned Crabs and Trees would you know what I am talking about?


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Yo Robbie_Mac... If I mentioned Crabs and Trees would you know what I am talking about?


If I was to say Chernishenko would that answer your question?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Robbie_Mac said:


> If I was to say Chernishenko would that answer your question?


Jimmy... Yeah Baby... 

Loved the word... "craptacular" can I quote you on that one?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

andreww said:


> Earlier in the thread I pointed out that musicians should be on a similar business model. That is, draw a salary from the record company to produce music, and the record company can do what they like with it.


Are you kidding me? If you want to reduce bloated and greedy record labels, _that aint the way to do it!_ lmao! The record labels will indeed do what they like with the songs: SELL MILLIONS OF THEM because people like the song, reaping the benefit and talents of others every time someone buys a song because it is special _to them_.

Once again, back off on the creators and musicians. They are the ones who should be getting money every time someone buys a song. Not because it is special or of value to the musician/songwriter, but because it is special TO THE BUYER. Also, musicians and songwriters don't get salaried 40 hour work weeks; we work to improve our craft all the time: we practice, we take lessons, as songwriters we _develop_ material; material that we work on, listen to, decide it is crap, pitch in the garbage and try try again. We don't make money during all of that process, and yet we still have to pay rent, hydro, telephone, grocery, dental, and car repair bills -- and need new boots for junior this winter.

Also, with "a salary", just how much of a salary are we talking about? Are you talking about an across-the-board consistent annual income for all? What about the true masters of any given instrument or writers? They'll not accept such a situation, where they're better than other people "on staff" making the same amount of money. Music and talent are intangibles, only realized when the artist expresses themselves and others go "wow". How big a "wow" determines the value of the artist and therefore the amount of money that artist should get. That value is NOT determined by some bean counting overlord or negotiator between the label and artists; it is determined by how many people WANT the song. As I have said before, it is the demand, NOT the supply, that determines the value of a song.

So, what is music worth to you? I've asked this several times in this thread. I wish to GOD people would answer that one. Perhaps the concept is too alien? If it is, that's a cryin' shame.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> So it's perfectly legal to download then - as we are paying a levy...
> End of story. Enjoy Poisoned while we still can...


I don't agree with this logic. 

It's like saying, some of my taxes have gone to fund healthcare, so I might as well smoke all I want and visit the emergency room for every cold I get.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

The same can be said for the visual arts. At some point you make the decision whether to pursue the fine arts and likely live in squalor, or get into graphic arts and make a decent living.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Jimmy... Yeah Baby...
> 
> Loved the word... "craptacular" can I quote you on that one?



craptacular©

It's a great word but if you use it you will have to pay royalties.

It's not mine but I do own the copyright.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

andreww said:


> The same can be said for the visual arts. At some point you make the decision whether to pursue the fine arts and likely live in squalor, or get into graphic arts and make a decent living.


Such crap! By your logic, Wynton Marsalas, Yoyo Ma, Itzhak Perlman and others like all of them are sellouts. You think Miles Davis got into music for the money? Not the case. Did Bob Dylan ever sell out? How about Bob Marley? Melissa Ethridge? The Dead? I can go on and on across numerous genres, listing people who have an artistic integrity true to themselves who have been recognized enough and in such demand because people LOVE THEIR MUSIC to be able to buy and sell you and me a dozen times over. Is it "bad" for them to accept the money generated by people using their creations, despite the artist's motivation being a true artistic one? I don't think so.

Once again, this brings up the question of how much is music worth TO YOU. To me, Miles Davis's "Blue in Green" is worth more than every penny I paid for it, and I appreciate it every time it soothes my soul. The same cannot be said of say, toilet paper, as I scrape it across my asshole after a bowel movement. Do I listen to "Blue In Green" and curse Miles Davis for having been so rich? Of course not. I listen to that fantastic music and appreciate that he did it. Period. Just like millions of others over the decades, each one paying a small fee to be able to hear it whenever they want and to build a memory or emotion on it.

You can be an uncompromising artist and, if you're great, smart and lucky, NOT live in squalor. It is not black and white as you suggest, and such naive romanticism is ridiculous.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

OK bright guys, here is one for you.

So I have these GREAT CBC radio3 podcasts. What is to stop me from saving this podcasts and editing out just the songs I want and keeping them as separate MP3s in my library?

The podcast by its very nature resides on my machine... it is not streamed audio or OTA radio. Since it is on my machine I can listen to it over and over again. Where is the benefit to the artist?

I derive value from their work and it has cost me nothing.

It is things like this which means that you HAVE to rethink the way the music industry exists today.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> OK bright guys, here is one for you.
> 
> So I have these GREAT CBC radio3 podcasts. What is to stop me from saving this podcasts and editing out just the songs I want and keeping them as separate MP3s in my library?
> 
> I derive value from their work and it has cost me nothing.


The first taste is always free. The next one will cost you.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> ...
> 
> So I have these GREAT CBC radio3 podcasts....
> Since it is on my machine I can listen to it over and over again. Where is the benefit to the artist?...
> ...


I could be wrong, but I believe the CBC would have paid a broadcast royalty.

The fact that you personally did not pay was never the issue. The issue is that the holder was paid by the CBC for the right to podcast it to you.

The real issue is never whether you personally paid for having a copy of a particular piece of music, but whether the holder has been paid for you to have the copy. The holder doesn't really have a genuine grievance if he gets paid.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> OK bright guys, here is one for you.
> 
> So I have these GREAT CBC radio3 podcasts. What is to stop me from saving this podcasts and editing out just the songs I want and keeping them as separate MP3s in my library?
> 
> ...



You think this material is going onto podcasts for nothing? They've somehow paid for the music to be aired as a podcast, OR sync rights for such usage is probably being worked out as we type. Or, maybe in this case the artists allow free distribution of their music? The point is that the ownership of the music by the artist/publisher should be respected. it is theirs to give away or charge for; not yours to take at whim.

As for you taking the music and creating separate clips of it, cutting out the announcer? Probably illegal -- but nothing's physically stopping you from doing this, just as nothing is physically stopping anybody from downloading via P2P. Just because we _can_ do something doesn't mean that we should. *That's called being morally responsible.* The slippery slope is within you. That's why YOU have to rethink the technology industry, not just the music industry rethinking itself.

Because we can launch atomic bombs, do you think we should? How about abortion? Technology has certainly allowed us to perform this task. Good? Or bad? Ethnic genocide is easy with chemical weapons. What race dies first? These extreme examples are cases where we have to intervene with clear thought, awareness, sensitivity and humanity in order to make a decision. On a far more humble level, that's the same thing with stealing from artists and publishers -- and software designers.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NXNW, that is a good point, however I haven't found any reference to PodCasts on the SOCAN rate page.

http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/music_users/do_you_need_licence.jsp

Look boys... I can't say it enough or in any other way. I feel like I'm talking to Sinc or Macnutt about politics at this point.

You can go on and on about what is right and what is not. What remains is that this technology is available and you cannot stop people from downloading and sharing music and other material (hey Marijuana is illegal, but I don't think people are going to stop using it anytime soon).

Pandora's Box is open and I'm just giving you a suggestion that maybe, just maybe you might want to rethink the current model as to how musicians get paid for their work... lest some of you continue the starving artist route to fame and fortune.

I personally think the iTunes model is a good start (the only thing missing is opening it up so that anyone can publish their music on it easily), where more money can make its way to its creator/owner and less has to be spent on the producer/label, etc...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> You can go on and on about what is right and what is not. What remains is that this technology is available and you cannot stop people from downloading and sharing music and other material... Pabdora's Box is open and I'm just giving you a suggestion that maybe, just maybe you might want to rethink the current model as to how musicians get paid for their work


So, really the song remains the same in this world: if you can get away with screwing the other guy, more power to ya. "Rethinking"?? Seems like nothing changes. Technology has not brought us enlightenment in the least. In fact it has dulled us, as evidenced by this type of argument that grinds on across the internet. The pat answer is, "we can steal it, so deal with it". Slimeballs. All of them. Their smug opinions would change in a heartbeat if I was to come into their place of employment and tell their boss they don't need a salaried employee because *I'll* do the job for nothing.



> I personally think the iTunes model is a good start (the only thing missing is opening it up so that anyone can publish their music on it easily), where more money can make its way to its creator/owner and less has to be spent on the producer/label, etc...


I agree. So, try to convince people to support it. It won't happen by itself in the face of P2P leaches. But perhaps that's the biggest delusion of all; those who steal will probably never change if they haven't already. And they'll continue to screw it up for the rest of us honest people.

Nobody ever told me what music meant to them and what it was worth.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

Just to muddy the waters a little bit and I am not accusing any one here of doing this but, of all the various types of mac users I have met, the musicians are by far the ones I have seen most often to trade kracked software. Pluggins for ProTools being top of the list. They may pay for most of the stuff they own but inevitably they are on limited budgets and need to do what they have to get by. I'm lucky enough to not have to worry about that kind of thing myself but I do see it quite often. I wonder if any top 10 hits have been created will ill gotten software? hmmm


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> OK bright guys, here is one for you.
> 
> So I have these GREAT CBC radio3 podcasts. What is to stop me from saving this podcasts and editing out just the songs I want and keeping them as separate MP3s in my library?
> The podcast by its very nature resides on my machine... it is not streamed audio or OTA radio. Since it is on my machine I can listen to it over and over again. Where is the benefit to the artist?
> ...


Radio, Podcasts, TV performance, songs included in movies in theatres, VHS and DVD, even the elevator music they play at 7-11 stores all have a royalty rate structure and payment is made to the copyright holder. 

Don't confuse the act of consuming the music (listening over and over, or many people reading the same library book) with the right to copy the work (including the right to control copying and re-transmission)


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Robbie_Mac said:


> Just to muddy the waters a little bit and I am not accusing any one here of doing this but, of all the various types of mac users I have met, the musicians are by far the ones I have seen most often to trade kracked software.... I wonder if any top 10 hits have been created will ill gotten software? hmmm


Probably alot of them.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Robbie_Mac said:


> Just to muddy the waters a little bit and I am not accusing any one here of doing this but, of all the various types of mac users I have met, the musicians are by far the ones I have seen most often to trade kracked software. Pluggins for ProTools being top of the list. They may pay for most of the stuff they own but inevitably they are on limited budgets and need to do what they have to get by. I'm lucky enough to not have to worry about that kind of thing myself but I do see it quite often. I wonder if any top 10 hits have been created will ill gotten software? hmmm


Yup. Cracked software shows up in audio as much as it does in games and office applications. It's doubly bad in audio, however, because the developers are small companies or individuals who cannot absorb the losses. I read an article with the owners of Propellerheads Software (makers of Reason) who were considering packing it in because they were starving and only one in five of the people using their software had actually paid for it.

It's bad. And it all comes down to greed -- people wanting something for nothing. And because it's easy to copy and crack, as opposed to breaking into a store, these greedy people will go to any lengths to justify their actions: 
"the company doesn't deserve my money because they are charging too much / have enough money already / rip off their artists" 
"I would pay for it if the money was going to the starving artist, but it's not"
"I won't pay for it because the artist is filthy rich anyway and doesn't need more money"
"I would pay for it if it were are reasonable price. What's reasonable? Less than whatever they are asking"
"They'll never miss it. I mean, it costs them nothing for me to make a copy, and I would never have bought it anyway, so it's a victimless crime"
"I create more sales for them because all the people I have given Word/ Photoshop/ Reason/ the new 50Cent CD to will surely be so impressed they'll buy more" 
"I can't afford it now because I am poor/a student/just starting out and I'll surely pay for it later when I have made enough" 
"I'll take it now and pay for it only if I like it."
"it's art - art sould be free for the people. Artists don't do it for the money anyway. They should be happy for the extra exposure"
"the industry has to rethink charging any money for their goods because it's too easy to steal them" 
"I only steal them because the industry has unjustly put anti-theft technology into them, so obviously I can't support them by paying for it" 
"you can't catch me I'm the gingerbread man"


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> Their smug opinions would change in a heartbeat if I was to come into their place of employment and tell their boss they don't need a salaried employee because *I'll* do the job for nothing.


This is the problem... You think people demand something for nothing, but what is happening to the music industry isn't about people wanting something for nothing. What is happening is about an industry unable/unwilling to adapt to changes happening around them.

I see the music industry very much like I see the photography industry 10 years ago. 10 years ago do you think the executives working for Kodak in Rochester, New York had any clue as to who and from where their competition was going to come? If you walked in and told them "Hey, you know in 5 years Sony is going to put you out of business"... they would a laughed your ass right back to Toronto. How could the guys who make walkmans and TVs put us out of business is what Kodak must have been thinking.

You only have to look at what digital photo technology did to the traditional photo industry to see what is going to happen to music industry. Photomarts took a major hit as did the film manufacturers. As more and more people try things themselves the less need there was for professional photographers.

Regardless of what you think of the consumer... things ARE going to change in the music industry. Me, personally I think things are going to work out for the better as I have greater access to more diversified product from the global music industry... and if I don't want the CRAP that major labels keep trying to shove down my throat I don't have to listen to it.

Some of you are not old enough to remember what it was like... even into the late 80's and early 90's everything you heard was filtered through top40 radio or MTV. Unless you lived in a major urban area and even then went out of your way to find non mainstream music you had no option but to listen and buy what they spoon fed you.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Macaholic said:


> Such crap! By your logic, Wynton Marsalas, Yoyo Ma, Itzhak Perlman and others like all of them are sellouts. You think Miles Davis got into music for the money? Not the case. Did Bob Dylan ever sell out? How about Bob Marley? Melissa Ethridge? The Dead? I can go on and on across numerous genres, listing people who have an artistic integrity true to themselves who have been recognized enough and in such demand because people LOVE THEIR MUSIC to be able to buy and sell you and me a dozen times over. Is it "bad" for them to accept the money generated by people using their creations, despite the artist's motivation being a true artistic one? I don't think so.
> 
> Once again, this brings up the question of how much is music worth TO YOU. To me, Miles Davis's "Blue in Green" is worth more than every penny I paid for it, and I appreciate it every time it soothes my soul. The same cannot be said of say, toilet paper, as I scrape it across my asshole after a bowel movement. Do I listen to "Blue In Green" and curse Miles Davis for having been so rich? Of course not. I listen to that fantastic music and appreciate that he did it. Period. Just like millions of others over the decades, each one paying a small fee to be able to hear it whenever they want and to build a memory or emotion on it.
> 
> You can be an uncompromising artist and, if you're great, smart and lucky, NOT live in squalor. It is not black and white as you suggest, and such naive romanticism is ridiculous.


Are you even reading my posts?? I just said you have a choice to follow a safe career path, or likely starve for your art. Where the hell did I say anything about the great artist mentioned selling out? In fact, I believe only the person who is passionate about their profession will be successful. If you waste your energies worrying about this issue, you'll never make it cause you are in it for the money. The only people that are having their music downloaded in any quantity, are the ones that are making so much money that they don't give a $hit anyway. Do you think I'm stealing your music? Cause I'm not, believe me.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

andreww said:


> Are you even reading my posts?? I just said you have a choice to follow a safe career path, or likely starve for your art. Where the hell did I say anything about the great artist mentioned selling out? In fact, I believe only the person who is passionate about their profession will be successful. If you waste your energies worrying about this issue, you'll never make it cause you are in it for the money. The only people that are having their music downloaded in any quantity, are the ones that are making so much money that they don't give a $hit anyway. Do you think I'm stealing your music? Cause I'm not, believe me.


I'm not thinking that you personally are stealing my music. Where in my post did you glean that from??! And it shouldn;t matter to me if a single song f mine was never stolen. For me to become concerned ONLY when my mussic is stolen is fartoo late in the process to be concerned about it -- and it's a selfish stance to begin with.

My post was to rebut the belief that artists must be poor to be "legit" as an artist and must accept to live "in squalor" (those are _your words_).



> If you waste your energies worrying about this issue, you'll never make it cause you are in it for the money.


Baloney. Once again, you're putting the onus on the creator, letting the thief off the hook.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

I agree, the ones whose music is being stolen are the manufactured pop and has been artists, Britney, Metallica, 50 Cent etc. and they are the ones that care. The ones that are actually talented and have their music purchased (more often than not) Unicorns, Arcade Fire, Brant Bjork etc. are the ones that don't care, they are being supported by us independent stores, playing them in store, getting people exposed to it, so they buy it, we are doing what the labels aren't, marketing.
If it's GOOD people will buy it. If it's POP people will Download it.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

The loss of control is a byproduct of anything that is released into the public. Best to try to minimize losses and not make a big deal about it publicly. Crying foul gets no sympathy from your fellow man. Everybody feels they have been ripped off somehow, sometime (that first side of Ina-goda-davida should be considered a crime against humanity) The public gives very little sympathy to some "Rock Star", even the up and coming starving ones. Look at what an ass Lars looks to be, a guy who used to brag about all the cool tape trading he did when he was a kid.

CDs will go the way of 78s and some form of DMR will become the norm and most people will get used to it.

Less talk more Rock


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

As Gene Simmons once said,

"Would these people be happy if nobody was downloading thier music?"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> So, what is music worth to you? I've asked this several times in this thread. I wish to GOD people would answer that one. Perhaps the concept is too alien? If it is, that's a cryin' shame.


12.99$ a CD, about 70 minutes of music. But for that it has to be well recorded, the performance above average and classical. YMMV.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Elric said:


> If it's GOOD people will buy it. If it's POP people will Download it.


How can you generalize like that? Do you know these people? Asked them personally? There's no basis in fact to argue this.

I tested this using Acquisition. The results for MUSIC ONLY are thus:

Britney: 149
50 Cent: 175
Metallica: 207
Miles Davis: 152 hits
Mozart: 114 hits
Arcade Fire: 158 hits
Bjork: 158 hits
(hits were too vague for brant and Unicorns)

I'd say that these results negate your argument. To think that there's a better class of people not downloading the better class of music is to presume too much and be -- once again -- naive about it as well. Further, it's wrong to justify downloading certain artists just because you happen to think they suck.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> 12.99$ a CD, about 70 minutes of music. But for that it has to be well recorded, the performance above average and classical. YMMV.


Perfectly reasonable. The problem is that if anybody is downloading the lossy stuff, the vast majority of that results in a lost sale.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> The problem is that if anybody is downloading the lossy stuff, the vast majority of that results in a lost sale.


This is where I don't think we can have a "true" answer.
If someone uses a P2P software for music, would they have really bough the CD instead?
Does exposure to some artist via P2P network lead to sales as some claim?

I'm not sure we can know the answer in an objective manner.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> ...I personally think the iTunes model is a good start (the only thing missing is opening it up so that anyone can publish their music on it easily), where more money can make its way to its creator/owner and less has to be spent on the producer/label, etc...


It's not hard. A friend of mine sells his independently published CDs online through CDBaby.com, which also has an arrangement with iTunes, etc. I believe CDbaby charges a pretty modest cut of the iTunes revenues, so the majority of the iTunes sale price goes to the artist.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

One service that record companies provide is filtering out some of the junk. In theory, having every song in the world ever recorded and available in iTunes is a cool prospect but man oh man there is a lot of crap out there. I slogged through CDBaby.com for a while but I could not find anything listenable. I'm sure there are some real gold there but I found the prospecting difficult.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Robbie_Mac said:


> One service that record companies provide is filtering out some of the junk. In theory, having every song in the world ever recorded and available in iTunes is a cool prospect but man oh man there is a lot of crap out there. I slogged through CDBaby.com for a while but I could not find anything listenable. I'm sure there are some real gold there but I found the prospecting difficult.


Hey... I'll have you know that the my high school band (known as Burnt Toast) had a marvelous selection of quality tunes... from the "Polar Bear Song" to our favorite... "We've Got a Free Trade Christmas".

We could have gone Gold if only 499, 999 other people had bought our album.

But to stay on topic, That is why I love the iTunes model of pick and choose your music. You can listen to a preview and there are all sort of iMixes to explore to find new stuff.

PS. I checked out CDbaby.com and this was the first tune I listened too...

http://cdbaby.com/mp3lofi/sufimoon-01.m3u

Now normally I enjoy South Asian music... but man that SUCKED!


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> PS. I checked out CDbaby.com and this was the first tune I listened too...
> 
> http://cdbaby.com/mp3lofi/sufimoon-01.m3u
> 
> Now normally I enjoy South Asian music... but man that SUCKED!


Curiosity got the better of me. What was unique about sufimoon was there was none of that over-the-top reverb there usually is in Asian music. And was that a trombone I heard. Truly unique how can somebody put a price on that? Is it good enough to steal? If you paid what would be a fair amount? Would paying give them the encouragement to continue.

Now what is a fair price for this artist's hard work? (Click the listen links) 
http://www.wingtunes.com/public/samples.aspx


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Robbie_Mac said:


> Curiosity got the better of me. What was unique about sufimoon was there was none of that over-the-top reverb there usually is in Asian music. And was that a trombone I heard. Truly unique how can somebody put a price on that? Is it good enough to steal? If you paid what would be a fair amount? Would paying give them the encouragement to continue.
> 
> Now what is a fair price for this artist's hard work? (Click the listen links)
> http://www.wingtunes.com/public/samples.aspx


The horror... the horror


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> This is where I don't think we can have a "true" answer.
> If someone uses a P2P software for music, would they have really bough the CD instead?
> Does exposure to some artist via P2P network lead to sales as some claim?
> 
> I'm not sure we can know the answer in an objective manner.


You can't guarantee that one way or the other. You've got less of a leg to stand on in trying to discount it as I do arguing that it does kill a sale. What are people gonna do? Download music they hate?? Come on. Download artists they don't know about? Come on. Type in some random words and hope for the best? It just doesn't work that way.

You guys grab at WAY too many straws.

One thing's for sure: they're listening to it for free, and you simply cannot trust that they'd pay for it afterwards. That's why there are thirty second samples at both iTMS and MS-run (and any other) online music retailer; they can check out a reasonable amount, read articles, gab with friends and _just know_ in general if they'd like to purchase a song. There's more than enough free information out there for an honest person to take a stab at a song.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Robbie_Mac said:


> Now what is a fair price for this artist's hard work? (Click the listen links)
> http://www.wingtunes.com/public/samples.aspx



LAUGH my frickin ass off!!

Maybe the labels do serve a filtering purpose??


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> http://cdbaby.com/mp3lofi/sufimoon-01.m3u
> Now normally I enjoy South Asian music... but man that SUCKED!


This is niche spirituality stuff. So it is what it is for those already drinking whatever kool-aid these folks are drinking. It ant targetted at white boys from Grimsby 

The beginning is cool, because the performer "sings" the phonetics of the tabla part to be played. Tabla players learn different slap techniques by learning the lingual or phonetic representation of how the rhythm is played. My 8 year old son is taking drums and MUST speak similar phonics for the "western" swing, rock and latin drum grooves he's learning. So, listen carefully to the spoken part. Aside from the wicked-fast parts that are hard even for me to analyze off the cuff, you'll hear similar patterns played on the tabla as was spoken previous to it. And BTW, that tabla player kicks ass!

Class dismissed!


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

Elric said:


> I agree, the ones whose music is being stolen are the manufactured pop and has been artists, Britney, Metallica, 50 Cent etc. and they are the ones that care. The ones that are actually talented and have their music purchased (more often than not) Unicorns, Arcade Fire, Brant Bjork etc. are the ones that don't care, they are being supported by us independent stores, playing them in store, getting people exposed to it, so they buy it, we are doing what the labels aren't, marketing.
> If it's GOOD people will buy it. If it's POP people will Download it.


Sorry, but ALL music is being downloaded. I own the Arcade Fire album. Two other people I know bought it. Almost all of my other friends have it (or at least a few tracks from it), but they didn't pay for it.

The volume of downloads might be more for 50 Cent because he's more popular (although the numbers posted seem to deny that).

There is a place for downloading and getting people exposed to music, but unfortunately the turnover isn't great - if people can get it for free, they will not pay for it.

Now, the Arcade Fire are not hurting money-wise because they have sold a fair number of albums, and more importantly they sell out every show they play. That's where it all started for them - word of mouth about their incredible live show. When their LP was released, it did not sell a tonne of copies. Since then, they have had a lot of critcal acclaim on their side - lots of people telling people this is THE album to get.

But, for every Arcade Fire there are 100 incredible independent bands that don't get the press or airplay. If their material is available for free on the Net, they won't sell a lot of discs. They want to be exposed to a wide audience, but there's a line that they can easily cross where they've given too much away for free and they can't sell albums. This has happened to several friends of mine.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Awesome post, okcomputer. A wakeup call for all the other arguments lofted afloat in here justifying P2P.

If people can take it, many will. Regardless of age, musical taste or even income. Obviously, the same would occur with even a loaf of bread if people thought they could get away with it.

Those honest ones out there unfortunately will be lumped into the same court with the leaches, having to live with DRM. HOW is it possible for DRM to be able to discern the between the honest and dishonest ones?? Of course, what Sony did was unbelievable, and has several lawsuits filed against it. As I said, we had plenty of time to show our true colours before the labels got on the stick with this, and it wasn't our proudest moment as we pigged out at the Napster trough, and YES, some of us wrapping the activity around the guise of a moral cause.

Justifying P2P because "people only download crap" is a naive -- and frankly arrogant -- assumption.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> And BTW, that tabla player kicks ass!


Sooo..... what would you pay for this kick ass piece of tabla playing. I know, I know you just spent your last loonie on the Wing's music


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Robbie_Mac said:


> Now what is a fair price for this artist's hard work? (Click the listen links)
> http://www.wingtunes.com/public/samples.aspx


  There's even an xmas album!!!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Robbie_Mac said:


> Sooo..... what would you pay for this kick ass piece of tabla playing. I know, I know you just spent your last loonie on the Wing's music


I wouldn't pay for it. I'd rather go romping through Ravi Shankar's world at 99¢ a trip...

You see folks? In one link, I've given you access to biographical information, discographical information, audio samples AND a retail outlet for an artist. I've also given you a cross-reference of who this artist has played with, as well as possibly related surprises of other artists purchased by those who have bought this artist's music. On top of all of this, I've provided access to interesting collections of music assembled by others of whom this artist has been included in (iMixes), as well as customer reviews -- and the people who created these collections and reviews may have a different and deeper insight into this particular world of music that you may not have. Although a legend in music, this artist could well have been (and may be for some of you) someone you'd never heard of before. And now, you have more info than anyone could dream of about him... and you can pick and choose individual songs -- _pre-screened by you_ -- for only ninety-nine-frickin'-cents each.

There's no way in hell P2P can offer the same thing, and the arguments in support of it are -- to be honest -- bull****. P2P does only one thing: give you what you want, provided you know what you want. It doesn't illuminate anything new to you. It doesn't expand your awareness of music. It doesn't introduce you to new artists. It's slower. It's undependable. The quality can absolutely suck (in comparison to even Apple's lossy format). The MP3 tag data can be absolutely HILARIOUS, sometimes. It's a great concept, hobbled by its very nature, and iTunes and now MS have taken the concept of what Napster anted to be to its full potential.

In short, for people REALLY into music, *P2P sucks*. Obviously, there is no class divide between people who listen to "quality" and "crap" music. It seems like, based on my Acquisition hit counts, EVERYBODY's doing it -- regardless of their musical taste (test this out yourself if you don't believe my results). If you think P2P is better, you're simply justifying the immoral free-ride you're on (failures of the legal system and fuzzy interpretations of rulings be damned). And P2P does NOTHING for the artists you enjoy. And you want "cool"? Wanna scoop your P2P using friends? TRY THIS! _Not available on P2P_.

Sigh... anyway, I've said all I can say about this. I leave the lame rebuttals to you guys. See ya in church!


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> Those honest ones out there unfortunately will be lumped into the same court with the leaches, having to live with DRM. HOW is it possible for DRM to be able to discern the between the honest and dishonest ones?? Of course, what Sony did was unbelievable, and has several lawsuits filed against it. As I said, we had plenty of time to show our true colours before the labels got on the stick with this, and it wasn't our proudest moment as we pigged out at the Napster trough, and YES, some of us wrapping the activity around the guise of a moral cause.


And now the president of the RIAA is on SONY's side: 

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/11/21/1232207.shtml?tid=233&tid=17


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> This is niche spirituality stuff. So it is what it is for those already drinking whatever kool-aid these folks are drinking. It ant targetted at white boys from Grimsby


Dude... you have no idea as to just how white Grimsby is. I'm married to 25% of the East Indian population of this town... and I mean that literally.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

okcomputer said:


> And now the president of the RIAA is on SONY's side:
> 
> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/11/21/1232207.shtml?tid=233&tid=17


Well, I never said they weren't jerks. Unfortunately, music needs to be protected. But, it needs to be done so, properly.


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

Thanks for the link to Ravi Shankar. I have the record he did with Phillip Glass.
Just to be clear i now get most of my music from the iTunes store. I have bought two CDs in the last year. I haven't downloaded any music from P2P since the napster days. This isn't done from a moral standpoint, I just can't be bothered. What i got from Napster was live bootlegs and songs that couldn't get any place else.
I have to say the iTunes store is getting to be quit good. You are right when you say it is a good way to explore new music. I still find my friends to be the best source. As far as good music or crap music, quality encoding etc. that is an argument that will rage on and on. 
Is Wings music really that bad? Her music often gets a strong emotional response. Isn't that what music should do? So it did effect you on some level. And somehow it's not boring. No opera has ever left me in tears, but Wing's version of "Let it be" had tears streaming down my cheeks and gasping for breath.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Dude... you have no idea as to just how white Grimsby is. I'm married to 25% of the East Indian population of this town... and I mean that literally.


LOL!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Robbie_Mac said:


> I still find my friends to be the best source.


As it normally is with music -- right back to the original wax rolls


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

While Googling my previous link, came across more interesting info:

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/tinfoil77.html
Home page for above:
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html

MP3s of some actual recordings, over 100 years old:
http://www.nwpr.bc.ca/parks web page/wax recording.html


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> MP3s of some actual recordings, over 100 years old:
> http://www.nwpr.bc.ca/parks web page/wax recording.html


A fine example of quality recordings ruined by mp3s 

Really they are very cool recordings. I doubt they did any overdubs, Pitch correction or looping. 
No ProTools. It can be done!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

okcomputer said:


> Sorry, but ALL music is being downloaded. I own the Arcade Fire album. Two other people I know bought it. Almost all of my other friends have it (or at least a few tracks from it), but they didn't pay for it.


Wow! What a grand statement without really backing it up.
All music is being downloaded? 
I fired up poisoned last evening and went looking for a few songs that I like and own. None of it available on P2P networks and none of it available on iTunes. Which only goes to show major shortcomings....

... And no, none of this music was overly obscure. 





okcomputer said:


> There is a place for downloading and getting people exposed to music, but unfortunately the turnover isn't great - if people can get it for free, they will not pay for it.


That is untrue - many have stated here that the "free" tune has incited them to buy the CD



okcomputer said:


> But, for every Arcade Fire there are 100 incredible independent bands that don't get the press or airplay. If their material is available for free on the Net, they won't sell a lot of discs. They want to be exposed to a wide audience, but there's a line that they can easily cross where they've given too much away for free and they can't sell albums. This has happened to several friends of mine.


You seem to be mixing a few problems. Quality music may not sell as well as pop pablum. Of those 100 incredible bands, some may just not be that good or find a paying audience. You can look at some "great" musician that had to find work other than music. I don't see the correlation between exposure, selling albums and p2p downloads.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> Justifying P2P because "people only download crap" is a naive -- and frankly arrogant -- assumption.


And, as stated many times here - the jury is still out on the legality of downloading music on P2P networks in Canada. Until that grey area is cleared up, you can decry it as much as you like.

To many, the iTunes store is not a solution. I find the store to be rather poor. 
There a so many things wrong with it and even IMO Amazon.com does a better job by offering more selection. One thing of the iTunes store that really bothers me is that you can't explore while listening to a preview. If you go to BN or Amazon you can explore other artist. But beyond that, there is a lack of most artists I listen to (classical). And as stated, a physical CD is still preferable to a download to some.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Artist Series, YES, the law is not black and white about P2P. You said that. I said that. Many others said that. But like I said, a law doesn't make something _right_; it just makes something allowable. There's a difference. If a country legalizes ethnic genocide, is that still not murder?

As for your thoughts on iTMS in particular, you're entitled to them. _Obviously_, if iTMS doesn't have what one wants, there are many retail options available. If there's not something I WANT at iTMS, I'll buy the CD. But, for all the lame arguments as to the benefits of P2P (many of which are simply not true), iTMS is better and more informative than P2P and even Amazon. iTMS may not have all that a CD retailer has, strictly because of the labels need to modernize their distribution agreements. They really REALLY need a universal distribution agreement, instead of this ridiculous, archaic arrangement where retailers have to negotiate for EACH country or region.

And then, if one isn't into lossy formats, then CDs it is.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Macaholic said:


> Artist Series, YES, the law is not black and white about P2P. You said that. I said that. Many others said that. But like I said, a law doesn't make something _right_; it just makes something allowable. There's a difference. If a country legalizes ethnic genocide, is that still not murder?


Congratulations. You have reached the zenith of perverse logic.

This is Canada, not Nazi Germany; this is downloading songs, not murder. There is no reason to impugn the merit of our laws by foolish comparisons.

Further, the morality and legality - both - are the subject of serious debate — not based on arguments that record labels are evil, or that P2P is actually good for artists — but because our laws provide for a Private Copying Tariff to compensate copyright holders for Private Copying.

If Canadians simply stopped downloading from P2P networks tomorrow, there would still be serious problems:
- The Canadian public would be paying copyright holders a ton of money - $40 million in 2004, certainly more this year, for the right to make private copies. The public would be getting nothing of value for the money;
- if the tariff were eliminated - no downloading AND no tariff - I would bet anyone that there would not be sufficient increased sales to make up for the tariffs proceeds.

We need a system that is fair to the public and to copyright holders. Ridiculous hyperbole adds nothing to the debate.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

nxnw said:


> We need a system that is fair to the public and to copyright holders. Ridiculous hyperbole adds nothing to the debate.


And neither does pat answers that something, while wrong, just happens to be legal... sorta legal... so there's no right to argue it (as Artist Series asserts). How do you think _laws change?_ And, my chastised hyperbole aside, my point still stands that just because something is law does not make it the best solution.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> To many, the iTunes store is not a solution. I find the store to be rather poor.
> There a so many things wrong with it and even IMO Amazon.com does a better job by offering more selection.


The main problem is actually publishing. For example BECK is signed to Universal, but his publisher is BMG or was BMG....Publishers do countless taks, like authorizing music for use in commercials, television, movies, promotions, compilations etc. Every single song on an album could ultimately be distributed by a single label but published by a different companies.

AND this all goes back to the whole downloading thing. Once songs are digital, there is a whole new process and set of laws (or NO laws). The same thing that you say makes music downloading legal, kind of makes it harder to license for online music stores. You have to track down multiple people to license every single track for digital use.

It was actually the publishers of Canada who wanted to charge higher prices in the iTMS in Canada and held the store up for over a year. You might say some of the publishers are more evil than the labels.


----------



## iChard (Dec 9, 2002)

andreww said:


> As Gene Simmons once said,"Would these people be happy if nobody was downloading thier music?"


That is a statement of vanity, not to mention an evil way of measuring success. It goes back to an evil company called big champagne.

http://www.bigchampagne.com

" Does BigChampagne collect and report information about unauthorized or illegal P2P file sharing? 
Yes. Like it or not, the vast majority of online entertainment media is now acquired for free on P2P file sharing networks, and BigChampagne is committed to providing information about consumption, not just sales. "


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

iChard said:


> It was actually the publishers of Canada who wanted to charge higher prices in the iTMS in Canada and held the store up for over a year. You might say some of the publishers are more evil than the labels.


I can believe that.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

How did William Hung ever manage to SELL the amount of CDs he did?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

People usually can't tell that music is lossy when they're listening on computer speakers or iPods, once you get it on a half decent sound system then it's quite clear. However on a half decent sound system CDs are lossy as well. DVD-A which is 24 bit @ 96khz sounds a lot better, but the winner has to go to vinyl but I don't have my own turntable and vinyl records are hard to find without going out of your way (in Japan a lot of shops still sell new vinyl records that are recent releases), so I'll usually go DVD-A, but since most artists don't release DVD-A or SACD, and CDs are becoming such a hassle and not worth it especially now that I've outgrown 16bit @ 44khz, AAC @ 128kbps is good enough as a convenient alternative to CDs, yes it's still 16 bit @ 44khz but it's convenient.

Anyone ever listen to The Eagles' Hotel California on DVD-A? It's beautiful.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Wow! What a grand statement without really backing it up.
> All music is being downloaded?
> I fired up poisoned last evening and went looking for a few songs that I like and own. None of it available on P2P networks and none of it available on iTunes. Which only goes to show major shortcomings....
> 
> ... And no, none of this music was overly obscure.


Come again? What are you trying to say/debate here? I meant all music as in all TYPES of music - top 40 pop, indie alt-rock, jazz, etc. Do I really have to back it up? Fire up indietorrents, FileMP3.org, mininova or Kazaa and you'll find all sorts of music. And although iTunes has a small selection, it is growing, and there is music from every genre.

I wrote that post in response to saying that only 50 Cent and his pop contemporaries are being downloaded and since they are rich, it doesn't affect them. I just think that's BS, and that every type of music is being downloaded - from small independent bands to 50 Cent.

I can't name a song or artist that I wouldn't be able to find online.

But I still don't know what you are getting at with this response. I don't think it was a GRAND STATEMENT, but please enlighten me.



ArtistSeries said:


> That is untrue - many have stated here that the "free" tune has incited them to buy the CD


So are we going to use ehMac and it's users as a gauge for what the entire public thinks or does? I'm pretty sure the user base here is more technology-inclined and spends a bit more money on tech and tech-related things than the regular public.

We may be enticed to buy a song after getting a freebie, but I am willing to bet that this is not so for a large part of the population.

Case in point:

During my first year of university, a friend of mine gave me a CD with a program he had gotten from a mutual friend named Shawn Fanning. Napster was still in its baby stages, but there were about 1000 users and it was incredible how quickly it exploded. During my 5th year (1st year of 2nd degree), I wrote an article for the student paper on Copy Protection and this spawned a feature on downloading on campus. We conducted a poll that was well-participated in, and the results were shocking. 75% of responders said they hadn't purchased a CD within the past 2 years. Of 4th year students and higher, 80% of students hadn't bought one in 4 years or more! Napster, Direct Connect, and Kazaa had all but replaced retail music for them.

Now that I've finished university, I see this trend continuing. The percentage of people I know who do not buy CDs is about the same. I might send an e-mail to that student paper and see if they'll do another story, and see if things have gotten better or worse.

And no, a university campus isn't the be-all end-all for stats on the general public either, but like I said my fellow grads are continuing that behaviour that I'm sure is across the board.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

nxnw said:


> If Canadians simply stopped downloading from P2P networks tomorrow, there would still be serious problems:
> - The Canadian public would be paying copyright holders a ton of money - $40 million in 2004, certainly more this year, for the right to make private copies. The public would be getting nothing of value for the money;


You would still be able to make personal copies of albums you purchased, whether to take in your car, put on your iPod, or what have you.

We do not pay for the "right" to use P2P networks...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

okcomputer said:


> Come again? What are you trying to say/debate here? I meant all music as in all TYPES of music - top 40 pop, indie alt-rock, jazz, etc. Do I really have to back it up?


Yeah. I was surpirsed that Artist Series didn't understand tht when he read your original post


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

dona83 said:


> People usually can't tell that music is lossy when they're listening on computer speakers or iPods, once you get it on a half decent sound system then it's quite clear.


I can hear bad sound quality no matter what I'm listening on.



dona83 said:


> However on a half decent sound system CDs are lossy as well. DVD-A which is 24 bit @ 96khz sounds a lot better, but the winner has to go to vinyl but I don't have my own turntable and vinyl records are hard to find without going out of your way (in Japan a lot of shops still sell new vinyl records that are recent releases), so I'll usually go DVD-A, but since most artists don't release DVD-A or SACD, and CDs are becoming such a hassle and not worth it especially now that I've outgrown 16bit @ 44khz, AAC @ 128kbps is good enough as a convenient alternative to CDs, yes it's still 16 bit @ 44khz but it's convenient.
> 
> Anyone ever listen to The Eagles' Hotel California on DVD-A? It's beautiful.


To call CDs lossy is a bit of an exaggeration. The move to 24/96 and beyond is getting a little out of hand. You've got a lot more headroom when you're recording, but you're spending a lot more money and using a lot more hard drive space. Also, the sound is only as good as your worse component. 24/96 won't make any difference if you're not using the best pre-amps and such.

As for home systems, 16/44 was chosen as a standard for a reason - it is extremely difficult for people to notice any sort of loss of sound quality. I'm an audiophile, and I still don't really see a NEED to move beyond 16/44 until we get rid of the CD completely and move to DVD only.

The human ear can't even hear some of the frequencies that are gained from using 24/96. Hotel California defnitely sounds amazing remastered though. And I love surround-sound mixes of albums.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

okcomputer said:


> You would still be able to make personal copies of albums you purchased, whether to take in your car, put on your iPod, or what have you.
> 
> We do not pay for the "right" to use P2P networks...


Thank you for your pronouncements. Whether Canadians pay for the right to download from P2P, and whether it is fair and moral, remains a very open issue, subject to serious and principled debate. I don't know the answer and neither do you.

Your theory of what we do pay the levy for is not credible, in my view. The right to make copies, for ourselves, of music we already bought, is a "right" that is worthless. Americans can do this for nothing. It is not legitimate for the CPCC to collect $10s of millions of dollars annually ($40 million in 2004) so we can listen, in our cars, to music we already paid for. The premise for this copying levy was never this narrow and it arose as a consequence of people making private copies from other sources. 

Speaking of principles, have you paid for the games that you illegally copied yet? Unlike music, there is no doubt your games were unlawfully acquired. The other embarrassing thing is that you argued that you would likely buy SOME of the games you illegally copied. So, the "try before you buy" argument is credible for your illegally acquired games, but not for music?

Your ethics bend this way and that, to suit your convenience. I am surprised that you have continued to "contribute" to this discussion.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

okcomputer said:


> To call CDs lossy is a bit of an exaggeration...


All recordings are lossy. The only lossless musical experience is live and unamplified.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Speaking of principles, have you paid for the games that you illegally copied yet? Unlike music, there is no doubt your games were unlawfully acquired. The other embarrassing thing is that you argued that you would likely buy SOME of the games you illegally copied. So, the "try before you buy" argument is credible for your illegally acquired games, but not for music?
> 
> Your ethics bend this way and that, to suit your convenience. I am surprised that you have continued to "contribute" to this discussion.



I love you.

I did buy 2 games actually. Thanks for asking! And I threw out about 10 discs because I don't like them. Want to sift through my trash and make sure I'm telling the truth?

And I support the try before you buy model for music as well. The problem is that people do not do that for the most part. Once they have the album for free, a lot of people do not go out and buy the CD.

My ethics do not bend to suit any convenience. I burn games here and there to try them before I pay $60-80 to own them. People download music to try before they buy the $10-20 album or the $1 for the song. I'd rather be absolutely sure I want a game before I blow that much cash on it. I agree that I never really put games and music into the same category, and as such I am not going to download any more games. I'll let my friend do that if he wishes and I will play the game to see if I like it before buying it. I have learned a lesson here, and I still feel like I can "contribute" to the conversation.

You don't have to be so nasty about this whole thing. I did not attack you personally (as you have done) - this is a discussion on a message board on the damn internet.

I do not have a problem with people downloading music, as long as they support the music community in some way. Since the laws are a grey area, we can argue till we're blue in the face about the issue.

I pay for my music and I attend shows. I buy games. I buy lots of DVDs and I go to the theatre when I can. Think whatever you want to about me or my morals or my ethics - but you don't know me and you obviously don't care to get past whatever judgement you have made based on a post on a message board.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

nxnw said:


> All recordings are lossy. The only lossless musical experience is live and unamplified.


Yes. Although the "unamplified" bit is getting into a different realm and a different meaning for "lossy".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

okcomputer said:


> I did buy 2 games actually. Thanks for asking! And I threw out about 10 discs because I don't like them. Want to sift through my trash and make sure I'm telling the truth?


Does not matter - what you did was clearly illegal. 




okcomputer said:


> My ethics do not bend to suit any convenience.


Actually, they have. 


okcomputer said:


> I burn games here and there to try them before I pay $60-80 to own them.


Then go rent them....



okcomputer said:


> I'll let my friend do that if he wishes and I will play the game to see if I like it before buying it.


Wow, stealing by proxy....



okcomputer said:


> I have learned a lesson here, and I still feel like I can "contribute" to the conversation.


Yes, it is rather comic to see misguided morality..


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

okcomputer said:


> Yes. Although the "unamplified" bit is getting into a different realm and a different meaning for "lossy".


If one wants to be 100% technical, anything that comes between the live music and your ears will change it.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes, it is rather comic to see misguided morality..


Hope you're having a good laugh.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

nxnw said:


> If one wants to be 100% technical, anything that comes between the live music and your ears will change it.


The air is a lossy format!


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

okcomputer said:


> Think whatever you want to about me or my morals or my ethics - but you don't know me and you obviously don't care to get past whatever judgement you have made based on a post on a message board.


It isn't my place to judge you or your morals. 

You have made some very black and white moral judgments about other people, based on an expressed view of the ethics and legality of downloading music, however. When you state such strong opinions, and they turn out to be diametrically irreconcilable with your own behaviour, it reflects on the merit and sincerity of your opinions. I mean to challenge your opinion but, in this situation, you inevitably get sideswiped.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Here is an interesting take on the issue...

http://cherot.blogspot.com/2005/11/wsj-editorial-on-p2p.html


----------



## Robbie_Mac (Nov 20, 2005)

That's a more pragmatic and sensible approach. Finding a way to use P2P is the way to go.


----------

