Forum Moderators: open
An interesting story from The Register
[theregister.co.uk...]
"In other words, just putting files in a computer directory that other people can access is insufficient an action to constitute illegal distribution - at least under Canadian law." More details in the link.
Judge compares files a publicly accessible directory to books in a library with a copy machine.
My first comment in response is that there are a few members who need to study up this issue specifically and secondly have to study intellectual property and third need to understand sovereignty.
1) File sharing is not stealing 'intellectual property' in Canada.
-Why? Because that's the law here.
2) American copyright law has been pushed by corporations way farther than the intelligent founding fathers of that nation intended it to go.
- The song 'Happy Birthday' created over 100 years ago by a pair of sisters who are now dead is 'owned' by AOL Time Warner and you need to pay them to use it. Who are we protecting with that law?
3) When an individual trades music on P2P networks he is not morally stealing 'intellectual property'. He is just listening to music someone else created. He is not using the original composition or ideas in the lyrics as his own. Nor is he charging for sharing that music.
4) When an individual trades music on a P2P network he is not stealing per the english definition:
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
- at no point is the rightful owner deprived of property. The RIAA claims it's the same as going to HMV and lifting an album off the shelf. But in that case HMV has been deprived of it's property. In order to steal 'intellectual property' you have to claim it as your own and sell it as your own.
5) The arguments given by the RIAA which claim file sharing is illegal would make it illegal for me to purchase a book. Read that book. Absorb the material. Lend the book to a friend and then let him read and absorb the material. Now we have a case where two people benefited from the purchase of one book.
6) Most music sold in Canada is American. If the RIAA is losing money from offering CDs in Canada then they should stop selling them here.
7) Some would suggest since people choose to make a living off music then we need to support them, no matter what the cost to our society. Maybe they should investigate how the music industry works for Canadians. And how many of them actually don't have day jobs. I'd guess a dozen bands are self sustaining in Canada.
8) We have copyright agreements to maintain some values between countries but there are certain issues we don't agree on and one government should not require the other to conform when each government has the sovereign right to create it's laws.
9) I ask you a question. Where are we going as a world? What morals do we want to live by? Should powerful corporations decide what is right and what is wrong?
10) The RIAA would consider the following scenerio as stealing. I do not.
- I pay $7 CDN to watch Terminator 3 in the movie theatre. Several months later I download it from Kazaa and watch it again.
[edited by: lawman at 10:10 pm (utc) on April 4, 2004]
Thank you, now carry on. :)
lawman
I can understand going to the theatre, paying the cash to see it, but finding the film so worthless that you think, since you were 'gypped' out of your money because of a possibly blatantly misleading ad campaign, that you have the right to gyp them in turn or to think that the film has no value and should be free.
- You don't. If it wasn't entertaining the first time, it's not worth seeing it again if it's going to cost you. If it was entertaining and you want to be entertained again, you're going to have to pay to either return to the theatre, buy or rent the DVD when it comes out, or buy your friend a case of beer when you go to his place to watch it.
On my point number 10, I did actually like Terminator 3 and I understand your point of view since that is the natural conclusion people draw and what I thought was correct myself until I think of it philosophically. Let me give you another example to let us stretch our minds.
I go see Lord of the Ring Part 2 in the movie theatre and pay my $7. Then when it comes out on DVD I rent it. Then a few weeks later my friend buys it. I like this movie so much that I borrow it from my friend and during this time make a backup copy to keep for myself. Do you think that is okay?
I have paid $13 towards the movie my friend has paid $20. So $33 has gone to the movie maker. Have I committed theft?
What about if I make a personal backup of a DVD I rent? Is that okay?
Where do we draw the line?
When I make a digital copy of a movie/song with my own time and my own resources for my own personal use. How could that classify as stealing?
With copyright law we have to always go back to it's original goal. That goal is to foster ideas and inventions.
Some companies are now claiming copyright over the "digital" version of classic paintings who's painters are now dead. These companies used technology which they didn't even create to convert a painting they didn't create and now claim they have copyright over that art work. Where is the originality in their work? How does this foster creativity?
Original copyright law gave authors the exclusive rights over their works for 14 years.
Don't know about the rest of your post, and I don't know how much has gone to the movie maker, but I do know it wasn't $33.
lawman
Aside from how freaking cool THAT would be, the whole thing sounds like it's going to be a miserable failure. With oil prices what they are right now (for those who don't know, a good portion of the oil we import goes to making plastics - it's not just for gasoline) it seems like not only a waste of money and materials at a time when we REDUCING waste, but the whole concept is just flawed. I'm sure someone will figure out how to "crack the code" so to speak and everyone with a DVD-R will be able to make a copy with the protection removed.
I think this model would INCREASE piracy - rather than spending hours downloading a low-quality rip and copying it to Divx/VCD/mpeg for my friends, I can just buy a cheap "disposable" DVD for less than the cost of "owning" the movie and copy THAT to my friends instead - a nice high-quality version.
Kinda reminds me of the American Medical Association - they spend all this time researching and developing drugs that hide the SYMPTOMS of a disease instead of actually CURING it. Media companies likewise spend time and money coming up with insane ways to prevent copying/piracy when instead they should embrace it.
Cure the disease and you cure the symptom too. FIX THE SYSTEM and you cure piracy.
The root of the whole problem is our system where making money without using brains nor labour is acceptable under the vague appelation "profit". Using the music industry as an example to (try to) keep on topic, in the 'old' days it took labour and presses to make individual 33-rpm records, and because of the high overhead costs demanded by their production profit margins were slimmer. Musicians then were represented by agents, not labels then. But agents were the first to take the biggest cuts, remember sharks like 'the Colonel'.
But since those Elvis-ish days a few of those managers got the idea to 'pool their resources' and make a 'record label', and used this war-chest of resources to aggressively install their 'new system' and squash competition. In the meantime technolgy greatly reduced the cost of making a record and CD's made the overhead on reproducing an author's work even rediculously low - especially as the number of albums printed grew. But did music get cheaper? No, a CD costs the same today as a 33rpm album did in 1972.
To make matters worse the record labels are even trying to cut costs at the source of their income - the ideas made by the musicians themselves. Psychologists pair with 'producers' to make sounds which are 'sure to appeal to *** age group' and speculator money-managers backed by lawyers set up a campaign designed to milk every cent they can from the 'new album' and feed it into their network made by stations and distributors lured by a possible share of the reapings. Pure greed and brainwashing in my books, not innovation nor labour by any means.
The above system would work if we were in an Orwell-ian age where we had no choice but to get product A at location A, making it easy for companies to a) impose their system and b) impose any price they wanted to, but the net changes all that. The general who user knows he's seen by the record labels as a wallet and nothing more, paired by the the thought that even if he paid for the song or album in question all the wrong people would be making money and not the artist himself can make a net-user feel justified in feeling he doesn't have to pay.
Both the record labels and the mp3-swappers are wrong.
It's obvious that records (and software and many other things) should be cheaper thanks to technology. Any person who invents a machine that, when used to make a product lowers its production costs and labour time, deserves to be rich because he is the innovator. It is perfectly natural that a part of the money a product-maker saves by using his machine be passed on to him through its purchase. Yet today technology is not seen as a reason to lower prices, it is used to raise profits because we who have since **** have paid **** for **** don't know any better. Pure greed and dupery.
Okay, let me stray a sec. Who says we have to pay what we pay for what we buy? Who sets the price? Why do we pay it?
Take oil for example - why are those who own it so rich? Simply because the cost to extract it is way below its selling price. You can apply the same to record labels and even Microsoft. Money for innovation? Certainly not in the former case, and only recently for the latter. High-profit-oriented dupery relies on a set system of price-fixing, and the internet, at least as far as music and software is concerned, is a chink in that armour.
The lower you look on the income-level chain, the harder people work for what they earn, meaning the lower you go the lower the financial freedom for buying such things as music; but the paradox is that the above system depends on consumers in the middle-to-low bracket. If there's revolt against the labels, it's obvious where it's coming from.
Make music and software cheaper, at a price more towards its real production distribution (etc) costs, people won't feel manipulated and cheated, and piracy will stop.
(added) If the above ever becomes true than there will be no reason to fear web-swapping of low-quality mp3's - it can even be seen as advertising. Funny, one of the bigger reasons that the Labels don't like p2p (but won't say) is that it undercuts their carefully cut-and pasted ad campaigns, eliminating the possibility that a consumer will find an album crappy only after he buys it : )
You want a solution? I posted one ... go back to page 6 and read the 3rd post (from me).
That's a solution where everyone wins - except the greed-driven record company.
lawman
I did get get your meaning, but instead of just eliminating greedy record labels I proposed to go one step furnther and eliminate greed itself. This may sound utopist but by what's happening on the internet we're not far from it; at least moving in that direction.
You see, the only way the greedy can continue raking in the cash is if we the consumers continue buying into their monopolistic system. The only way their machine can survive is if a consumer (or potential one) has no other visible alternative than to buy their product. The net is breaking all that, and big-time. Today a consumer has a choice paying a high price for top quality those who may or may not deserve it or downloading a mediocre quality for free. And yes, the general public does think like that, most of them aren't at all convinced by the record label's accusations that they're thieves. Another reason for 'sharing in all impunity' (lol) could be the attitude: "Well, if they think they can rake in my cash just because it's they who set the rules, then I don't think I have to follow them."
I'm going with DigialV on this one. What we have to do is work towards a system where its the artists who end up with the fruits of their labor, and not the record labels. And I actually believe that P2P is a part of that.
Here's a fairly recent example of artists using P2P to circumvent the whole label mess.
Skinny Puppy, an industrial band who you'd know if you were at all into industrial music (they're BIG, but only in that scene, Nivek Ohgr's recent controversial vidoe on MTV aside), is releasing their first album in YEARS this summer. And how are they promoting it? They've released the entire album, free, gratis, without charge, in an MP3 format that's rapidly tearing up the bandwidth as industrial fans (a fairly tech savvy crowd, overall) trade, share, and are doing more promotion for the album than any record label did for the band in the past (they were at one timne signed with Warner Music, dunno if they still are).
Anyhoo, after trolling a few message boards of the industrial music set, I've seen countless comments that run along the lines 0of "Wow, this is a GREAT album, can't wait until the CD comes out so I can really listen to it in stead of having to put up with lossy MP3s."
The same could be said about any digital medium art product. If you really like the movie, you're going to buy the DVD, because nothing will be the quality. If you really like the music, you're going to buy the CD, because nothing will beat the quality.
And using the Skinny Puppy example as above, P2P becomes THE way for artists to promote their work, because the die hard fans out there are going to go out looking for the latest and greatest in any given genre. These same die-hards are the ones who post countless messages on BBSes promoting the work. The band gets more exposure to a more targetted demographic this way than any other I can htink of, and all of the sudden the big record labels become....
Irrelevant.
1) File sharing is not stealing 'intellectual property' in Canada.
-Why? Because that's the law here.
yep.
5) The arguments given by the RIAA which claim file sharing is illegal would make it illegal for me to purchase a book. Read that book. Absorb the material. Lend the book to a friend and then let him read and absorb the material. Now we have a case where two people benefited from the purchase of one book.6) Most music sold in Canada is American. If the RIAA is losing money from offering CDs in Canada then they should stop selling them here.
yep.
8) We have copyright agreements to maintain some values between countries but there are certain issues we don't agree on and one government should not require the other to conform when each government has the sovereign right to create it's laws.
YES! EXACTLY! ENCORE!
I actually suggest the contrary: total freedom. Break out of - or better still, make a new system in all ignorance of - the rules forced on us by the record labels and yes, they will become redundant and irrelevent. Especially if they insist on calling all internet file swapping 'thievery' without making any (what they would call) compromises for the case of the lower quality of the files traded. And they even refuse to define what they think high and low quality is.
Instead they decide what an 'ideal' consumer should do, grab their lawyers and lobbyists and head for the courts to change the country's laws. Those rules, once they become laws, are enforced by the government. And in the democratic and capitalistic society that Americans don't live in, monopolies would very very hard to achieve without that threat of force to those who won't comply to 'the rules'.
Open market. Cards above the table. Quality products for a right price: no brainwashing, scams or tricks, or we'll buy someone else's product - no matter where it comes from.
Oh, yes, and all the way for number 8 here too, but not only for the record industry : )
Open market. Cards above the table. Quality products for a right price: no brainwashing, scams or tricks, or we'll buy someone else's product - no matter where it comes from.
Yeah! all markets were open before advertising.
Look at metal (and so other good music that I don't know so much about). You can buy a CD from D**** B**** (a singer from spain that is getting a lot of money) for 30€, or for the same price you can get an album of R******y (a metal band from Italy) that includes more minutes of music and a DVD with some clips and live filmations of some of the band's actuations. Better quality, shipped from Italy, including DVD and at the same price... this raises two questions:
1 Why people buy the bad product? Because of advertising.
2 Where the additional money goes? To the advertisers.
Of course, to prohibite advertising would be radicall and cause some other problems, but perhaps there is a midpoint.
Herenvardö
[edited by: Macguru at 3:56 pm (utc) on April 6, 2004]
[edit reason] Fixed UBB code [/edit]
You must survive poutine
...and people eat this you say?
I thought the UK had a bad reputation foodwise but I've never eaten chips, cheese and gravy all mixed up together!
I will cook this for my husband and report back the verdict.
You married a guinea pig or you just want to get rid of your husband? :)
Poutine is not really a recipe, just a cure to hangovers...
Better say "diagnosis" than verdict.
Autopsy reports are authorised here, but please save us from the pictures. :)
[edited by: Macguru at 4:36 pm (utc) on April 6, 2004]
I will cook this for my husband and report back the verdict.
Rather, invite us for the wake! : )
But back on topic.
Corection: I stated earlier that Skinny Puppy was with Warner Music. I was mistaken, they're with Capitol/EMI, who is definitely NOT HAPPY with the file swapping going on surrounding an album that hasn't been released yet. Makes you wonder if Nivek is having a bit of a tiff with his label, because I'm not sure how an unreleased album got out into the net. He's not complaining about the file swapping.
A few more facts to ponder:
$2 (US) from every CD sale from CDs produced by RIAA members goes directly to the RIAA
An additional 2% of manufacturers sales goes to the RIAA.
At any given point, only 20% of music ever recorded is available for sale or distribution, the rest is held in reserve by labels, so that they don't dilute the market and risk hurting the sales of whatever flavor of the motnh the industry is reporting. This happens regardless of the artists' wishes, and deprives many current artists, who would like to see their music as widely available as possible.
source:
[boycott-riaa.com...]
In awaiting an answer, I'm off to bed.
To conclude here, the idea of bands themselves distributing previews on the net is great! In any case it should be they paying the labels and not the opposite - a good way to turn the tables back where they should be. It is so logical that bands do that in any case - in years of yore they counted on radio play to sell records. Welcome to the modern age.
This actually says a lot about the Labels. I don't agree with banning advertising, but I do agree on banning false advertising. The labels want to control their campaingn/promotion A to Z - but this is only because today they don't even understand what they're selling, they only understand what consumers are stupid enough to buy thus gear advertising to that effect. Look what's happened to most of the great independant music out there after they sign on to big labels - dead after the third album. One could say that the labels kill the golden goose through over-marketing.
I don't agree with banning advertising, but I do agree on banning false advertising.
Greetings,
Herenvardö
